Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1997-01-21 15336 MINUTES OF THE 737th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA Now On Tuesday, January 21, 1997 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 737th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Patricia Blomberg Daniel Piercecchi John Walsh Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner I, were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the "— resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-11-1-25 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#688-96, proposing to rezone property located east of Newburgh Road, south of Seven Mile Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 from R-4 to PL. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from Carl and Marilyn Creighton of 36985 Margareta as follows: "We are the homeowners at 36985 Margareta, Livonia, Michigan 48152, Lot 23, Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 1. Our lot directly abuts the parcel in question. We purchased our lot in Fall 1990 and took occupancy of our home in May 1991. The parcel in question was consistently represented by the 15337 developers and builders as `unbuildable wetlands' and `never to be developed park land'. We, like our neighbors who also abut the wetlands, paid a substantial premium for these lots based upon such °" representations. The parcel to be rezoned is largely flooded marshland covered with vegetation indigenous to a wetlands area. It serves as a natural habitat for a large variety of wildlife including ducks, Canada geese, pheasants, fox, raccoons, rabbits and even an occasional deer. In our opinion, the parcel is best suited for designation as a `nature preserve' to prevent disruption of this unique environmental ecosystem." Mr. McCann: This is a petition that has been brought by the City Planning Commission. I think it would be beneficial to the audience tonight, I know there are several members who are interested in this, if you could give us a history, what the intent of the change of zoning is for, and what the likely use of this land would be in the future. Mr. Nagy: The City of Livonia was dedicated this property as a requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. For every lot that is platted in the City of Livonia of areas less than 1/2 acre, there is a requirement to set aside 720 square feet of land area for each lot. The result of the development of that total property of that area, the Caliburn Estates and the Caliburn Manor, the City of Livonia therefore was dedicated this park land and it is close to five acres. Since it has a �`.. residential zoning classification and now is in public ownership, we believe the zoning map should be corrected to now show the public ownership of that property. That is the basis behind the zoning petition to now correct the zoning map to show that this land is now in public ownership, and that is what the PL classification does. With respect to how that property should be used and should be developed, it really will be a matter between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the property owners of the area. We are not trying to develop the property. We are not saying as a result of this zoning change in what manner that should be developed for park purposes. That is really a matter that is left for the appropriate commission. We are merely trying to correct our zoning map now to show it is in public ownership. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, we also discussed the possible use as Nature Preserve in that area. Can you explain why we decided not to go in that category? Mr. Nagy: Because this park land is a benefit to the subdivisions of the area, pursuant to the plat ordinance it is set aside for the benefit of the neighbors in the area, we believe they should participate in how that land should be developed. While we would admit it has some of the natural qualities to qualify for the Nature Preserve, we don't believe we 15338 should put it all in the Nature Preserve classification unless the residents, along with the Parks and Recreation Commission, feel it advisable. There may be a need for some minor recreation space. `ium' There may be some facilities that the neighbors would prefer rather than all set aside for nature preserve. We really believe that should come later after the property owners, along with the Parks and Recreation Commission, decide in what manner that should be utilized. Mr. McCann: Since we are the petitioner, I am going right to the audience. If there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition tonight, I would ask you to step forward and give your name and address. Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn: I wasn't prepared to speak on this petition. I am involved in a number of nature concerns and I am well aware of this area, and I believe I would favor this petition taking away from possible development and placing it in the public trust as public land hoping that it would be designated as nature preserve and then let the neighbors determine the best use of that area. It really is nature preserve quality. It is mostly wetlands so I can't imagine how you would develop it in any particular way even as park land because that would require mowing and some kinds of structures and things like that, playground equipment. I don't believe this ravine lends itself to that type of development but it could be preserved as nature preserve. `w There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-11-1-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #1-1-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 21, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-11-1-25 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #688-96, proposing to rezone property located east of Newburgh Road, south of Seven Mile Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 from R-4 to PL, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-11-1-25 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed zoning will reflect the public ownership of the subject property; and 2) That the subject site functions as public open space serving the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 15339 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-11-1-26 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road immediately west of and adjacent to Glenda's Farm Market in the South 1/2 of Section 5 from PL to R-3B. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. McCann: Again, we are the petitioner. Mr. Nagy, can you give the audience a little history as to what we are trying to do here. Mr. Nagy: The City of Livonia acquired this property as part of a land acquisition when Bicentennial Park and the golf course was acquired. As Mr. Miller pointed out our plan initially was to designate this site as a branch for the fire department. It was to replace the existing fire station site that is on Farmington Road north of Seven Mile Road just north of McDonald's Restaurant. The plan was to have a new station here. Upon evaluation of that site, another site has been selected on the Nam. northeast corner of Bicentennial Drive and Seven Mile Road, which frees this property. The goal of the City here is to now rezone this from the public land classification to the R-3B single family residential classification as that is the zoning on the adjoining parcel, R-3B. After the zoning is placed on the property, it would be sold to the abutting property owner on the west so as to have the entire parcel all developed as one coordinated subdivision for the area. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-11-1-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #1-2-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 21, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-11-1-26 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road immediately west of and adjacent to Glenda's Farm Market in the South 1/2 of Section 5 from PL to R-3B, the City Planning 15340 Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-11- 1-26 be approved for the following reasons: slaw 1) That the subject site is no longer needed for public purposes; 2) That the proposed zoning district is consistent with the R-3B zoning on adjacent property to the west; and 3) That the proposed zoning district will permit residential development on lot sizes consistent with surrounding development 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-12-1-27 by Andrew Ilich requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from RUF to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning `.. of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60') adjacent to the subject parcel in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. They end by saying they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Would you please come down and tell us why you want the zoning change? Andrew Ilich: We have owned this property for the past 24 years. Nothing has been done on this property. I think the front part is already zoned for a motel. What we would like to do is change the zoning of the back. Also, there is another piece of land behind Hardee's, which is 1.5 acres and if this one we can rezone, we would like to do something with that property. I don't know if we can do anything with the front of the property but maybe by combining both properties. I think we have to do one thing at a time. We have access to Plymouth Road and the property right behind Hardee's has been sitting there for the past 20 years that I know. What I would like to do is put small units of apartments or single family rental units. I know the property is not that 15341 wide but I know there is a way of putting it in between there. So what we would like to do is put in either rental units similar to a motel unit, either single or two-family unit apartments. Mr. McCann: Sir, do you understand if you put in commercial back there, you would have to put a wall up the whole 284 feet? You would have to put up almost 640 feet of concrete or brick wall back there completely around it. Mr. Ilich: I am sure we will do something with it but also what I noticed, I don't know if you looked at the property west of our property, which is residential, those lots are 270 feet deep, and I know our property is not that close to the residential area but also there is about 200 feet from the back of the house to the lot line so I am sure we can work with it. I understand that either we could do a greenbelt between the lots, but what I would like to do is change the zoning on this piece of property and then I would like to purchase the property next to it, which we have already been talking about it. I don't want to commit myself to it unless I can change the zoning. Mr. McCann: You understand if you went with the greenbelt, you would lose 20 feet of your property right off the top? Then you wouldn't have enough to put a road back there. Do you understand you can buy property contingent upon zoning if that is what you wanted to do? I am not `�• saying it would be approved because you are abutting residential, but it is possible. Mr. Ilich: How much of a driveway do I need? Mr. McCann: We are discussing zoning tonight. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to see this flip-flopped. I would like to see them buy that property first that is RUF and then come back to us for zoning. I think we are going backwards because that is too small a piece of property to go to C-2 without the piece to the right. Mr. Ilich: What about the front part which is C-2? How much do I need from the property line to build? Mr. Alanskas: That is already there. Have you made an attempt to buy the property? Mr. Ilich: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Is there a good chance you could get it? 15342 Mr. Ilich: Yes I can get the property but I don't want to commit to the property if I can't get the zoning because in the last 27 years nothing has been done in that area. All that area has just been sitting there growing "%" weeds. None of our area has been developed. I think there is a great chance of developing and there is a great need for the units I am thinking about. Right now nothing could be done and it just sits there. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? William Adkins, 11614 Stark: I didn't really catch what they are planning on building there. Mr. McCann: He has no intention of building now. We are just dealing with what the proper zoning is. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-12-1-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #1-3-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 21, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-12-1-27 by Andrew `" Ilich requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-12-1-27 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning represents an encroachment of non- residential zoning into a residential area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide sufficient land area for the subject property to meet all Zoning Ordinance standards; and 4) That the subject property would be better utilized in conjunction with adjacent property to the east. 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. 15343 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-12-1-28 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Sunset Boulevard, north of Fargo Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-2A. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. In addition we have received from area residents 32 letters in total. They are just too numerous to read. Most all of them are separate letters, although out of the 32 letters 20 are essentially the same letter with different families signing them. In those cases of the 32 letters, all are opposed. They generally cite the reasons being it will take away from the large lot atmosphere, it will destroy some of the beauty of the area, it will be incompatible with the large lots of the area, it will increase the traffic thereby being detrimental to the safety of the children in the area. I am sure many of the residents will go into their `, letters in more detail. We do have one letter from the adjoining property owner to the north, the owner of the Whispering Woods Apartment Complex, indicating his support. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward and tell us the reasons for your petition. Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: The purpose of this petition is we would like to build a 17 lot subdivision. There presently are two homes on the property. Those two homes would be demolished. These homes will range from $180,000 or so. These homes will consist of three and four bedroom homes, 2 1/2 bath, full basement. I will say they would complement the area a lot. What we propose is just a little cul-de-sac, one way in, one way out. The property does have some beautiful trees on it. I know the purpose is to save the trees. What we usually do, we get in there and we cut just the trees to accommodate the road and then as we build the homes we will flag the trees and take them out one by one. We don't go in and mow everything down. We like to fit into the area. I know the area. This four and a half acre piece is not going to change the area. The area is changing by Sunset Park, by the church. I just spoke to the church about two months ago. The church is going to 15344 expand. You have apartments to the north. You have another subdivision at Fargo and Merriman. The property does flood. Once the property is developed, that problem is usually eliminated. I could go on and on but I will stop and answer your questions. Mr. Alanskas: As you can see you are surrounded on the south by R-3, and the north you have a lot of R-3 there. Even on your RUF to the right there are a few homes I am sure that are non-conforming. They are not 1/2 acre lots. If you went to R-3, wouldn't that drop you down only about three homes? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: About 13 or 14? Mr. Nagy: I would agree with that, 13 or 14. Mr. Alanskas: I have a problem going with R-2. It is spot zoning. If you could possibly go to R-3, you would be taking down less trees, you would have less homes. Would that be a problem? Mr. Soave: Mr. Alanskas, as you know this is the time to build. Mr. Alanskas: Do you see any R-2 there now? Mr. Soave: The reason I tried to go to R-2 sir is because we are adjacent to an apartment complex, which is R-7. Mr. Alanskas: You would also put in more homes in the R-2 as opposed to the R-3. Mr. Piercecchi: My fellow commissioner took the words out of my mouth. I can't understand why you would ask for R-2 when that property is R-3 south of Fargo. There are five or six lots south of Fargo that are R-3 and the homes along Sunset, there are about four of them, two directly across from you, and they are roughly 3/10 of an acre. One below that is 4/10. Some of them are 1/2 acre, but R-3 to me would be much more compatible because there is even some concern whether that would be appropriate in this area. Even though some of the lots do not meet the requirement of 1/2 acre they are defacto RUF because they have been RUF for so long. Mr. Walsh: If it was R-3, is it still an economical project for you? Mr. Soave: I did buy the property already to the north. I don't have any place to go. If all I can get is an R-3, I will compromise with an R-3. 15345 Mr. Walsh: Have you discussed your plans with the neighbors at all in terms of what your neighborhood would look like? Mr. Soave: I went to the apartments and I went to the church. I tried to call some of the neighbors but because of the hours I haven't had any luck getting in touch with them. Mr. Walsh: I am sure we will hear from them tonight and I am anxious to hear what they have to say, but I just wondered if you had been in touch with them. Mr. McCann: I would like to go to the audience now. Robert Kuznia, 30944 Fargo: I have been there 25 years and I can understand why the apartments and church don't care. They are not going to be affected the way we are. This is tantamount to taking ten pounds and shoving it into a five pound bag, the way I see it. I personally am against it because I abided by the rules and laws when I built my house. I don't want to give up that space back there. Diana Hughes, 20067 Milburn: I am concerned about putting so many houses and such large houses, even though it sounds nice, on such small lots. I grew up in Virginia. I moved to Michigan. I do like Michigan very much. It was strange for me to move here and see everything crammed together when we looked for our house. That is one of the reasons why we bought a house in this neighborhood, because of the large lots, because of the trees, because our street does not go all the way through. Fargo does not go all the way through from Merriman to Purlingbrook. Milburn does not go all the way through to Seven Mile Road. We have very little traffic. That is why we bought our house where we bought our house and we don't want that to change. I am very concerned with putting 17 houses in an area, even though it is a cul-de-sac. There is one road going in and that is right in the midst of all of our homes. I think it will be too much noise. I think it will be too much traffic. I just hope you take that under consideration. Bill Craig, 20050 Milburn: I will read my letter even though I didn't know I was going to be here, but I would like to read the letter. I would like to make a couple of other comments. Guy and Shirley Miller, who live directly across from this site, had pressing business in Los Vegas. They are very distressed about this proposal. Their letter is submitted. I would like to add that I did go to the church. I wanted to talk to the minister and see his property. The minister had suffered a major illness, I believe it was a heart attach, and he was incapacitated, but I was going 15346 to offer coming up with a conservation easement to save their wooded section. They are interested in saving the woods, not developing at this time. I would like to read my letter. Members of the Planning Commission: I do not want the current zoning of RUFA changed to R- 2A now or ever. I do not want the current zoning of RUFA changed to R-3 now or ever. I want whatever is RUFA to stay RUFA forever. Now I wish to explain my position. I live at 20050 Milburn. I have lived there for more than ten happy, quiet years. Should Leo Soave get his petition granted, I will not be directly affected by the development of 17 new houses on Sunset. I will not have to be frustrated by months of demolition, tree cutting, bull dozing and soil excavation. I will not be annoyed by months of hammering, pounding and power sawing. I will not be totally upset by having to endure a continuous train of cement trucks, housing framing haulers, contractor vans and other heavy equipment. I will not have to discuss the ruin of my quiet street with my stressed out next door neighbors. I will not have to fight my way through a steady stream of traffic every day going to work and then again when I return from work. I thank God that I don't live on Sunset. But I do live on Milburn, which is just one street over. My home is RUFA. I love it. Everyone who visits loves it. They don't particularly like the small house, but they sure do like the rural atmosphere. They love the big lot. They love the fact that the homes are not jammed next 'gar to each other. They love the big trees. They think it is wonderful that this neighborhood has peacocks, ducks, and always lots of birds. They tell me I have something very special, and I am always happy to reply, "I know." I would be very unhappy to have my neighborhood ruined by choking it with lots of little beige houses. Lots of houses means less big trees, less habitat for the birds I enjoy so much, and less peace and quiet. This neighborhood gives me peace of mind. How many neighborhoods do you know that offer so much? I would just like to make another comment here which is just part of my letter. There is another point I will bring to your attention now. This city has already inflicted harm on this neighborhood. This city saw fit to allow the rezoning and development of 11 houses at the end of Sunset. There was opposition to that development from many of my neighbors. I'm sorry I didn't do more to help them stop the project. That project should have been at RUFA standards. Of course, that started this little domino effect. Now two RUFA neighbors have a developer knocking on their doors. Just maybe that development next door turned them sour on staying? If 17 more houses go in, maybe my other neighbors will decide to leave, then even more little beige houses 15347 will invade this neighborhood. It makes me sick to think that this is how the city plans for the future. Thank you very much. (Applause) Jim Tigani, 30870 Fargo: I built in 1990. I, like Leo, received plenty of letters with objections to me building my home there for obvious reasons. I have known Leo for over ten years. I have done business with him, and let me say this. If the development is going to go in, I know I am probably in the minority here, but I support what Leo wants to do only because my father was a builder for 25 years. I have known builders. I know what is going to take place. I know if it is not Leo, someone else will come in here and do the project. I know the kind of homes Leo builds. I know if he says he is going to take care of the neighborhood, he is going to do that. Nobody in the neighborhood likes change. I myself have three young kids. The neighbors like their peace and quiet and so do I, but I guess the biggest problem I have is our street uses a thru street. Fargo comes into Merriman and we get the fallout from all the subdivisions right now. My biggest problem is speeding cars. Adding another subdivision here with let's say two cars per house, say 26 cars, they are going to come up to Sunset and make their turn and go into their subdivision. From that standpoint I will have a problem with it. The whole project as he laid it out, I looked at the way he wants to lay it out and what he wants to do with it and I will tell you, if you go around the area, Leo has been before you many times, he builds a lot of homes in Livonia, and he does a nice job. Better Leo than some of the `"' other developers that I have run into in my time when I was with my dad. They put up shoddy homes, shoddy workmanship. Leo puts up a quality home. He builds a home that is going to get the price he says it will get. I know I am in the minority here. I know my neighbors are probably looking for me to move out now but I just want to say I support what Leo wants to do and I hope you will give him approval. Mr. Elonzae, 19935 Sunset: I have about 2 1/2 acres down the street from where he wants to put all those little houses on these little pieces of property. I bought that property about four to five years ago. It had a small house on it and I added to the house, and I bought it because it was zoned rural farm land and there was acreage all around me. I would kind of be upset if you would allow him to put up all those small houses on small lots so close to our property. Mr. Alanskas: Sir are you south of the property? Mr. Elonzae: Yes. Sherri McClain, 20073 Sunset: With me is my husband Scott. This is directly adjoining the property to the south. Obviously we object. We have 1.1 acre. It 15348 is beautiful. We moved in because it is wooded and all the lots in the area are large, and I just think it will look ridiculous. It won't fit in. It is a rural looking area. It is just a beautiful lot and it will destroy the look of the entire area. Scott McClain: We are also concerned that the 11 houses that are now being put in at the end of the street, in addition to the 17 more proposed, is going to add more than two cars per family as the gentleman previously mentioned. It is going to add a lot more traffic. Sherri McClain: It is not that large of a street to have 28 more houses with cars, which again it was a dead end street. That is why we moved there. We did not get a letter about the 11 homes or we would have objected to that. Marvin Ranta, 20227 Milburn: I am one of the people that have the new homes being built behind me. I am definitely opposed to it, and I have been opposed to it and am opposed to the new homes they want to put in on Sunset because I just believe it will be too much traffic. I have lived there for 20 years and enjoyed the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Tim Hughes, 20067 Milburn: I don't want to beat a dead horse but I have to agree with everything that has been said so far but I would like to also add we have 11 homes going in and 17 proposed. That is 28 new homes going down a single wide street. My neighbor has peacocks in the backyard `"' and another neighbor across the street has ducks and wild geese. It is rural and people are taking advantage of this. Almost everybody in the neighborhood has dogs and people are walking their kids. They walk them in carriages from the time they are born, and when they start school they ride bikes and you have kids going up and down using the streets because especially with these smaller back streets there is not that much traffic, but if you start putting 28 homes into that small area, you would double that with 56 people and that would be 56 people driving and I would hate to see the morning rush hour. My neighbors that just spoke have that 1.1 acres and it is a beautiful house and even these two homes that are on there are beautiful with a woods behind there. That woods is a cushion not only for any proposed homes that would go in there but it is a cushion for us right now because of the apartments that are there and we have the Eight Mile and Merrimn intersection. Even if we went to an R-3, I think that would be detrimental to that area. Across the road there are some that are not conforming to RUFA but that is more reasonable than going to something less than 1/4 of an acre. Norman Roth, 20196 Sunset: We moved here because we liked the atmosphere and this is just too much of a change. It is going to change drastically. 15349 William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft: I was the co-developer of the eight lot subdivision known as Fargo Woods as shown on the lower left hand corner as an 4111. R-3. At the time we went for zoning for that R-3, we were in the same dilemma I guess Mr. Soave is with sizes, etc. As I scan the immediate area to the east I suggest that maybe some of the people that spoke here tonight live on lots that are designated RUF but are deficient in size and area. I personally believe that as the developer of Fargo Woods Subdivision, I believe the eight houses that have been constructed have been very adequate. I believe Mr. Soave should perhaps change his petition to R-3 and I certainly, as a former owner of that land, would certainly endorse an R-3 zoning. Mrs. Karakula, 30880 Fargo: I am opposed also because of the fact that when we bought our lot 20 years ago we purchased because it was a large lot and had a lot of space. In the last 20 years traffic has gotten really bad on Fargo. Sometimes you can sit at the corner trying to get out onto Merriman during rush hour traffic between five and six o'clock and in the morning between seven and eight o'clock for quite a long time before you can even get off the street. Adding another at least 24-26 cars plus the Sunset Subdivision that is already under construction, I think it is going to make it a lot worse and a lot less safe for the children in the neighborhood. Valerie Myers, 30725 Fargo: I have two young children. Fargo is already a busy street. When my girls ride their bike or when I take my baby for a walk in the stroller, we usually go down Sunset because it is a dead end street. Twenty-six more cars will make that impossible. We don't have sidewalks. We have to walk and ride bikes in the street. I am opposed to this. Dennis Myers, 30725 Fargo: I am opposed to it because I really don't know where it would end as far as the spot zoning. I believe, even under R-3, I really think, although most of the homes in the area are probably only adequately R-3 zoned, I don't think it would do that area any justice to go with an R-2 or even to spot zone to an R-3 as we have done in the past. As you can tell I am opposed to it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-12-1-28 closed. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, at the present time surrounding this area there are 34 homes around this petition area and being that it is almost five acres, if we only put 13 homes in I don't think we would be changing this area that much because there are homes there that are seen as RUF but they 15350 are not conforming. They are not that size. They are a smaller size. So I am going to make an approving resolution to change to R-3A and not R-2. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Walsh it was #1-4-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 21, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-12-1-28 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Sunset Boulevard, north of Fargo Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-2A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-12-1-28 be approved as amended to R-3A for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with adjacent zoning districts in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for lot sizes which are consistent with other development in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, Walsh, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Piercecchi ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-11-3-4 by Robert Smith and Mr. and Mrs. John Blaies, Jr., requesting to vacate the Pembroke Avenue right-of-way located between Merriman Road and Merriman Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 15351 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to vacating the subject portion of Pembroke Avenue. They do recommend that a full width easement for r.. public utilities be retained over the area to be vacated. They further state that it appears from information contained on the original deeds conveying this right-of-way to the City of Livonia circa 1965, that the right-of-way would revert to the properties north of the east and west 1/4 line. We have also received a letter from Consumers Energy(formerly Consumers Power Company) stating they have no natural gas facilities in the proposed street vacation and therefore has no objection to the proposal. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? John Blaies, 29794 Merriman: It has taken me a while to get this far. I started the procedure a little over a year and a half ago. There were a couple of reasons. When we purchased to the north of the easement we talked to the builder at the time and he informed us about the easement that was running along the property line, told us about it being a paper road, that it was never going to be developed. I went ahead and purchased the property and had a house built on there. After the house was built I N"' went to the Engineering Department to get further information and was told it was a paper road, and it was not going to be developed and as far as they knew at the time, that was some time ago, it was going to be taken off the master plat. We were trying to find out the procedure as to what happens to this property. Does it stay vacant? What would happen with it? We were curious. We wanted to find out what we could do about incorporating it with our land. We were told a couple of different stories. The first one was once the City does decide to vacate a property, they usually split it 50/50, and that was acceptable to us. We were later told because the easement came from the property to the south of that, that if the City ever decided to vacate the property that it would revert back to Mr. Smith, and that was acceptable to both of us too. There are two other reasons why we were interested in it. At the time our house was built it was all open field but it is developed as eight houses now so there was a tendency to use it as a shortcut from the subdivision from Merriman Court and it was all pedestrian traffic. Since then the house is developed and we have landscaped it and it has gotten better but with it being privately owned land it would even get better. The second one, the situation we want to avoid was a third party coming in and with that property being city-owned, through the process I have learned that the City could virtually do what they 15352 want with their property. It is their property. They own it. I understand that. With it being so close to my property and Mr. Smith's property, we won't worry about a third party coming in and deciding to do whatever they want to do with that piece of land, and we wanted to 'r- avoid that. We also wanted to absorb the property among ourselves to eliminate any burden the City would have to maintain it or pay taxes on it. That was basically the reason why we decided to take steps and we would appreciate it if you would approve our proposal. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-11-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #1-5-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 21, 1997 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-11-3-4 by Robert Smith and Mr. and Mrs. John Blaies, Jr. requesting to vacate the Pembroke Avenue right-of-way located between Merriman Road and Merriman Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-11-3-4 be approved for the vacating of the north 20 feet of the Pembroke Avenue right-of-way subject to the retention of a full width easement, for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed to serve any public access purpose; 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more advantageously utilized in New private ownership; and 3) That the subject road right-of-way can be placed back on the City's tax rolls. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. McCann: One of our concerns, and I want you to be aware of it, in reviewing this there really is no other way for people to move from Merriman Court to Merriman Road without going all the way back down to Seven Mile and we wanted to keep ten feet not only for utility purposes but for the children and whoever else needs to use it. This area cannot be closed off by you. It is public land, and the children in the area that need access going to Eight Mile Road for whatever reason, there is going to be a store coming in up there in the near future possibly, they are going to be going back and forth. One of the concerns was that the children that live along Merriman Court are going to be needing access to that through there. I was inclined to vote against it but keeping ten feet 15353 and giving notice that that is public land for all citizens to use for ingress and egress, that we could approve it under those circumstances. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by altering the location of a local street known as Milburn Avenue to reflect a proposed change in alignment south of Plymouth Road between Henry Ruff Road and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have attached a legal description of a future Milburn Avenue to be located immediately east of the present location in N.W. 1/4 of Section 35. We have also received a letter from Consumers Energy stating they do have natural gas facilities in a portion of Milburn Avenue, possibly in the area of the proposed alignment. This facility may consist of gas main and service line. If relocation or abandonment of their facility is required, a cost may be incurred. As always they state they will work `y.• closely with the City so it may proceed with its plans. Mr. McCann: Again, this is by the City Planning Commission. John, would you give us somewhat of a history on this. Mr. Nagy: The Future Plan of the City of Livonia with respect to its thoroughfares is to try to affect the realignment of Milburn Avenue to overcome a problem with the offset with two roads with respect to the thoroughfare of Plymouth Road. There is an offset between the existing intersection of Milburn with respect to the street on the opposite side now known as Sears Drive. The conflict of those turning movements has created a traffic hazard for the area. It is the ultimate plan for the City of Livonia to one day align those roads by re-aligning Milburn Avenue in an easterly direction to come into Plymouth Road immediately opposite Sears Drive. It is really a long-range plan but we are trying to affect our plans to show what the City's intent is in the future. 15354 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-10-7-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was #1-6-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on January 21, 1997 for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the same is hereby amended by altering the location of a local street known as Milburn Avenue to reflect a proposed change in alignment south of Plymouth Road between Henry Ruff Road and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Master Plan amendment will reflect the planned relocation of a public street to provide for safer traffic movement in the area; and 2) That the proposed Master Plan amendment is needed so as to aid in the City's efforts to affect the realignment of Milburn Avenue in the subject area. and, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission `ow does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-10-2-29 by Joseph P. Durso requesting waiver use approval to develop a site condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. McCann: We need a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was 15355 #1-7-97 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-10-2-29 by Joseph P. Durso requesting waiver use approval to develop a site condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: John, is there anything new on this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have received a revised letter from the Department of Public Safety, from the Fire Marshal, with respect to the petition. Their office has reviewed the REVISED site plan received January 9, 1997, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a site condominium project on the north side of Joy Road between Harvey and Linville Avenue. We have no objection to this proposal. However, the turn-around "L" at the end of Hees Avenue, east of Linville Avenue, and at the end of Hees, west of Harvey Avenue, is requested to be 30 ft. long (north to south). Mr. McCann: If there is nothing new, a motion is in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-10-2-29 by Joseph P. Durso requesting waiver use approval to develop a site condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-10-2-29 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 01/8/97, as revised, prepared by Re/Max West Inc., which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 2) That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within 30 days following approval of this petition by the City Council. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed plan is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 15356 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and New 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. Mr. Piercecchi: The reason I was reluctant to approve this, it seems like there could be more of an agreement reached between the people and this particular developer. As you recall, the people that live in that adjoining area, did come up with a plan. Of course, we can't operate on their plan because they are not the petitioner. I would like to see Mr. Durso meet with the people. I am sure something reasonable can be established in reference to that so I would like to table this. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was RESOLVED that, the pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 192, 1996 on Petition 96-10-2-29 by Joseph P. Durso requesting `' waiver use approval to develop a site condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-10-2-29. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Blomberg NAYS: Walsh, Alanskas, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was #1-8-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 19, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-10-2-29 by Joseph P. Durso requesting waiver use approval to develop a site condominium project on property located between the Hees Avenue dead-ends east of Linville Avenue and north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, the 15357 City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-10-2-29 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; 3) That the proposed use will not be in character with the existing residential development 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. Mrs. Blomberg: The reason I would like to deny this is because I don't think that the three houses in a small area are going to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood and I think that the plan for the two houses that the neighbors brought made a nice plan but like you said we can't work on that so at this time I will have to deny it. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi NAYS: Walsh, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request for extension of Preliminary Plat approval for Camborne Stark School Subdivision proposed to be located on the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, is there any new information on this petition? Mr. Nagy: No,just the petitioner indicates the reason for the request for extension is that they now have all the approvals required and they will begin implementation of those improvements in January of 1997 and the final plat will be submitted in the early part of 1997 and they request a one- year extension. 15358 Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. NowOn a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #1-9-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from William L. Roskelly for a one year extension of approval of the Preliminary Plat for Camborne Stark School Subdivision proposed to be located on the southwest corner of Stark Road and Pinetree Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant an extension for a period of one year from the date of this resolution for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient reason why the project has been delayed; and 2) That the proposed preliminary plat is of sufficient quality as to justify an extension of time for the petitioner to begin the project. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 735th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held on November 19, 1996. Now On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was #1-10-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 735th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on November 19, 1996 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, Alanskas, McCann NAYS: Blomberg ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 736th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on December 10, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mr. Walsh, it was 15359 #1-11-97 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 736th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 10, 1996 are Now hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, Alanskas NAYS: Blomberg, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-12-8-19 by Olson Oldsmobile requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 33850 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Miller: Olson Oldsmobile is located on the north side of Plymouth Road. Presently on site you have an existing new car showroom and a used car showroom. The petitioner is proposing to build a new used car showroom west of the existing new car showroom. This site presently is being used to display and store vehicles. The new showroom will be one story in height and 2,040 sq. ft. in size. The existing used car showroom would either be demolished or have the elevations changed to match the existing new car showroom. This building will be constructed out of block, which will match the existing new car showroom in design and color. (Mr. Miller presented the elevations plans) Mr. Piercecchi: Where is that fence? It seems like that property has a jog in it. Does he own that property behind the fence? Mr. Miller: I believe he does. Right now he has landscaping around here. Mr. Piercecchi: Is any additional landscaping being planned for that area? Mr. Miller: No. We do have a letter from the petitioner that he would like a call back on the landscaping. Mr. Nagy: I also met with the petitioner during the week and I have a letter that was delivered to me this evening indicating that after the building is up, we will meet with him and try to determine where best on the property, adjacent to the new used car showroom, where we will put planter boxes and planter tubs in that area to best reflect the landscaping 15360 consistent with what he already has around his car showroom. That will be part of the call back. �" Mr. Piercecchi: I am happy to hear that. Mr. McCann: My concern is, I have looked at a couple of dealerships and a lot of them have put plantings right in front of their showrooms, with greenbelts right around it, and I am thinking of the Buick dealership and several of them, they have those little areas that come out with a greenbelt running down it. There are a lot of interesting things you can do to really make it look nice. Don't you really think we are going to limit the ability of what he is going to do to just basically putting up some tubs if we approve this without the landscape plan? His big concern is I have to dig up some concrete. He is going to have to do it to improve that building and if he does have a plan in sight, it would be less expensive for him to do it at that time. To me it seems to have no landscaping around the building, and to come back later and say I am going to put in some tubs, it is going to be more expensive for him and harder for us to get what we want because it is going to be more expensive for him to do it. Mr. Piercecchi: I remember Bill Brown was very cooperative about that. In between the curb cuts there they opened up a section. It was probably about 8 or 10 feet wide and 50 to 60 feet long where they plant in the summer. Mr. Nagy: There is landscaping satisfying the ordinance requirements with respect to the lot itself It meets the requirement for the 20 foot greenbelt. So what we are really talking about is a landscape enhancement adjacent to the used car building. We are only talking about the used car building. He is not building a new dealership like Bill Brown. What we are really trying to do is come up with a landscape scheme that is appropriate for that size building. I think in this case planter boxes, foundation plantings next to a building of that size would be appropriate. Mr. McCann: And you can do this at a later time? Mr. Nagy: I would suggest to make sure that we get that, before an occupancy permit is issued that the landscaping would be, in fact, installed and in place. Mr. Alanskas: I know where you are coming from in trying to do this but don't forget this building is set back from Plymouth Road. Like he said it is not a dealership, it is a used car building, and just for an example, there is a car wash on Five Mile that has no landscaping whatever, right next to 15361 Suburban Door, and they have these big huge tubs with plants and it looks really nice. I think this would do the same thing. Mr. McCann: I just don't want to limit the options. That was my concern, but if the Planning Director is satisfied they can come up with something that will increase the appearance, the building is basically set where the dealership is, it is set to match the dealership. He has done a nice job so far. I just want to make sure it has the greenbelt. Just because you have 15%, if it is not in the right location, it doesn't mean anything. Mr. Alanskas: Also, won't there be cars parked in front of that used car building so you won't see that landscaping anyway? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: I am perfectly satisfied if our Planning Director is in the process of negotiation. I have tremendous confidence in him. As you know, he always does the job right. Mr. McCann: I agree. If there are no comments by the petitioner, a motion would be in order. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #1-12-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-12-8-19 by Olson Oldsmobile requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 33850 Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet S1 dated 11/6/96 prepared by S.E.K. Consulting, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A2 dated 11/6/96 prepared by S.E.K. Consulting, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the building materials of the new building shall match the building materials of the existing new car showroom so that upon completion the two buildings will match in color and architectural design; 4) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the plans. 15362 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-12-8-20 by `... the JAR Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at 31245 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Miller: This is the former site of the Church's Lumber store. The existing building will be torn down and this proposal will be built on the site. The petitioner is proposing to construct a commercial center comprised of two buildings. They are about 35 feet apart. One building would be 11,180 sq. ft. and the site plan designates that this will be a Rite Aid Pharmacy store. The other building will be 14,120 sq. ft. and by the elevations there are numerous stores located in the elevation so this will be a multi-tenant commercial center. Parking, they are required to have 162 parking spaces. That is what the site plan shows so they conform in parking. As you can see the parking will be located all around the new buildings. There will also be a drive-thru for the Rite Aid Pharmacy with a canopy which will connect the two buildings. (Mr. Miller presented the new landscape plan). This plan shows 15% landscaping, which they are required to have, so it conforms with the landscaping and it shows a lot more materials than in the previous landscape plan. So this is a far better landscape plan. (He presented a 'Nowcolor rendering of the buildings) Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy do you have anything further? Mr. Nagy: We are satisfied with the changes in the landscape plan they have now provided by the addition to the plant material and bunting along Eight Mile along Merriman Road. Mr. McCann: You did get an updated landscape plan with sufficient detail? Mr. Nagy: Yes, and the site will be fully irrigated with a sprinkler system. Mr. McCann: Does the petitioner want to come forward and say anything? William Roskelly: Just to confirm what John said, as you had suggested, it was a skimpy landscape plan, so my office took it and fashioned something that is much more palatable. Along with the berms as well as the added plantings, I think it is going to present itself very well. 15363 Mrs. Blomberg: When the people drive through that drive-thru, when they drive out are they going to be driving across the sidewalk? Mr. Roskelly: No ma'am. My first question when we talked about this was why are we jogging this entrance, and the reason for that is so that somebody that is coming to park and shop in this building will have time to see by maneuvering so he won't inadvertently go through these. Mrs. Blomberg: What I am trying to say, is when you go through the drive-thru you are coming from the back of the building, and then you make a left, but it appears to me you will be driving between the two stores and that pedestrians will be walking in that area. Mr. Roskelly: No ma'am. (Mr. Roskelly pointed this out on the plan) Certainly there will be signage there and a walkway and direction to go from building to building. Mrs. Blomberg: But the cars will not be driving across that sidewalk? Mr. Roskelly: No ma'am. Mr. Alanskas: Right now that is M-1. It is not C-2 yet. The C-2 has to go to the City Council for their approval? Mr. Nagy: This past Wednesday they had the first reading, and second reading and roll call vote will be taken at their next regular meeting. Mr. Alanskas: You have two gorgeous buildings here. I hope they don't try to put excess signage there. Mr. Roskelly: We did discuss this with the developer. We are planning one monument sign and that is the only signage we are showing for identification at this time. I suggest at a later date, for two reasons, Rite Aid had certain signage and the fact that this is an unknown user at this time, it is premature to come and ask you for sign approval at this time. We will be back at a later date and certainly everybody is aware of the fact that it will be a monument sign and perhaps one to two face signs. Mr. McCann: John, one of my concerns is, and I have had discussions with the Council President regarding this, number one this is M-1 right now. The zoning went to the Council correct? Mr. Nagy: Correct. 15364 Mr. McCann: It is on their second reading. Have they reviewed the site plan? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Copies of this plan were presented to the City Council. Mr. Taylor, at the time he gave first reading, acknowledged the fact that they had all seen the site plan. Mr. McCann: Since all we have for the monument sign is the location, will he have to come back before the Planning Commission for the monument sign? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. McCann: The other concern I had with the Council President, and that was that the Council is about to approve a resolution that would require all these properties that are less than two acres, to not only go before Planning Commission but to go on to City Council for approval as well. The question was whether this should be held up to go through that. After discussion with the Council President we decided there was no particular reason since the current zoning ordinance reads that the Planning Commission approval is sufficient and there is no reason why this shouldn't go through under the current ordinance. I think it is appropriate for us to act on this this evening if we so believe we should. If there are no other questions, a motion is in order. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously vrr. approved, it was #1-13-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 96-12-8-20 by The JAR Group requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial center on property located at 31245 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, subject to the property being rezoned to C-2, General Business, and further subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated October 1,1996 prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plan dated 1/18/97 prepared by Basney& Smith, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That all lawn areas are to be sodded and not seeded; 4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of 15365 the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated October 1, 1996 prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the above plans. Mr. Piercecchi: I really favor this. We have on that site potential problems of safety. It is on a site which is an entrance to the City of Livonia. I commend the appearance and it is always nice to deal with Mr. Roskelly. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-12-8-21 by DeMattia Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located on the west side of Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. r�.. Mr. Miller: This is the Valassis property that was recently approved for construction of a three-story office building, and on that site plan there was a site at the southeast corner that was left vacant, and it was an outlot. What is before you today is what they are proposing to construct on that piece of property. They are proposing to construct a four-story office building. Each story will be about 20,000 sq. ft., so the total overall size of this building will be 80,000 sq. ft. Parking for the site will surround the office building. They are required to have 320 parking spaces and the site shows 320, which also includes 40 of the parking spaces to be in an underground parking complex. Access to the site will be a drive off Victor Parkway and also a drive that will be shared with the Embassy Suites Hotel. Landscaping, there is a new landscape plan they submitted that is basically the same. It will be basically the same type of landscaping just the drive changes. They show 29% landscaping on site. They are required to have 15% so they exceed the required landscaping. Also, including landscaping Valassis will do, this site will be heavily landscaped. (Mr. Miller presented colored renderings). Mr. McCann: Does the petitioner have anything to add? The petitioner had nothing to add. 15366 Mr. Alanskas: Scott, the air conditioning units cannot be seen on top of the building at all? Mr. Miller: They will be covered with parapet. Jim Selenski, 45501 Helm, Plymouth: I am an architect with DeMattia Associates. (He presented elevation plans) There will be a brick screen that will hide all the rooftop equipment all the way around. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #1-14-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-12-8-21 by DeMattia Development Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located on the west side of Victor Parkway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet Al dated 1/13/97 prepared by DeMattia& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, including the fact that all parking light standards shall not exceed 20 ft. in height; N" 2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet Ll dated 1/21/97, as revised, prepared by DeMattia& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That all lawn areas are to be sodded and not seeded; 4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A5 dated 12/10/96 prepared by DeMattia& Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the above plans. Mr. Walsh: I am very excited about this project. It is a beautiful building. It is nice to see what is going to be our last large office complex turning out very nicely. It is a nice addition. 15367 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Subdivision Entrance Marker and Landscape Greenbelt intended for the Glenn's Farm Subdivision located on the north side of Six Mile between Merriman Road and Stamwich Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller: This is Glenn's Farm entrance off Six Mile Road. They are requesting approval of 25 ft. wide greenbelts for the entrance, meeting the landscape requirements of the subdivision. They also are requesting approval of the subdivision entrance marker. They are allowed one at 20 sq. ft. and they show one at 18 sq. ft. so they meet that requirement. It is a conforming entrance marker and a conforming greenbelt. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, was there any discussion on this with the petitioner? Mr. Nagy: Yes we did meet. In fact, I think I am somewhat responsible for the petitioner not being here this evening. Since he was the last item on the agenda, he asked me what time he should be here. After looking at the agenda I said no way are we going to get to this before 9:30. We did discuss the graphic and he indicated to me there would be a better graphic. They would still keep the farm theme with the horse but maybe there was a better design than the one shown. Mr. McCann: But we can approve it? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: John, on the seeding is that a marion or rye? Mr. Nagy: It could be either and usually a combination. Mr. Alanskas: Usually it is a lighter color and I was just wondering what it was. Mr. Nagy: It could be either or. Usually the first seed that germinates is the rye and that is to establish the turf to hold the soil and create a better medium for the higher grass to follow. So the rye is really the nursery crop to establish a seed for the other hardier to better germinate. Mr. Alanskas: If they have the choice of hydroseeding and after four or five months it doesn't take, would they have to come back and do it again? Mr. Nagy: Sure. 15368 Mr. McCann: A motion is in order. `, On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh and unanimously approved, it was #1-15-97 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Subdivision Entrance Marker and Landscape Greenbelt intended for the Glenn's Farm Subdivision located on the north side of Six Mile between Merriman Road and Stamwich Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Landscape& Entrance Marker Plan dated 12/4/96 submitted by Livonia Builders, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all lawn areas are to be sodded or hydroseeded. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 737th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on January 21, 1997 was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 442,e Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST: ✓� / -. (A_ s James C. McCann, Chairman jg