Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-01-30 10988 MINUTES OF THE 594th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 30, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 594th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. William LaPine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski R. Lee Morrow* James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G.Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. LaPine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning 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 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. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-12-1-36 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1105-89, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Amrhein Road and Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-9. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bakewell, is that parcel owned by the City of Livonia? Mr. Bakewell: Yes, it is. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department dated December 28, 1989 stating they have no objections to the proposed rezoning. Jim Inglis, Director of the Housing Commission: The City is proposing to develop a single story ranch style facility similar to the existing Silver Village. They are proposing to build 120 units of 1 and 2 bedroom senior citizen housing. The buildings will be approximately 12 units per building throughout the 10 acre site. The Housing Commission met with the City Council last year pursuant to their \r. 10989 request for additional senior citizen housing similar to Silver Village. As a result of looking at a variety of sites through the City, and inasmuch as this site is owned by the City, we felt it would be an ideal site for our senior citizen development. It would not be a high rise but a one story, ranch style. Mr. Engebretson: Since the Council has set out to explore the possibilities to add to our senior citizen housing, there is some understood demand that indicates we should do this. Can you comment on what we have available and what our needs are and the shortfall. Mr. Inglis: The current facility has in excess of 500 applicants for senior citizen housing. The Brashear facility has in excess of 800 residents on the waiting list. We conducted a study of all individuals 60 years or older, who are registered voters, with a one page survey asking about their interest at proposed rental rates in this particular location and responses were yes, we are interested. We asked about time frame and the majority said within one to three years they would want senior citizen housing. The location is desirable and the proposed rental rate was not a problem either. We sent out 12,000 pieces of the survey and we received back in excess of 2,800. Mr. Engebretson: So you sent surveys to 12,000 citizens and from the 2,800 who responsed, 90% were interested? Mr. Inglis: That's correct. Mr. Engebretson: With 1,300 people on a waiting list, it appears we have a severe shortfall. If we should fail to provide this type of facility, what would you project the impact would be on our citizens? Mr. Inglis: We do have a growing elderly population of individuals who own their `w own home and cannot maintain those properties. They would have to apply to our existing properties and wait in excess of 4 to 6 years or go to other communities. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did I understand you to say that there is a 4 to 6 year wait? Mr. Inglis: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: This is going to be away from any shopping centers, so most of these senior citizens that would be in this development would have vehicles? Mr. Inglis: That is correct. In the current Silver Village, 80% of the residents have cars. In our survey we asked "Do you own a car?" and 90% indicated they have transportation. Over and above that, the Housing Commission does operate their own transportation program. We have a senior citizen van that we transport residents from McNamara Towers, Silver Village and other facilities and we would extend this service to this facility as well. We are proposing 120 units for this site. We are proposing 96 one-bedroom units and 24 two-bedroom units. Mr. Vyhnalek: Most would have 2 occupants in each unit? Nifty 10990 Mr. Inglis: No, the majority are single occupants. Mr. Vyhnalek: So this is not really making a dent in our waiting list. Do you know anything that is happening to that land to the west? Dr. Mendelssohn was thinking about putting a senior citizen complex in there. Mr. Inglis: No. We realize he was before the Planning Commission but we have not spoken with him. Mr. Tent: Will the rental rates be comparable to Silver Village? Mr. Inglis: They will be more expensive. The cost of construction when we built Silver Village in 1978 for approximately $2,000,000 will now cost approximately $5,200,000 for this development. Mr. Tent: Is this upscale? Mr. Inglis: These units will have central air conditioning and more storage. Ms. Fandrei: You indicated that there were 96 one-bedroom units? Mr. Inglis: That's right. Ms. Fandrei: Our notes say 80. Mr. Inglis: Of the 120 units, 80% would be one-bedroom units and 20% two-bedroom. That would be 96 ones and 24 twos. That may change at a later date. We will work with the architect. At this point, this is what we will be striving for. Ms. Fandrei: Don't you feel that as that area develops there will most likely be '41111., other services coming to that area? Mr. Inglis: Yes. There is a new apartment complex on Plymouth Road. I believe more services will come in that area. Ms. Fandrei: So there should be no problem to get within reason what they need. Mr. Inglis: That is correct. Lawrence Desjarlais, 11981 Newburgh: I am at lot 504 right next to the property. My property I bought from Pete Wood last August. My property is single family residential and will drop a lot in value when you put in the senior citizen complex. I did not receive one of those questionaires on whether I wanted a senior citizen complex. I am very much opposed to it because it will decrease the value of my property. Right now it is exactly as I like it. We have the woods. I would very much appreciate it if it would be zoned single family residential, or if you are going to go with this, at least turn my property into commercial so I won't lose money. Scott Heinzman, 37601 Grantland: I own Lot 11. I agree with the last gentleman that I prefer that the land not be developed, but I am sympathetic with the housing situation for the seniors. If the land does have to be developed, I am not against R-9 zoning provided that it is one 10991 story. Furthermore, the land surrounding the area, I would not like to see it go industrial. I would like to see it go residential or R-6 or R-7 and the Master Plan being changed. I strongly urge single family be addressed because young families have a difficult time in affording housing in Livonia, and I think a well thought out plan in this area could be used for younger families. Don't '41111. over-develop this area. Mr. Tent: Scott, have you seen Silver Village? It is very attractive. Mr. Heinzman: I have. Mr. Engebretson: I know you are interested in the neighborhood because you come down regularly. I am wondering what you think about the statistics to correct the situation and demand for senior housing versus the supply. You address young families that struggle financially with housing. The senior citizens certainly have difficulty finding suitable housing and the young people that may have grown up here have an equal problem. You expressed concern about young families getting started and you have expressed a position that you can accept senior citizen housing if it were one story. What do you think about Mr. Inglis's comment about shortfall? Mr. Heinzman: I agree there are a lot of seniors looking for affordable housing and a lot of opportunities to build a Silver Village and a lot of young people who grew up in Livonia don't have a chance at affordable housing. I think there are as many families who are interested in raising their children where they can go to a good school system. If every 1/4 section in Livonia had a full 10 acres or so developed for seniors, I think it would meet that need. I think our neighborhood is doing its part. * 7:50: Lee Morrow arrived at this time. Tom Green, 37721 Grantland: I own Lot 15. I have two questions on where they are going to put the road through and what type of boarder they would have on the north side. Mr. LaPine: To the best of my knowledge, the site plan hasn't been developed yet. The site plan will come up at a later date. Is that right Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: That's right. Our access to the site is going to be limited to Newburgh Road. We envision a central roadway through the middle of the site, and with the R-9 district regulations the buildings will have to be well set off from the property line, about 50' , so that rear area will be left landscaped as a green area. That's about as much as I can tell you now. Mr. Green: I could bring a petition that most of the people do want it. We have struggled to keep industry out of Newburgh Estates. In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone here. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-12-1-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was 10992 #1-276-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 89-12-1-36 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1105-89, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Amrhein Road and Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-9, The City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-12-1-36 be Now approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of much needed additional housing for the elderly in the City. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for medium density residential land use. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-1-1-1 by Elio and Rafaela Giovannone and Guiseppe and Lucia D Aguanno requesting to rezone property located at the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and St. Martins Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Bakewell 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 petition. Nevin Rose, 38110 Executive Dr. , Westland: I represent the owners of Martin Plaza. This is a strip center located north of Seven Mile Road on the east side of Middlebelt Road on St. Martins containing 13,000 square feet of usable area. It is located across from Livonia Mall. We come before you to change the zoning from C-1, local business, to C-2, general business. The change in zoning is an economic necessity. My clients have been unable to fill the center for two years now. It's been open since 1985, but for two years two units have been vacant and another unit is leased on a month-to-month basis and this new tenant has threatened to leave. Of the remaining tenants, we have a total of 8,636 feet leased, and of that space, 7,548 comes up for release in the next 12 months. 87% of the existing space is about to turn over, but there is every possibility that all of that space will not stay. We would end up instead of having vacancies of one-third, or 25%, closer to 50%. The lease rates have gone steadily down since 1985. The average per square foot rate was $11.31 in 1985. In 1989, $8.63. So there are some definite financial problems at Martin Plaza. Its viability is threatened and the owners just can't seem to fill it up because they keep getting prospective tenants that want to use it for C-2 purposes such as 10993 yogurt store, ice cream shop, sandwich shop, auto repair, coin operated laundry, coney island, clothing resale. All of these businesses, I am given to understand, are legal and proper under C-2 but not C-1. If we had a C-2 zoning, we feel that there would be no negative impact on the area. (Mr. Rose showed a map outlining the C-2 areas surrounding Martin Plaza. ) So you can see that all those 'New tenants that want yogurt and ice cream stores, as soon as they found out that it would not be lawful at that center, they could go anywhere and operate in that area. My client is left with a center that is partially empty for a number of years. Without this designation, we feel that it would be very difficult to maintain a first-class center at Martin Plaza. Mr. Morrow: You paint a rather bleak picture, Mr. Rose. Do you think that a C-2 zoning classification will save the Center? Mr. Rose: Yes. We have 9 spaces in the center and it goes between 6 and 7 being occupied. Without the extra space being occupied, we cannot run profitably. We have so many requests for C-2 uses, that we feel confident we could fill it. The trend seems to be carry-out food. People want to bring food home and more and more shops are opening up for this and they have not been able to rent to these people. Mr. Morrow: Has there ever been any talk about the possibility of selling this center after you receive the C-2 zoning? Mr. Rose: No. That has not entered into the conversation in any way at all. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, what is the vacancy rate of C-2 zoning in that Area? Mr. Nagy: The last analysis that we did in the Summer of 1989, the vacancy rate was in excess of 25% for all commercial development throughout '"' the City. Mr. Tent: Just because there is C-2 down the street it doesn't necessarily mean that tenants there would choose that location instead of yours. Mr. Rose: Clearly, if we were C-2 it would not be automatic that we could fill, it's just the matter of the market and what our competition charges for their space versus ours. It doesn't matter now what they charge because we can't compete. We have been trying to pick up some of these other users who can be accommodated in a C-1 zone. Mr. Vyhnalek: Wasn't there a carry-out at one time in this shopping center? Mr. Rose: No. Mr. Giovannone: I am part owner of this building. It was never used for a restaurant. They wanted a restaurant but we could not rent to them because it is C-1. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have any businesses for C-2 right now wanting to come in? Mr. Giovannone: Yes, we have calls, but we had to refuse. Mr. Vyhnalek: No one is waiting in the wings. 10994 Mr. Giovannone: No, not right now. Mr. Engebretson: We have heard about your experience in the past couple of years, what was your experience in 1985-1988? Was it full all the time? Mr. Giovannone: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Did you construct this center? Mr. Giovannone: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: When you constructed the center, you understood the zoning and its restrictions? Mr. Giovannone: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Now it appears that you have a vacancy rate similar to the rest of the commercial space in Livonia. What difference would this make other than eating establishments that may wish to rent space there? Restaurants require a waiver use. It is not an automatic right. Just for the record, even with a C-2, you do not have an automatic right to have a restaurant. Mr. Rose: According to the records, the vacancy rate up until a few months ago was 33%. Right now we have someone in on a month-to-month basis and they refuse to sign a lease, so we think our situation as a C-1 is worse than it would be as a C-2. They can go anywhere else in the 7 Mile-Middlebelt area and get C-2. Mr. Engebretson: It looks like it is a 9 bay center and you have 2 and one-half spaces vacant. It looks to me like there is a 20% vacancy rate. 'vim. Mr. Rose: That is right, but one is leased month-to-month and it looks like they will not stay. Mr. Engebretson: But you didn't have any trouble in the first few years. I think what you are experiencing is what over development has caused throughout the City. I am not sure how the City becomes responsible for helping you get more favorable treatment here when other centers throughout the City have similar problems. We would be giving you an unfair advantage by giving you C-2 zoning over other districts. The City Council is also considering a change in the uses permitted in a C-1 district. Mr. Rose: It is my understanding that the proposed amendment has been tabled with no date to come back. Mr. Engebretson: The City Council makes those decisions. The inititive has been made and they are going to deal with that. To deal with this issue separately would be erroneous on our part. I think we should let the City Council resolve the issue of our proposed amendment. Until that is accomplished, I think it is going to be difficult for us to do anything other than table this matter. Mr. McCann: You informed us that you have an economic necessity in this case. Do you have any potential tenants to put in there at this time? 10995 Mr. Rose: They are not out looking for C-2 people. No one is willing to wait for the chance that the designation may change. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-1-1-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #1-277-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-1-1-1 by Elio and Rafaela Giovannone and Guiseppe and Lucia D'Aguanno requesting to rezone property located at the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and St. Martins Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from C-1 to C-2, The City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-1-1-1 until such time as City Council has made a final determination with respect to the City Planning Commission's proposed amendment to the C-1 zoning district regulations. 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: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei. NAYS: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. �► Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-12-2-56 by Michigan Laborers' Training Institute requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of equipment and materials in conjunction with a proposed construction laborers' school to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Bakewell 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 indicating they have no objections to this petition. The Fire Marshal in his letter submitted in connection with this petition indicated he has no objections to the proposal. The Traffic Bureau indicates that he made an on-site inspection and as a result questions the indicated parking spaces. He indicates: 1) The roadside parking has only three spaces currently with room for a fourth if a tree is removed. 2) I do not believe any vehicles could angle park at the rear of the office with the "proposed addition" in place. The office and warehouse are closer than the sketch would indicate. 3) The rear of the warehouse has a large overhead door on the north side of the west wall (not shown on the sketch). Thus a maximum of four cars could park there. 4) The parking along the north property line is not scaled. The eight spaces indicated would require an eighty by forty-five foot dimension including parking and drive. 5) The surface is unpaved west of the office front wall. 6) The drives are Num. 10996 established and acceptable. The Ordinance Enforcement Department indicates in their letter that the following deficiencies were found: 1) See attached Building Department Violation regarding the existing fence and building. The entire fence should be replaced using a single fence material. The building will require tuck-pointing, scraping and painting of the exterior. 2) The `11 . concrete drive on the north side is badly broken. 3) All parking areas will be required to be paved and striped. We might indicate that all these matters were called to the attention of the petitioner and we have not received a revised plan to date. George Zin: I am an attorney and I represent the Michigan Laborers Training Institute. May I explain what the Institute is. It is a creation under the Taft-Hartley Act to train people in the laborers aspect of the construction industry. Other industries have similar training institutes such as the operating engineers, steel workers and so forth. We are the applicant and we are petitioning for a use variance for outside storage of construction equipment which would be utilized during training sessions to train people either in basic entry level skills of the laborer or upgrade certain skills depending upon the needs of the industry. The fund is equally administered by a Board of Trustees which consists 50-50 of representatives and trustees of business and management trustees. The equipment is the normal construction equipment which will probably not at any one time consist of more than 6 or 7 vehicles that you are all familiar with as being used in the construction industry. It is necessary that these be stored outside because some of the classes would be taught outside, the normal skills associated with what a laborer does. Our petition is for the use variance under your zoning ordinance to allow us to store this equipment outside and to utilize it outside for the training activities of the institute. .. I've heard about some building violations as they were read off, and the parking which I would refer to the owner of the property. We would be a tenant of the property. I cannot respond on behalf of my client as to tuck pointing and parking and so forth. Mr. LaPine: Most of the trades have their own apprenticship programs. Is this Institute connected with any of the trades? Mr. Zin: The Laborer's Union. The fund which finances the Institute is a joint adventure 50-50 by business or management and by the Labor Union. Mr. Morrow: There are two issues here. One for waiver use for outside storage. Our intent is to limit it to what your needs are. We would like a list of the vehicles of what you have outside and also the size trucks you have. Mr. Zin: Mr. McDonald, who is the Director of the Educational Program of the Institute is probably a much better person to answer that and come up with such a list. I don't want to mislead the Commission and say that there were training programs every day of the year. There are various types and programs and skills. Mr. McDonald: I have made up copies of vehicles we would store outside. Most of the equipment that we would be using would be stored inside. There are a few things we would need outside. Air compressors 4' wide and 10' long, 10997 a 2-wheel air compressor would be stored up near the building. Other items are sewer pipe, water main pipe. What I have on the list is a maximum of what we would have. The man hole structure would be set up to the rear and we would use that for our hands-on pipe laying practice. There is also a semi trailer that is already on the property which belongs to the owners and we have agreed to allow them to continue using that. As far as trucks and heavy ` . equipment, it is not likely that we would have that down there. We have trucks at our main training site. We do train fork lift and we would be leasing that equipment when we need it. Mr. Morrow: The man holes are mainly stored below ground, correct? Mr. McDonald: It may not be in this case because we don't know about the water run-off we would have there. The most we would have there would be a 4' section with a cone on top. Mr. Tent: I feel there is a need for this. You have done your homework, but we have to deal with the owner. The owner has the responsibility to correct the problems that we have. I would like to hear what the owners have to say on correcting the problems. Pamela Rumely: I am the owner of the subject property. I agree to put in a new fence. I have been given six months to do that. I also agree to put in a parking lot if I am allowed time to do that. Mr. Tent: We would need a site plan on what you intend to do showing the parking, the size and what you are going to pave. We would then be in a position to present it to our staff. Ms. Rumely: Sure. Nem. Mr. Kluver: Mr. McDonald, how many people would you have in this facility that would be trained and how long would the training period last? Mr. McDonald: 8 to 12 people. Our classes may be 1 week, maybe 4 weeks or 2 or 3 days. I also have copies of our curriculum. We come in when there is a need. We intend to run year around. We average 220 working days a year. Mr. Kluver: Would this program be running 100%? Give us some idea as far as the number of working days. Mr. McDonald: Definitely not 100%. I would like to say 80%. Mr. Kluver: Have you looked at any other sites? Mr. McDonald: Yes. We looked around Canton Township and other properties here. Properties are very hard to find for what we want to do. We are serving southeastern Michigan area from Monroe, Ann Arbor, Pontiac and Detroit metropolitan area. This location is ideal. Mr. Kluver: This is a very prime manufacturing area. This area might be more suitable for another type of manufacturing. Yours would be suitable for a fringe area. Mr. Engebretson: What term of lease do you have or anticipate establishing? 10998 Mr. McDonald: The lease we are working on is for two years with a two-year option. Mr. Engebretson: If it became too valuable for this type of operation, you could move out and the property could develop more along the lines Mr. Kluver is talking about? Mr. McDonald: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: What is involved in training someone in asbestos? Mr. McDonald: We don't use asbestos. This is for certification. It is 32 hours in a classroom and 8 hours is hands-on training. We simulate the typical site conditions. We use a room, visquine the walls, build a decontamination chamber where they have to go through before they can get into the contained area where they have to remove the asbestos. Then remove all that visquine, decontamination chamber, etc. That's all done inside in an 8-hour period. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman, I can support this petition in its concept. However, my support will be depended on all the parties coming to terms with the staff regarding violations and the necessity for a proper site plan drawn to scale. If those things are done and we are in agreement, I will then be able to support the issue. Mr. Vynhalek: Mr. Nagy, you said there was not ample parking in the rear? Mr. Nagy: The officer in charge of the Traffic Bureau believed the site plan was not drawn to scale and questioned the capacity of the site to accommodate the cars that were shown on the plan. The only way you could have 4 cars in front was to remove a tree. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. McDonald, you would have 8 or 12 people with cars plus the instructor. Will you have 13 spaces? Mr. McDonald: The space from the back corner of the building is 200' long and 100'wide. Mr. Vyhnelek: But that is not paved. Pam, are you going to pave the parking on the lot? How are you going to lay it out? Ms. Rumely: I can produce a plan with adequate parking before the next meeting. Mr. Engebretson: My support is based on your dealing with these things indicated before we can approve this. You have to work out these things with our staff. Mr. Vyhnelek: What is in the building now? Ms. Rumely: A distributorship for scaffolding and air compressors. We will be on the property for 5 to 9 months and then relocate. The tenants will take over the entire building. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-12-2-56 closed. 10999 Mr. Zin: May I request that you act upon our application even if this is conditioned upon the parking and so forth so that at least the institute would know where it may be going? Mr. LaPine: We are in agreement that your proposal is viable. I don't think we are going to act on anything until we see a site plan and `` improvements that have to be done. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-278-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 30, 1990 on Petition 89-12-2-56 by Michigan Laborers' Training Institute requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of equipment and materials in conjunction with a proposed construction laborers' school to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-12-2-56 be tabled pending the receipt of a revised site plan. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-1-2-1 by First of America Bank requesting waiver use approval to operate a bank within an existing building located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Stamford and Surrey Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28. Nu. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Fire Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating this office has no objections to the proposal. A letter from the Traffic Bureau states that the submitted plan is acceptable and notes that no public sidewalks exist along either street. It is recommended that they be provided. Mr. Tangora: Several months ago I appeared before you to rezone this property from M-1 to PS. We need now to secure a waiver use to operate a bank in the PS district. The bank has done extensive remodeling inside and outside and is in operation at the site. Mr. Engebretson: Is Mr. Tangora aware of the installation of sidewalks? Mr. Tangora: This is the first time I have heard of it. I will speak to the people at First of America. I ask that you make this a condition of the motion. We can discuss it at the Council meeting. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Ms. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was 11000 #1-279-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 30, 1990 on Petition 90-1-2-1 by First of America Bank requesting waiver use approval to operate a bank within an existing building located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Stamford and Surrey Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-1-2-1 be approved subject Now to the following conditions: 1) That Site Plan marked Sheet No. S-1 dated 1-18-90 prepared by Oxley Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated 1-11-89 prepared by Oxley Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) That sidewalks are to be installed along Schoolcraft Road and Surrey Avenue as requested by the Department of Public Safety, Traffic Bureau. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. `u.. 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. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-12-6-9 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to off-street parking requirements for apartments and condominiums. Ms. Fandrei: In 15 years as a realtor, my experience has been that some of our condo complexes have severe inadequate parking. Just recently we had to pass plans for 102 2-bedroom unit condo complexs with 13 more parking spaces than there are bedrooms because it met the ordinance. There are two other complexes, one occupied, the second partially occupied, where I feel there is inadequate parking. As our lifestyle in the 80s changed, more couples are moving into condos younger and still active and working and there is a need for more parking. A couple would not have a gathering of more than two drivers in their home at one time. The extra parking is necessary as the newer complexes do not have clubhouses. It is because of the lifestyle changes and my awareness of the changing needs that I am proposing a change in our ordinance regarding parking in our condo complexes. 11001 Mr. Engebretson: The proposed amendment does not represent my understanding of the plan. My recollection is that all the 1/4 were to be changed to 1/2 in trade for some specified parking per 100 sq. ft. of clubhouse area. If we can make a correction to change every referenced 1/4 to 1/2, then we will have what was agreed upon. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Engebretson, will you please read the proposal? Mr. Engebretson: The proposed off-street parking schedule for multiple dwellings is proposed to be as follows: 2-1/2 parking spaces for each unit with 1 and 2 bedrooms, 3-1/4 spaces for each unit with 3 bedrooms, 4-1/4 spaces for each unit with 4 bedrooms. Now, if you strike all the 1/4s and make it read 2-1/2, 3-1/2, 4-1/2, then we have the correct proposed amendment. Mr. LaPine: Anyone have any problem with that? There was no further discussion on this proposal. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-12-6-9 closed. On a motion made by Ms. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-280-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 30, 1990 on Petition 89-12-6-9 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to off-street parking requirements for apartments and condominiums, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-12-6-9 be approved for the following reasons: 'mew 1) That the proposed language amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide more adequate off-street parking particularly for guests of residents of apartment and condominium projects in the City; 2) That the proposed language amendment is needed so as to insure that apartment and condominium projects adequately provide for safe and convienient off-street parking. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next em on the agenda is Petition 89-12-7-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to incorporate Stonehouse Avenue from Joy Road north to West Chicago Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 11002 Mr. Nagy: The purpose of the amendment is to amend the comprehensive plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, which deals with designation of certain roadways in the City of Livonia pursuant to right-of-way standards. We have major mile roads of 120' ; collector roads, 86' , and local roads, 60' . The subject area here is a local road of 60' wide and anyone who would examine the comprehensive plan of the City of vr„ Livonia would learn from the examination that the City has designated an interest in preserving that land for road right-of-way purposes, 60' in width. in addition to that, we also have a letter from the Engineering Department stating that it would establish a sixty foot wide street right-of-way between West Chicago and Joy Road. It will be noted that, in addition to the 30' dedication for Stonehouse Avenue dedicated with the Golden Ridge plats, an additional 20' right-of-way has been dedicated across the frontages of all the lots on the west side of Stonehouse Avenue. The legal description contemplates that an additional 20' of right-of-way would be obtained from the building site located at the southwest corner of West Chicago and Stonehouse Avenue (with an additional 10 feet of right-of-way being required from all of the parcels facing Newburgh Road). According to our records this would place the existing home at this location within approximately 14' of the future right-of-way line. This amount of right-of-way adjacent to the above home site (20' ) could be varied if greater right-of-way is taken from the acreage parcels facing Newburgh Road. Sally Fedus: I am representing my mother Doris who owns lots 283 to 291, inclusive, including the south 1/2 of the alley adjoinging the north line of lot 283. My mother and father bought this property in 1942. They bought 9 lots on Stonehouse and we received a plat in 1928 showing Stonehouse going all the way through from West Chicago down to Northfield. When they bought the property, it was shown on plat. �.. They intended to use the property to raise us 4 kids, and when they got older, to sell and use the money for retirement. When they bought the road was open all the way through to Minton. It was shown on the plat to go all the way through to Northfield, but it was all the way through to Minton. As a matter of fact, there was a house on the east side of Stonehouse when they bought. They quit claim deeded the easterly 20' of all the lots for the express purpose of using it for street and road purposes to enhance the property. That was the purpose of deeding the 20' over to the City. They've been paying their taxes on it ever since. It's land-locked now. We have been approached by 6-8 builders to purchase this property. When they have gone to the City, they found they cannot build on the property because it is landlocked. We understand when it becomes part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan that situation will change and the property will be of some value. Right now the SEV is $17,230. One builder said he would give us $2,000 to take it off your hands. Unless the road is put back into the Master Thoroghfare Plan, the land is useless. I would like my mother and father to retire in the near future and sell the property and use the money for their retirement home. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-12-7-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved it was 11003 #1-281-90 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 30, 1990 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 incorporating Stonehouse Avenue from Joy Road north to West Chicago Boulevard in the Southeast 1/4 of vow Section 31 for the following reasons: 1) That this Master Plan amendment will help to provide for the future development of vacant lands in the subject area; 2) That the purpose of the Master Thoroughfare Plan is to plan for the proper location and designation of streets and thoroughfares so that access is available to all properties; 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 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Dorina Estates Subdivision proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road between Laurel and Gill Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Morrow: Is Laurel Road improved in that area? Mr. Bakewell: No, it is not. Mr. Morrow: It's gravel, isn't it? Mr. Bakewell: That's right. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation stating they see no problem with this development. We also have a letter from the Traffic Bureau Division of the Police Department stating the following recommendations: 1) No driveway permitted onto the Seven Mile Road right-of-way, and 2) Provide sidewalks along Seven Mile Road and Laurel Road. Next we have a letter from the Engineering Department stating they see no problems connected with this proposal. There is a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objection to the development of the subdivision. There is a followup letter from the Engineering Department referencing their letter of December 28, 1989 and our further inquiry relative to the improvement of Laurel Avenue adjacent to the subdivision. While this office has not received engineering plans for the subdivision as of this date, it would appear that we will require additional gravel be added to the current gravel road along Laurel 11004 Avenue for a width of 24 feet. At this time we would not recommend any improvement of the road (other than noted above) for the following reasons: A) Improvement of the road would only provide for approximately 500 feet of paving with the remaining sections of the road remaining as gravel. B) Since there are no sanitary '418" sewers along any portions of Laurel Avenue, this future construction could damage any improvement required with the subject subdivision. C) There are no storm sewers in Laurel Avenue as of this date. As noted above, this future construction could also damage any paving improvement. John Decina: I am the developer of the land. I haven't much to say about developing as far as sewers go. We have to run sewers from 7 Mile Road instead of going down Laurel because there is too much of a greenbelt line of trees on Laurel Road. I don't want to take down and destroy the trees. Laurel has a lot of trees. We will come in 7 Mile Road from the back, and bring the lines to Parcel 4. The City has recommended going for easement to Parcel 4 instead of Laurel for future development if the City would like to develop Laurel. 7 Mile had a vote on November 4 in connection with a road bond issue to develop 7 Mile Road to a five lane highway which has been approved and should be developed by the County in a couple of years. Mr. LaPine: You heard that there should be sidewalks along 7 Mile Road. Do you intend to put in sidewalks? Mr. Decina: Yes. Mr. LaPine: What type of homes are you going to build? \o• Mr. Decina: I have some pictures here. We are looking at between 1,800 and 2,500 sq. ft. There would be 3 ranches and 2 colonials. Starting with Lot 5, a ranch; lot 4, a colonial, lot 3, a ranch; and then 2 colonials. These are 90'x150' lots. The last lot would be 117' and we would put a greenbelt along the back joining the church, dividing the 2 parcels. Ms. Fandrei: What price range would you expect to sell these homes? Mr. Decina: My projection would be $185-190,000. Mr. Engebretson: Are you aware of the various letters Mr. Nagy read regarding the installation of gravel in the avenue right-of-way? Mr. Decina: Yes. I will add to the road, more or less making it better. Mr. Engebretson: What do you mean, more or less? Do you have specifications? Mr. Decina: I have to build the road up to specifications. I do not have the requirements at this time. Mr. Nagy: The gravel must be at least 24' wide. Mr. Decina: It must be at least 20' now. It is an old road. I will make it 24' . 11005 Mr. Engebretson: You intend to do all that is required? Mr. Decina: Yes. Mr. Tent: We do require certain plans. Would we include the sidewalks and cement work? vow Mr. Nagy: That is always a requirement. You cannot get a building permit for a residence without being required to install sidewalks. Mr. Tent: So the Inspection Department letter has more or less covered all the bases. Mr. Nagy: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Dorina Estates Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #1-282-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 30, 1990 on the Preliminary Plat for Dorina Estates Subdivision proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road between Laurel and Gill Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Dorina Estates Subdivision be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That a 30 foot wide greenbelt easement shall be provided along the north property line of Lot 1 adjacent to the Seven Mile Road `r right-of-way as requjired by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That a landscape plan for the greenbelt easement refered to in condition 1) shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to the submittal of the Final Plat. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable standards and requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable design for the development of the subject property in compliance with good subdivision design principles. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. o.w Mr. LaPine, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. 11006 On a motion duly made by Ms. Sobolewski, seconded by Donald Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was X11-283-90 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 593rd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 16, 1990 are hereby approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #1-284-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 89-11-8-34 by Architectural Resource Associates, P.C. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to renovate an existing office building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Edington and Stamford in Section 16 be taken from the table. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing rsolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was ##1-285-90 RESOLVED that, The City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-11.-8-34 by Architectural Resource Associates, P.C. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to renovate an existing office building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Edington and Stamford in Section 16 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That Site and Landscape Plan 8901.0 Sheet A-1 dated 1/30/90 as prepared by Architectural Resource Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Building Plan 8901.0 Sheet A-2 dated 1/30/90 as prepared by Architectural Resource Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 3) That the sign height be limited to 8' as proposed by the petitioner. 4) That the sign location and sign area as shown on the approved site plan is subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5) That the parking existing within the public right-of-way shall be limited to two parking spaces as shown on the approved site plan. 6) That the roof mounted air compressors shall be relocated as shown so as to screen their view from ground elevations as determined by the Inspection Department. 7) That the color of all building material, either existing or proposed, shall match those colors shown on the rendering. 110007 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Lapine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei Nair NAYS: Kluver, Tent ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #1-286-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Seymour J. Levine Architects, Inc. , for two (2) new wall signs to be located on an existing office building at 17197 N. Laurel Park Drive be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Plan for Difco prepared by Seymour J. Levine Architects, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this approval is made subject to the same conditions as set forth in Case #8911-164 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #1-287-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign on behalf of AMC Theatres for a new wall sign to be located on an existing building at 17310 N. Laurel Park Drive be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Plan for AMC Theatres prepared by Beacon Sign is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That this approval is made subject to the same conditions as set forth in Case #8910-158 by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #1-288-90 RESOLVED that letter dated January 18, 1990 from Michael Barretta of Showerman's Party Store requesting a one-year extension of Petition 89-1-8-3 by Bi-Con Construction for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to Showermans Party Store located on the northwest `o., corner of Five Mile and Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following condition: 11008 1) That approval of Petition 89-1-8-3 be extended for one year subject to the same conditions as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution #1-15-89 dated January 31, 1989. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #1-289-90 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a greenbelt landscape plan for Fox Run Estates Subdivision to be located on the east side of Levan between Schoolcraft and Five Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20 subject to the following condition: 1) That the Landscape Easement Plan #8903 for Fox Run Estates Subdivision as shown on Sheet L-1 dated 1-10-90 prepared by Michael L. Priest and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 594th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on January 30, 1990 was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Now (1/7.//;-/-7/7 eifRaymo d W. Tent, Secretary ATTEST: William LaPine, Chairman du