Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-03-27 11046 MINUTES OF THE 598th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 27, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 598th 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 60 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* Members absent: None 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 New 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 90-2-1-4 by Frank Jonna for Pentagon Properties requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from P.O. and M-1 to C-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. LaPine: Can you show us the previous appeal they had before us when they asked for C-2? Mr. Bakewell: The previous case included the corner area but that has been eliminated and another area has been included. (Mr. Bakewell pointed the area out on the map. ) Mr. LaPine: Has the total number of acres they want to rezone increased or decreased? Mr. Nagy: It has increased from 19.4 to 21.6 acres. Mr. Morrow: The irregular shape at the end of the C-2, is that because of access to the M-1? 11047 Mr. Bakewell: I think there is a drainage easement that goes through there. Mr. Nagy: There is an easement and a driveway. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, do you have any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal but they will ultimately require the petitioner to submit to their office projected sanitary sewer flows for the site as they relate to the original design criteria for the Seven Mile Road sanitary sewer system. Frank Jonna, representing Pentagon Properties: (Mr. Jonna made his presentation) The first board reiterates the existing zoning. I want to point out there is some existing C-2 on the corner, approximately 2.7 acres, that will remain. There is also roughly 7 acres of P.O. on site now that was previously zoned C-2. This area indicated here (Mr. Jonna pointed area on map) is a road that provides access to CBS Fox as well as an utility easement for a water main. The balance of this property, which is approximately 11 acres, is zoned M-l. The second board takes into consideration the entire mile and the entire 92 acres that is controlled by our group. The significant thing here is that part of our proposal would include a road that would go out to Seven Mile and connect Chestnut Hills to Seven Mile also tying in to the existing CBS Fox and the proposed new access. The next board identifies the M-1 to remain, the existing C-2 and the line of the proposed rezoned area. The next board goes through and analyzes the entire use of all the land, approximately 91.6 acres. There is 53.3 acres devoted to office use. This, in our minds, would be logical office use. We maintained the M-1 to complement the existing M-1 that exists in this area. There was also some topographic reasons Nr for the maintenance of the M-1. In this plan there would be roughly 23 acres of land devoted to commercial use and there still would be 15.2 acres devoted to M-1 use. In trying to develop a potential use of the property, it was necessary to do a little bit of site planning. Although this is preliminary, it gives you an indication of how we approached the terrain. When we originally looked at this site we did make a proposal that only looked at the corner. We felt this was not good planning and consequently looked at the entire site. We developed this plan which addressed some of the site characteristics. The site has a tremendous amount of slope back to the access road. The access road is a nice natural scenic route. This also takes advantage of the nice view that was created by the pond and puts potential M-1 building with a front that can take advantage of that. In looking at the site there is a substantial drop that would be maintained in the site trying to keep as much of this area a natural drain as possible. This area is potentially considered wetland and it would be our intention to stay out of that area and allow it to remain natural. The M-1 is across from the shipping and receiving area of CBS Fox. We have previously submitted traffic reports that we have done that indicate the commercial use would have a less detrimental effect on peak travel hours than office use. The reason this proposal has changed, our original proposal included only one major tenant and a relatively small area to be developed for small tenant use. Our research is 11048 telling us now in order to have a viable center, we need to have more square footage and anchor it with more than one anchor. This also does keep the M-1 in place and allow us the opportunity to provide that if anybody wishes to have it. Mr. McCann: You referred to 21.6 acres for C-2 and 15.1 for M-1. How much would `'`' you reserve for wetland use? My understanding is that is one of your biggest problems. Mr. Jonna: This plan did maintain the existing wetland. Some of it is incorporated in the pond. Mr. McCann: What percentage is considered wetland? Mr. Jonna: Ten to fifteen percent subject to evaluation of the DNR. We are aware there is some wetland on the site. The actual determination is done by the DNR. Mr. McCann: What percentage of the wetland area is included in the greenbelt? Mr. Jonna: I am sure we will exceed the greenbelt area. We have not done a study to look at code compliance at this time. Mr. McCann: The tenant you talked about prior to this was the Target store. Is that still your intent? Mr. Jonna: At this time Target has expressed interest in the site and is still interested. Mr. McCann: Would this project come before your project at the north end? '`► Mr. Jonna: You mean Chestnut Hills? Yes. At this point there is a greater market demand for the commercial than for office. The office market is not thriving as well as the commercial but we feel very confident that we will be able to get Phase I office buildings, which is a 300,000 square foot office building finished. Mr. McCann: You have resolved your problems with the DNR? Mr. Jonna: Yes. We have a permit from the DNR which allows us to fill five acres of wetland. Our approach is to maintain our wetlands. We would approach this site to have no net loss of wetlands in any plans that we would develop. We would maintain the existing wetlands where possible and reshape them. Mr. McCann: How many square feet of commercial space are you proposing. Mr. Jonna: This plan indicates the potential of about 246,000 square feet, which is extremely low density for that many acres. Mr. Engebretson: You mentioned that the area to the north, which is presently zoned P.O. , was previously zoned C-2. When did the zoning change from C-2 to P.O.? Mr. Jonna: Prior to our purchase of the property. It was rezoned from M-1 to C-2 when it was under control of CBS Fox. 11049 Mr. Engebretson: You do presently own this property? Mr. Jonna: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: When you purchased the property, the zoning that exists today existed when you bought it. Considering that the vast majority of `` that property is zoned for M-1, was it your intention to develop that property as M-1 in the first place? Mr. Jonna: When we originally purchased it, we saw the property as a valuable asset to our Chestnut Hills development and did not have a specific use in mind. We did a market research, which led us to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Out of curiosity, obviously that is a very substantial investment for your company to make on a speculative issue of getting rezoning to support some development that isn't permitted within the existing zoning and I am just wondering if this zoning request is not successful, would you have any interest in looking at this as an M-1 development or would you lose interest in the development of this site? Mr. Jonna: I think the fact that we show some M-1 tells you we feel there is a market for some M-1. Do we feel the site is a total M-1 site? I don't think it is feasible. We see the M-1 use as more RE. Mr. Engebretson: What is it that stimulates your interest in C-2 zoning. You mention there is an oversupply of office space throughout the City in general, but particularly in the northwest quadrant of the City, and I think we have a lot of statistical information that bears that out but there are some people that would say a similar problem fir. exists with C-1 and C-2 building space. There is a lot of C-2 zoning that is empty around the City and I am just wondering what your basis is for the development of a major piece of land where you would have the expectation of leasing this space out when others are struggling to rent their spaces, whether you are talking about the regional shopping center right down the street from this or some other little strip mall. Mr. Jonna: The first indicator was the people that have approached us and expressed an interest. They have identified it as a quality location. The retail that is in just adjacent to us down the road is one of the more highly successful retail operation of that particular chain. The fact that this gives us an opportunity to add diversity to the site, we would be putting in slightly more than 20% into retail use and still have quite a bit of space available to develop as office and M-1 and that would give us diversity in the site and would create a mixed use development. We have found that people find it appealing to be able to work and shop in the same area and that likewise this building and this area could also provide good shopping for people in the northwest quadrant of Livonia, which has not had a lot of retail development. Mr. Engebretson: You mentioned your previous traffic study concluded that there was no difficulty with traffic. I don't remember that study but I don't recall that you had an access to Seven Mile Road in the 11050 previous site plan so since that change has occurred, have you reworked the traffic numbers to consider the impact that would have on Seven Mile Road? Mr. Jonna: We always did have access to Seven Mile Road. What we did was a traffic study on peak hours. If this were 92 acres of office development, you would have the majority of users coming in at 8:00 a.m. and leaving at 5:00 p.m. and creating tremendous stress during those peak hours. By constructing a retail development you would have different peak hours of travel, later in the morning and later in the evening use that would not occur in the office development. We have not studied whether retail develops more total traffic at this point but we have identified that during peak hours retail will have less impact on the traffic during peak hours. Mr. Engebretson: You are surely aware of the comprehensive traffic study done for the City by professional outside consultants in the last year and that area of the City is projected to be in a close to overload condition at the present time. If you are not familiar with that report maybe you should get a copy of it. My final question is what are your plans for the C-2 zoned area down on the corner? It appears that you are intending to leave that as a natural area. Is that correct? Mr. Jonna: At this time we don't have a use for that piece. It does have a lot of grade change and it does have a pipe that is buried in this area. Mr. Tent: Mr. Jonna, you indicated that you conducted a market study and had numerous inquiries for the C-2. Can you share with us some of the tenants that would occupy this site if you were successful in your rezoning? ``. Mr. Jonna: The tenant I mentioned, Target. We also have a major supermarket. At this point they would prefer not to be divulged. That would be one of the major tenants. Something like this would be more towards larger tenants. We would probably have only 5% to 7% small tenants. Mr. Tent: You haven't been approached by any small tenants? Mr. Jonna: Typically it takes steel to attract that type of tenant. The larger tenant tends to do pre-leasing. Mr. Tent: Would you categorize this as strip commercial? Mr. Jonna: I would categorize this as a convenience center. It would be more of a regional center. It would have a draw of a three to five mile radius. Mr. Tent: It would be strip commercial because you will have some lesser tenants? Mr. Jonna: It would attract an open air type of tenant. Tenants that thrive in situations like this. Mr. Tent: They have done so many studies and there is some concern about strip centers and I was hoping in this area we could do something 11051 different. Do you have any intention of trying to rezone the M-1 next? Mr. Jonna: Topographically it would be pretty expensive to fill that area. I don't think at this time we would have an interest in expanding. �► Mr. Tent: Mr. Engebretson asked the question about the C-2. You have no plans for that in the future? Mr. Jonna: At this point, we would just ask that the existing zoning remain and look at it when it came to site plan. Mr. Morrow: I have more of a comment than a question. Jack inquired as to where this large portion of C-2 came from. I will ask the Planning Director to correct me if my recollection is wrong but that was rezoned, and that is one of the dangers of rezoning based on looking too much into uses getting into site plan, because my recollection is that was to be developed into a catering hall with a waiver of use and that is how the C-2 came about. Obviously the catering hall never came to pass but the C-2 was left on the map and so for the expanse of Haggerty Road, on the Livonia side, outside of the little corner, it was void of any type of commercial. That is how the C-2 got in there. It was an intended use and never came to pass. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. It was placed there to accommodate a catering hall development. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, this is 250,000 square feet. That would compare to Six Mile and Newburgh? Mr. Nagy: Yes that would be compared to the Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center at ,` Six Mile and Newburgh. Slightly larger but comparable. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Jonna, it wasn't too long ago you came before us for rezoning in this area for commercial. I guess I have to stick with what I expressed at that time. In evaluating the area, not having the high residential in this area, I realize the shop down the street brings a lot of activity. I don't feel we need this kind of commercial development at this time in this area. One of the things I hear most from our residents is their concern about our overdevelopment of commercial strips, this type of development, and I feel at this time it isn't the time and the place for this kind of zoning. It is not what I feel is the best use for this property. I want you to know what I am hearing. Mr. Morrow: The only comment I want to make is there are two things that separate Livonia from the pact. One is its residential and the other is its manufacturing. My view is to conserve as much of that as we possibly can and that is one reason I would not be in favor of changing this from an M-1 zoning to any other classification except possibly residential. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-2-1-4 closed. 11052 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was ##3-316-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 27, 1990 on Petition 90-2-1-4 by Frank Jonna for Pentagon Properties requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Haggerty Road 'v► north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 6 from P.O. and M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-2-1-4 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the area for office use. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that will generate an unacceptable level of additional vehicular traffic in the area. 3) That there is no need for additional commercial uses as are permitted by the C-2 district in this area of the City. 4) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance which is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community by the facilitation of adequate provisions for increased safety in traffic and for transportation, vehicular parking, parks, parkways, recreation, schools, public buildings, housing, light, air, water supply, sewerage, sanitation, and other public requirements that lessen congestion, disorder and danger which often occurs in unregulated municipal development. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. %;8:10 - Mr. Kluver entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-2-2-2 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold their annual Spring Carnival at Ladbroke DRC located at the southeast corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25. 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 Inspection Department which states no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have in our file a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable as long as: (1) All parking is confined to the D.R.C. property. (2) Entrance/exit is confined to the normal operating gates. Coline Broderick, member of the Jaycees, 33081 Myrna Ct. , Livonia: I am the chairperson of the carnival this year. We have traditionally held 11053 this carnival for 25 years. It will probably be the fifth year that we have held it at the DRC location. We have had it there for the past four years without any problems that I am aware of. We also have received a letter on February 23 from the Vice President of the DRC indicating it would be fine for us to hold the carnival there again this year and we feel at this time that the waiver should be `r.. approved by the Commission. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mrs. Sobolewski: Coline, is the carnival going to be the same company that you have had for several years? Ms. Broderick: Yes it is the same carnival company - Wade Shows. Mrs. Sobolewski: Then we shouldn't expect anything new or anything different? Ms. Broderick: No, the same type of carnival equipment and activities will be conducted this year as well. Mrs. Sobolewski: Same length of time? Ms. Broderick: Yes twelve days. Mrs. Sobolewski: How do you handle security within the carnival site? Ms. Broderick: We typically have the Jaycees and any other organization that is interested in coming to the carnival and maybe walking around. We usually get the Jaycee members involved in patrolling the grounds itself, insuring that no troublemakers are allowed to stay on the property. We have had good success over the last couple of years. "ftr Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you use any sort of a security guard? Ms. Broderick: The Livonia Police Reserves also come and assist us during this time. Mr. Engebretson: I trust it is safe to assume that we don't have any scheduling conflicts with other service organizations? Ms. Broderick: None at all. Mr. Engebretson: Did you have a copy of the Police Department list of recommendations that Mr. Nagy read a few minutes ago? Ms. Broderick: No. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any problems with those? Ms. Broderick: None whatsoever. Mr. Tent: Are you going to be serving beer on the premises or any type of intoxicating beverages? Ms. Broderick: No, hot dogs and ice cream. 11054 Mr. Morrow: You have already discussed the security but can you assure us you will have on site management by the Jaycees overseeing the entire operation with security as well as the carnival and all facets. Ms. Broderick: Yes. Last year we had on an average of 20 people there a day. We will make sure the grounds are secure and the premises are Nifty maintained. Mr. LaPine: You mentioned you will have auxiliary policemen there. Is that paid for by the Jaycees? There is no expense to the City? Ms. Broderick: No there is no expense to the City. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-2-2-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #3-317-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 27, 1990 on Petition 90-2-2-2 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold their annual Spring Carnival at Ladbroke DRC located at the southeast corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-2-2-2 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored on DRC property adjacent to the carnival site. Nifty 2) That the various stipulations specified in the Police Department's letter will be accepted and adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 2) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. 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 90-3-2-4 by Kamp-DiComo Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a meeting hall for the Disabled American Veterans on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and Angling Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. 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 they note that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest 11055 extent adjacent to the subject site. The dedication of Seven Mile Road should be considered as part of this petition in accordance with the City and County Master Thoroughfare Plan for Seven Mile Road. Finally, no fill may be placed within the flood plain area associated with the Upper Rouge River in conjunction with the development of the proposed parking lot area. Parking within the flood plain area would be allowed under the current zoning ordinance. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objection to this proposal contingent upon an approved city hydrant within 350 feet of the existing building. We have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient front yard setback. 2. Approximately 450' of protective wall is required on the north and east property lines where this property abuts residential property. 3. A 6' sidewalk will be required on Seven Mile Road. 4. No dumpster is indicated. 5. We were not provided with detailed landscape plans, building elevations, floor plans or a sign proposal. Therefore, these elements were not evaluated. Lastly, we have in our file a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the plan as submitted is satisfactory but they might suggest that the front parking lot be widened by an additional two feet to provide two handicapped and six regular. It is also recommended that curbing, at least nine inches in height, be provided at the spaces and drive area adjacent to the Rouge Creek. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, the wall that is proposed for the north and east elevation, would that still be needed because of the floodplain? Mr. Nagy: The two ordinances are obviously in conflict. The floodplain ordinance would prohibit any development from occurring within it. However, by operation of the zoning ordinance screen walls are required wherever parking or commercial development is adjacent to residential. Obviously there will have to be an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals and I am sure relief will be provided, which has already occurred in the adjacent properties in the area. Mr. LaPine: The letter from the Engineering Department indicated that we do not have the right-of-way. Are they going to dedicate that to the City? Mr. Nagy: They have been approached about the dedication and they are taking it under advisement. Mr. Tent: When you say under advisement, if we are prepared to act on this petition, can we put that as part of the conditions that this dedication be provided because we could go on and have a regular fire drill on this if we don't address it at this time. Mr. Nagy: The site plan submitted provides for the necessary right-of-way and I am sure they are willing to dedicate it. We cannot make that a condition of approval. It has to be a voluntary effort on their part. I cannot speak for them. Mr. Tent: We can address that? 11056 Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Dan DiComo, representing Kamp-DiComo Associates: I prepared the plans for the D.A.V. Joe Connelly is here representing the D.A.V. (Mr. DiComo made his presentation) We show the driveway coming in off Seven Mile. (Mr. DiComo pointed out parking area) There are 7 parking spaces with one handicap space, which would service our daily needs. The rest of parking is in the back area. The minimum requirement for this size of a meeting hall is 122 spaces and we have 184 parking spaces. We have left a reasonable amount of green area around the building and in front of it and we have placed the building to keep some very large pine trees. That is why the drive takes a little turn in order to save some of the pine trees. Corsi's building to the east is presently about 6 to 7 feet in front of our proposed placement of the building. Along with that and the fact that a portion of the property was zoned to C-1, we have come up with 60 feet and we would like to appeal to the ZBA for a 60 foot setback as opposed to 75 foot. We realize that it would have to meet with ZBA approval to leave the building where it presently is. We also have a detailed site plan which does show the existing trees we are saving in this area along with the rest of the proposed landscaping. The natural wooded area of the Rouge Creek would remain intact. The elevations that were given to you last week have been revised. (Mr. DiComo presented the revised elevation plans) We feel this is an enhancement as opposed to the first drawing. Mr. Tent: Mr. DiComo, are you planning any signage on the building? Any display signs, advertising, etc.? Mr. DiComo: At this point I have not been involved with any signs. I will refer your question to Mr. Connelly. `► Mr. Connelly, 32148 Camborne, Commander of D.A.V. : I would envision a sign being placed there but I don't know right now. Unless you gentlemen need to know our sign plans right now, we have no ideas for a sign right now. Mr. Tent: But you are contemplating one? Mr. Connelly: Yes. Mr. Tent: Are you going to be serving liquor here? Mr. Connelly: We will not need a liquor license. We do not intend on serving liquor. Mr. Tent: Are you going to have a catering kitchen? Mr. Connelly: We do have a kitchen and we would like to be able to cater our personal parties and also be allowed to rent the hall out for weddings, etc. Mrs. Fandrei: How close are the mature trees to your building? Mr. DiComo: Anywhere from 8 to 10 feet on the east side. On the west side about 25 feet. 11057 Mrs. Fandrei: My concern is I understand that sometimes a building built close to mature trees can destroy the roots. Do you forsee that as a possible problem? Mr. DiComo: We have the best situation for saving these mature trees, one being that the trees are quite mature and the roots go down as opposed to r.. going around and they do not have a lot of foliage until they get up to about 20 feet in height. Mrs. Sobolewski: You have Corsi's on one side. What is on the other side? Mr. DiComo: There is a residence, although the property is zoned P.S. Mrs. Sobolewski: How close to them will your building be? Mr. DiComo: About 25 feet. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is this a brick building? Mr. DiComo: Yes it is brick with a gable portion that is not brick. Mr. Tent: Mr. Connelly, I asked you about a liquor license. I don't know of any veterans' hall where they don't sell beer. How are you going to handle that. Mr. Connelly: When we rent the hall for weddings, etc. , that person will have to get a 24-hour permit from the City of Livonia. We would be allowed to do that. Mr. Tent: What about your members? \.. Mr. Connelly: There are plenty of taverns in the City. If they want an alcoholic drink, they can go wherever they want. If they want to bring in a six-pack of Pepsi, that is fine. We do not intend on selling liquor. Mr. Tent: Can you show me where the dumpster will be? Mr. DiComo: We have come up with a dumpster location after talking to the Planning Department. (Mr. DiComo pointed out dumpster location) Mr. Tent: You are going to add this to your site plan sheet? Mr. DiComo: Yes. Mr. Tent: What date is that drawing? Mr. DiComo: I just changed it today. We will use today's date. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Connelly, first of all, I hope you are successful with the ZBA. I like to see those buildings approximately in the same line. The Police Department indicated that you should change your parking in front. You only have one handicap space for your office. Is there more than one handicapped person working in the office? Mr. Connelly: We have three offices in the front. We have different service officers that have been there for years. These officers will be 11058 there to meet with the different veterans so five or six parking spaces in front, with one handicap space, would be more than adequate, I believe. That wouldn't be the main entrance. The main entrance would be in the back. Mr. Vyhnalek: It would be the main entrance for these people with difficulties. Now Mr. Connelly: Yes this is true. Mr. Vyhnalek: They would come to your offices in the front? Mr. Connelly: Right. The one handicap and six others, I believe that will be more than adequate. If you feel we need to have another handicap space, we have no problem with that. Mr. Nagy: I think the Police Department thought it was going to be the main entrance but there would be no problem to add a second handicap space in the front. Mr. LaPine: If they find they need additional handicap parking, they can go on their own and add them. Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. One is the minimum requirement. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is Corsi's going to do some food service for you? Mr. Connelly: I talked to Mr. Corsi and he said he would be more than happy to help us out. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, can Mr. Corsi use his liquor license to supply liquor to them? ``r. Mr. Nagy: He can so long as it is not for sale. Mr. Vyhnalek: If it is for their organization and they have a dinner, he can supply the food and liquor? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. DiComo, I under the area between this building and Corsi's, there is a plan to have some landscaped area that would connect to the main meeting hall. I would like to understand what your intentions are relative to how you could use that. Mr. DiComo: As shown on the east elevation plan, we are planning on having french type doors at this location. We are using the existing large trees on Corsi's property and on our property and creating, in a sense, a little outdoor court for picture taking or any type of recesses during the day. What we are doing is putting in a cedar screen fence close to Corsi's and also putting in a few evergreen type trees and flowers. Mr. Engebretson: If there were a wedding, for example, the wedding party would likely spill out into that area, which might create some type of nuisance? Mr. DiComo: It would be more like a picture court. 11059 Mr. Engebretson: I did want to mention to Mr. Connelly that if this petition is successful as it is presented here that the issue of a sign would require that if and when you wanted to put in a sign, you would have to come back to the City at that time. You needn't deal with that tonight. Ni""' Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. DiComo, one step further with the landscape plan. Is it sprinkled? Mr. DiComo: No not at this time. Mrs. Fandrei: Were you planning to? Mr. DiComo: To be honest, I have not thought about it. Mrs. Fandrei: I would recommend it and require it. Mr. DiComo: It has been the practice for most people that they do go ahead and put in an irrigation system. Mr. Tent: This is on the Engineering letter about the Seven Mile dedication. Did I understand correctly, Mr. Connelly, you are representing the D.A.V. Mr. Connelly: Yes that is correct. Mr. Tent: So if the dedication was required, would you say you are going to have any problems with the dedication of Seven Mile? Mr. Connelly: We will go along with the City for whatever we have to do to have this rezoned for us. We have tried to do everything possible. If we have to give up a portion of the property for dedication, that would be no problem. Mr. Tent: We are not asking for it. This is voluntary. From what I see, as one Commissioner, I think you have done a nice job and I think Mr. DiComo has done a nice job. Mr. LaPine: In the front of the building where your offices are, do you have a person there every day? Mr. Connelly: We have six service officers, one however, has been doing the vast majority of the work. He would likely be in just about every day. This gentleman is retired from the Veterans Administration. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-2-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #3-318-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 27, 1990 on Petition 90-3-2-4 by Kamp-DiComo Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a meeting hall for the Disabled American Veterans on property located on the north side of Seven Mile 11060 Road between Lathers Avenue and Angling Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-3-2-4 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the front yard setback and to the following additional conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 2-27-90 prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, "41m. Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Landscape Plan prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects, which shall include an underground sprinkler system, is hereby approved and the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plans prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. 4) That before the issuance of any sign permit a plan of the proposed sign shall first be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 10.03 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver: Just a comment. These people have been looking for a site in the City for a number of years and I feel an obligation, as a member of the Commission, to tell you that I am pleased you have a site and I'm confident you will be well received and you surely have been dedicated individuals and good luck to you. Mr. Engebretson: I too support the proposal and share Mr. Kluver's sentiments. I am a veteran and wish you good luck but in our haste to approve this petition, I am just wondering if we are overlooking anything. I would like to get the opinion of the department head. Are you satisfied that everything is covered John? Mr. Nagy: I am satisfied everything is covered. We will certainly see that they get the appropriate dedication documents from Engineering in connection with the road right-of-way and we will see that the plans are revised when they go to Council with regards to the irrigation system and the dumpster location. You could add if you want the condition with regard 11061 to the sign. By operation of the ordinance they would not be required to bring back the sign plan unless you desire to review the sign and then it should be an added condition. Mr. Kluver: I don't see a major problem. Mr. Morrow: In addition to all the well wishes, I also want to thank them as a Now group for their patience while this site was located. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #3-319-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 90-3-2-4 by Kamp-DiComo Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a meeting hall for the Disabled American Veterans on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and Angling Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. 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 90-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 9.05, 10.05 and 30.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding the height of buildings permitted in P.S. , C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts. Mr. LaPine: John, do you want to explain this. Mr. Nagy: This is a language amendment to a section of the Zoning Ordinance to Nor provide clarification with regard to the sections of the Zoning Ordinance that deals with building heights in commercial zones as well as in professional service office zoning. It was defined that no building could be constructed higher than 35 feet in height or contain more than two levels above grade. It is strictly a clarification rather than any other regulation. It is to clarify the section in regard to the number of stories that can be built in a commercial building in P.S. , C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-2-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #3-320-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 27, 1990 on Petition 90-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Sections 9.05, 10.05, and 30.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding the height of buildings permitted in P.S. , C-1 and C-2 and C-3 districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-2-6-2 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment will provide clear and specific language with respect to the maximum height of buildings permitted in the P.S. , C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. 11062 2) That the proposed amendment will reflect the City's policy with respect to the height of buildings permitted in office and commercial zoning districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance `r.. #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 90-2-7-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, so as to change the designation of land lying north of Joy Road and west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson: That R-7, that is where there are some condominiums scheduled to go in. Is there a sewer problem down there? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: I noticed the R-4 area is being developed. As a matter of curiosity, how is it possible to build homes and condominiums with the sewers or is it just a matter of quantity and density? Mr. Nagy: It is a storm sewer problem not a sanitary sewer problem. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-2-7-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #3-321-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on March 27, 1990 for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, the same is hereby amended by changing the designation of land lying north of Joy Road and west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan reflects the Planning Commission's policy as to the future use of the subject land area. 2) That the proposed amendment will encourage present and future owners of the subject lands to develop the property consistent with abutting land in the area. r.. 11063 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 Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and 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. LaPine, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was X13-322-90 RESOLVED that, 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 be taken from the table. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was ##3-323-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January Nom. 30, 1990 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 recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-1-1-1 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That this area of the City is currently well served by uses allowed by the C-2 district. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will permit uses which will significantly add to an already high level of vehicular traffic in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to the residential uses existing 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. 11064 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #/3-324-90 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the revised plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-8-2-39 by Louis G. Redstone Associates for waiver use `'r► approval to renovate and construct an addition to the existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 3-15-90 prepared by Roth & Associates, P.C. , Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Landscape Plan dated 3-15-90 prepared by Roth & Associates, P.C. , Architects is hereby approved and the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 3-15-90 prepared by Roth & Associates, P.C. , Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 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 #3-325-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 88-9-1-28 by David Perry for C.M.F.C. tiu. Investment Company to rezone property located on the north side of St. Martins Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to R-7 be taken from the table. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #3-326-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 1, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-28 and pursuant to a request dated March 2, 1990 from David A. Perry, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 88-9-1-28 by David Perry for C.M.F.C. Investment Company to rezone property located on the north side of St. Martins Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to R-7. 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. 11065 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #3-327-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #I543 relating to the location and height of radio towers and antennas in the City of Livonia, including therein the consideration of cellular mobile towers. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #3-328-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Levan Court Subdivision proposed to be located south of Plymouth Road and east of Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, subject to designating the storm sewer easement across the fronts of Lots 1 thru 3 as a private easement for public storm sewer for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat complies in every respect with the previously approved Preliminary Plat. 2) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been taken care of. `ft. 3) That the City Engineer recommends that the Final Plat be approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #3-329-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 596th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on February 27, 1990 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Sue Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was r.. 11066 #3-330-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 597th Regular Meeting held on March 13, 1990 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, r,. Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei ABSENT: None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #3-331-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 79-10-8-33P by Smith & Schurman Associates, Inc. for approval of all plans required by Section 13.05 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an additional parking area for an existing medical building on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Ellen Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, subject to the following condition: 1) That the Parking Plan #89.4542, as revised, dated 3-21-90 prepared by Smith & Schurman Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Engebretson has an X-1 item he wants to bring up. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the staff to revisit the office building inventory study that was done approximately one year ago relative to the sections bounded by Six and Eight Mile Roads and Haggerty. That would be the two square miles which have been the focus of a considerable amount of attention recently relative to the development of office space. The numbers have gotten confusing and I think we need to have it updated and I would ask that that be done so that we all can be dealing with a full deck and accurate numbers. The format done last time simply listed the major existing buildings as category one and the second category was buildings that were under construction and/or had approved site plans. I would like to ask that a third category be considered, that being the area that has been zoned as office space at Seven Mile Road and Newburgh that has the zoning to support office type development but does not have any existing site plan and maybe even some speculation as to what that land would support in terms of a reasonable development. I would appreciate if we could have that in the reasonably near future because we still have a controversial area under consideration and I think people outside of the Planning Commission could benefit from that. 11067 Mr. Morrow: Would it be a hardship on the staff to actually make a rendering of that because sometimes numbers and open spaces are hard to visualize? Mr. Kluver: I would like to see the actual number of square feet that we have actually approved that is out there and the amount of that square footage that is leased and the amount of that square footage that is vacant. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 598th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on March 27, 1990 was adjourned at 9:28 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Raym9� i W. Tent, Secretary ATTEST: 4,1' 617..i — William LaPine, Chairman jg ''io.