Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-04-17 11068 MINUTES OF THE 599th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 17, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 599th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann Sue Sobolewski Jack Engebretson Donald Vyhnalek Brenda Lee Fandrei Members absent: William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, were also present. Mr. Engebretson 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 90-3-1-5 by Mid-Plaza Associates requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 from P.S. to C-1. Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Tent: Mr. Shane, can you point out on your map the Strong property. That is supposed to be located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Grandon and Joy Road in the southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Shane: The property owned by Mr. Strong? Mr. Tent: Yes. There was a petition before us at the same time that Mr. Borin's was before us last year. This was a waiver use to utilize an existing building for general offices. Mr. Shane: That is the building in question. It is part of this commercial zoning. About 1600 square feet is zoned professional service and it was on that particular property that the petition for waiver use approval had reference. Mr. Tent: This is all one and the same piece of property? 11069 Mr. Shane: Yes. Mr. Nagy: Your petitioner owns the building and that is Mr. Borin. Mr. Truman Strong's property is at the intersection of Grandon Avenue and Middlebelt Road to the north. "New Mr. Shane: There were two petitions at the same time last year. Mr. Tent: I wanted to identify the locations of the properties. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from Robert Rizzo of 9039 Middlebelt stating he is in support of the rezoning. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, can you tell us where Mr. Rizzo resides relative to this property? Mr. Nagy: He resides on the west side of Middlebelt Road almost opposite the property. Melvin Borin, 27300 Franklin Road, Southfield, Petitioner: I am the managing partner of Mid-Plaza Associates. For the record, on this property we have constructed a building which is 6600 square feet. We completed construction approximately March of last year. Eighteen hundred feet of this building, at the north end, is zoned P.S. We thought in constructing, at the time, that we would have a viable project so we would go ahead and do 6600 feet. We thought it would be a nicer project. We have struggled with it for a year and we feel that we are definitely on the upswing in this area. We did have difficulties in leasing. There are extreme difficulties in leasing P.S. in this area. Our C-1 is coming along fine. We have one more C-1 unit, which is 960 feet so from our point of view, in terms of management and leasing, we have our problems. In dealing with the City on the building, I have had comments from the various departments that they felt they would like to see this building as one zoning. It does create certain problems in administration for the City too. There is another problem that comes up that I know people will say "you should have known" but there are things that come up and you try to do the best you can do. There is a situation here where the signage, the fact that the 1800 feet, we strictly view this as one tenant. We do not plan to divide it. It is the way it is laid out. We have had some interest from some tenants that would fall under P.S. One was an insurance company. One of the reasons they didn't take it was they are restricted because they are one tenant. The ordinance is the more tenants you have, the bigger the sign. We are only allowed a 10 square foot sign on this P.S. zoning. If it was C-1, the tenant would be able to put up a 30 square foot sign, which would be congruent with the other signs and they would look nicer. So we are going to have another problem. Eventually we are going to get another tenant and they will have to have a little sign there as opposed to a bigger sign. These are the reasons we are here. We would really appreciate your support in going to the Council on this rezoning. I know it means a lot to have your support so I am appealing for your support tonight on this rezoning based on the items I just .,` commented on. 11070 Mr. Tent: Mr. Borin, you were before us on September 20, 1988 when you went through with the initial petition and at that time you indicated that you had, for the portion that you have in question today, a travel agency going in. hr. Mr. Borin: That is not correct. You have me mixed up with Mr. Strong. Mr. Tent: He petitioned after that. He followed your petition. I asked Mr. Strong you indicated you were going to have a travel agent for a tenant, does Mr. Borin know about it? He said I haven't met Mr. Borin but I have a signed contract with a travel agent. During our pre-study we were talking about it and indications were that you did have a travel agent but he moved down the street. I want that clarified. Did you or did you not have a travel agent? Mr. Borin: No I did not have a travel agent. Mr. Tent: That is in the records I have from that meeting and I just want to clarify that point. That is why I went along with that to allow that part to be P.S. so you could incorporate the travel agency. Mr. Borin: You are talking about another P.S. I came for waiver use because Livonia's professional service says you have to be a professional service you can't have general office. I just wanted to have it if a travel agency or insurance company wants to lease. Mr. Tent: At that time it was a transition between the P.S. and the balance of the property and that is why that section was the ending of the P.S. to separate the two zoning classifications. Mr. Borin: I want C-1 not C-2. I have lost a lot of tenants. I am glad you r"""" have it but there is a big difference between C-2 and C-1. A print shop came to me recently and that is C-2 and I am very careful to point out to the tenants to call the City, if I am not sure, and check but it still certainly opens up the classification. I have been approached by a major oil company for a type of showroom. This tenant is a substantial tenant. Of course, right now I couldn't have them there. They need another two weeks. This is a major company and I think it would be another good additional tenant. I think I have done some good for that part of the City. I have a bakery in there now and a company out of Cleveland that manufactures windows that has a showroom. One of the reasons they looked in that area, their manager is from Livonia. I have a lot of vested interest in that area and I just want to have more flexibility. Mr. Tent: I appreciate where you are coming from. This is a competitive market. We have an awful lot of C-1 and C-2 zoning with the City and a lot of it is vacant. It takes a smart manager to go ahead and bring in people. There is a lot of competition. We have an awful lot of C-1, which is located in the same general area and people are still not leasing those places. There is a lot of business property in the City that is vacant and they are all looking for a deal to get into a place so if you are having trouble leasing your places, that is something the City can't help you with. 11071 Mr. Borin: I own other buildings in Livonia. I have always done a nice job. This is 1800 feet. There has got to be a difference between 5 acres or 15,000 feet. I am asking to change 1800 feet and make my whole project C-1 instead of this present split zoning. I even had the feeling that the Planning Department favors this. It didn't N.. come out but that is what they indicated to me. Mr. Tent: But you have to get the Commissioners to agree. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you go over what businesses you have in your store right now. Mr. Borin: A bakery, a window place that has two stores and a pizza carry-out business. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have one vacancy? Mr. Borin: One more 960 C-1 square feet vacancy, plus the 1800 square feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe when we did that we wanted to buffer that property to the north so it would not continue being C-1. Most of your property was C-1 and we put the P.S. there because we didn't want to expand all the way up to Grandon Avenue. That was the logic we had back two years ago. We didn't want it to expand. I looked at the property a week ago. I can see your point. That has been vacant for a year. It is not helping the City any and of course, it is not helping you financially but we don't like to see vacant buildings. You may have a good possibility of a tenant for C-1? Mr. Borin: Oh sure. I would have a good possibility if it was C-1. I had a computer company. That is a prime space. In fact, the window company would have loved that corner but it wasn't zoned properly. I have held the line. I have really tried. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, as far as parking would there be any difference between the C-1 and P.S.? Mr. Nagy: The C-1 requires a higher number of parking spaces. Mr. Vyhnalek: H, would he have enough space if this would go C-1? Mr. Shane: I believe he does. The difference would be only minimal. Mr. Borin: We have land in the rear. We have the best parking along Middlebelt. We have 17 spaces in front and 22 spaces in the rear plus 3/4 of an acre of vacant land in the rear. Mr. Vyhnalek: We want to preserve that for the neighbors in the back so you wouldn't be too close. Mr. Engebretson: Did you own this property when that split zoning occurred? Mr. Borin: I rezoned 80 feet of the C-1. There was an old pre-war house and I was doing the City and myself a favor by purchasing it and tearing down the house. When I came in here the buffer issue became a serious issue. I came in the same night as Mr. Strong who had built on the corner of Grandon and that night there were a lot of 11072 people here on the Grandon issue who were afraid of traffic coming on Grandon and I got objections that night. Tonight I think the people realize it is not hurting them. But yes I purchased that lot. Noe. Mr. Engebretson: I was wondering if you were the owner of the property when the split zoning occurred and if you agreed to that P.S. reluctantly? Mr. Borin: I think reluctantly. I talked to Mr. Nagy about it and I thought it would be a nice project to build a bigger building. It would look nicer. I wanted that house out of there. It was old. I don't know what they would have done with it. So by getting rid of the house I thought I did good. Mr. Engebretson: I understand. I think the split zoning may have had some appeal at the time but I am not so sure it is still logical. You mentioned the land at the rear of the building. I would like to encourage you to get your land cleaned up back there. There are a lot of McDonalds bags and trash laying around and there are residences that border that property. I think that would make you a good neighbor. Mr. Borin: There is a reason for it. We are going to straighten it up. There is a drainage problem that will be straightened out. Dan Tinney, 9024 Middlebelt: I am Mr. Borin's neighbor. I own the house next door. It is a rental. I have a few things to say. I am opposed to the rezoning but let me finish this because it appears I am trying to give Mr. Borin a black eye and I am not trying to do that. I like to work with Mr. Borin. I am opposed to the rezoning because it would allow a C-1 business to operate late hours next to `�•► my house. This would create more noise, litter and loitering. The pizza delivery people continually squeal out of the lot, for example. It is kind of an irritant for my tenants. The litter also blows daily under the fence from the plaza. There is also continually late night parties of teenagers, which will only get worse when school gets out in June. If there were a brick wall, however, I would have no problem with the rezoning. I have some pictures of the property behind my property there and a letter from the tenant. (Mr. Tinney presented the pictures to the Commission) I just wanted to comment that Mr. Borin's property is attractive. I am just concerned I have gone through three tenants in the last year. I would like to keep the house occupied. I have put about $15,000 into the house, new driveway, new windows, new garage door, etc. in the last year. Mrs. Fandrei: Do the teenagers congregate on the north end of this petitioner's property? Mr. Tinney: Directly next to the fence. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you suppose if this were to be occupied that might eliminate that particular problem? Mr. Tinney: It would depend on the type of business. It would be if it were a business that would chase away the teenagers but it would be a disadvantage if it were encouraging them to appear. 11073 Mrs. Fandrei: I would suppose that it would be more likely they would not congregate if it is being occupied. Mr. Tent: I have a question for Mr. Nagy. This concerns the things we are talking about now. This also probably pertains to other requirements of the City too. Mr. Tinney indicated about the pizza delivery and the noise. We have ordinances and in many cases we have gone ahead and indicated a restriction in the waiver use that they would maintain the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. What can be done with this particular nuisance, if there is a nuisance? Would Inspection go over there and police this up? Mr. Nagy: To answer your question, first of all pizza carry-outs are not waiver uses. They are permitted by right within the C-1 zoning so this Commission never had a waiver use but certainly the Ordinance Enforcement Division is responsible for policing the property both in terms of noise, litering, congregation of people etc. , so it would be a matter that would be appropriately before the Inspection Department. We will immediately call them tomorrow to make sure they inspect the property. Mr. McCann: If we rezone this, it is my understanding it is a wood slab fence between the two properties. With this petition going to C-1, isn't it correct he would have to put up a brick wall or a concrete wall? Mr. Nagy: Even the P.S. zoning required a wall. Any non-residential zoning requires a wall so there was a wall required. Apparently he went to ZBA and was granted relief. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Borin, do you in fact have a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Borin: Yes. In two weeks we are going to that Board again to be reviewed. We have a waiver on that north wall. The last time we went to ZBA we were required to put, at extreme cost, a brick wall on the church side and on the other side. The reason we didn't want a wall here because it looked like in the future if it got rezoned, it would look nicer to have it open. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Borin, the wall doesn't appear to be in good repair. Mr. Borin: That is going to be repaired. Mr. Tinney: It hasn't been maintained since it was put up. That is my concern. Mr. Borin: I asked him why he didn't call me. Mrs. Fandrei• Mr. Tinney, you may want to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. McCann: To Mr. Nagy. Can we condition the change of zoning based on the brick wall being put up? Mr. Nagy: No you can't condition it but we can send a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals indicating after we heard the case we recommend that a wall be, in fact, constructed. 11074 Mr. McCann: Mr. Borin, as a condition of getting your C-1 zoning, would you stipulate to having a brick wall put up on that north side? Mr. Borin: That is a hardship. We have already spent $20,000 on a wall at the rear. Mr. McCann: You don't want to conform to the ordinance? Mr. Borin: I can't say I don't want to do it. Mike Kyeltyka, 9026 Fremont: I have lived in the neighborhood for 14 years. If that one section of the building of 1800 square feet would go to C-1, I wouldn't object to it going to C-1. I would rather see it occupied than vacant as it has been for the last year. As for the additional noise it may create, that would depend on the type of business they may put in there. The Seven-Eleven and the pizza parlor that is over there, yes it does create noise and twice last year the pizza parlor did get a little noisy and a quick call over to the pizza parlor and in ten seconds the noise diminished. I told them I lived in the neighborhood and would you please keep it quiet. They stopped the rowdiness. Before the building was even in there, the Seven-Eleven was there and a lot of noise came from the Seven-Eleven. You can't blame just the pizza parlor for all the noise. It is a combination of the two and both times that I did have a problem, it was taken care of so I don't forsee any problems taking the whole building and making it C-1. I would rather see it C-1 if it brings in more business, than see that back end vacant. Mr. Engebretson: Before we close the public hearing, I would like to give you one more opportunity to address the issue of a wall. It seems that your neighbors, and I am reading certainly a number of the members of the Planning Commission, feel supportive of your proposal if you were to have a wall that complied with the ordinance as compared to a wall that required a waiver use that is not only mandatory now but according to a neighbor has been in bad repair from the beginning. How do you feel about the offer to put in that concrete wall. Mr. Borin: The first thing that comes to mind, I want to get together with Mr. Tinney and go over all the possibilities and try to correct everything. I have talked to the police a number of times about the teenage problem. I don't want any kids on the property. I don't want any drinking. That is a Livonia teenage problem. I don't encourage it. We put up "no loitering" signs today. The police say they will ticket. It is a police problem. I hope we can work it out. I have to really talk it over with the partnership. I want to do what is right. Mr. Engebretson: I don't think you really answered the question Mr. Borin. Mr. Borin: I would rather not put the wall up at the moment. Mr. Tent: You indicated you came to Livonia because it is quite a City and there is a chance for a person to make some dollars. Now we are 11075 asking you to invest back into our City. We feel a brick wall is necessary and you indicated you would do anything to go ahead and get your zoning because you have tenants standing in line. I see no reason why you can't go ahead and say I'm going to meet the ordinance and I'm going to take care of that gentleman over there, because we have other places in the City where they are going to slaw come in the same way and cry crocodile tears, indicating the same thing that they can't afford it. I want you to know where I stand. Mr. Borin: It is not just economical. It will block the view, etc. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-1-5 closed. Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to make a tabling resolution on the fact that we should check further into the wall. I am in favor of it but I want the wall up. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #4-332-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 17, 1990 on Petition 90-3-1-5 by Mid-Plaza Associates requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 from P.S. to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-3-1-5 until May 8, 1990. 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. err. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Tent ABSENT: LaPine, Morrow, Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei: May we send a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals expressing our concern? Mr. Engebretson: We certainly can and we can incorporate the concern of the next door neighbor as well and incorporate the remarks relative to the repair of this fence, which is not good. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-3-1-8 by United Construction Inc. requesting to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-1. Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 11076 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. In connection with the development of the site, however, they may require the developer to post cash bonds with the City to guarantee the reconstruction of Sunset Avenue, as may be necessary, as it relates to construction traffic being placed on this newly `aar constructed asphalt street. They state consideration should also be given at this time to the disposition of the future extension of Morlock Avenue as it relates to development of the subject site. We have also received a letter from Sharon and Richard Wagner of 20417 Fremont stating they are opposed to this rezoning because the 60 foot lots are not compatible to the 1/2 acre lots existing in the neighborhood. They also do not approve of omitting 50 feet from the rezoning. They further state their support goes to the neighbors resisting this petition. Also in our file is a letter from Shirley A. Miller of 20150 Sunset, stating she would like to go on record in opposition of this petition. She states that in her opinion a rezoning from RUFA to R-1 would not be beneficial to the surrounding properties, especially on Sunset and Milburn where lots are generally of 1/2 acre or more in size. Lastly, we have received a petition signed by 82 residents stating their opposition to this rezoning proposal. They state RUFA 1/2 acre lots are more compatible to the zoning in this area. Joe Dettore, 29468 Bobrich: I am President of United Construction. I have tried to find some uses for this property and as far as putting single family homes, big homes in the $150,000 bracket, I don't believe we could sell them in this area. There are apartments on the west and M-1 on the north. Therefore, what I propose I think would be ideal for that piece of property. I don't know what else I could use that for. I don't have a 60 foot entrance. I will only have a 30 `or foot entrance. I wanted to put a private road through there. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Dettore, how many homes were you thinking of putting in this property? Mr. Dettore: We were thinking of putting in 21 units. Two bedrooms and two baths. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the price range? Mr. Dettore: Close to $100,000. Mr. Vyhnalek: That property to the west of you, that is identical in size, is owned by the owner of the apartment houses. Is that true? Mr. Dettore: That is correct. Mr. Vyhnalek: He will not sell it? Mr. Dettore: He will not sell. I have made quite a few attempts to buy it. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is understandable. It is a buffer for him. I can understand where he is coming from but, as one Commissioner, it is tough to put in 60 foot R-1 lots next to people who have a half an acre. 11077 You would have 21 homes and there are only 9 homes across the street with twice as much land. I know you are trying to do something with your property. Mr. Dettore: If I had a 60 foot street, I could put in possibly 14 units in there but I can't have a dedicated street. I don't have enough '4410" property. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is the problem. You don't have enough property. How long have you owned this property? Mr. Dettore: About 25 years. Mr. Vyhnalek: There is no chance of making it R-3 or R-5, just bigger pieces of property? Mr. Dettore: It wouldn't be feasible. Its not like being around Newburgh. Mr. Vyhnalek: Just give the people more land. The people across the street from you have half an acre. If you would have less homes and bigger lots, they wouldn't have to be $150,000 homes. Mr. Dettore: If you put utilities in, it makes it feasible but to put a roadway through there and just put houses on one side, wouldn't make it feasible. Mr. Vyhnalek: I can see your point but I think you have a problem. Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: We are opposed to this plan that he has for the R-1 lots. One-half acre lots are more compatible with what we have. There are a few questions I would like to ask Mr. Dettore. +.r. On January 3, 1986 the Zoning Board told you to erect a wall at the 300 foot line. That wall has not gone up. Another thing you are saving 60 feet of property there. What are you saving it for? Mr. Dettore: I don't own that property. L and P Investment owns it. Mr. Engebretson: Can you tell us who that investment company is and when you sold that land to them? Mr. Dettore: About 1 1/2 years ago. L and P Investment is Larry Brytle and Paul Beal, I think. Mr. Engebretson: You have no further interest in that property? Mr. Dettore: I have no further interest in that property. Mrs. Sullivan: Did you tell that man he was buying residential property? Mr. Dettore: I told him 40 feet in back is RUF. It is in the contract. Mrs. Sullivan: There are a lot of people that come down our street and they are surprised how nice our street is because of the large lots and they didn't know there were areas in Livonia like this and we are for 11078 keeping the 1/2 acre lots. I turned in a petition with about 90 names and that isn't all the people in the area because I couldn't get everybody home. Mr. Tent: Mrs. Sullivan, I would like to follow up on that 300 foot fence line. Is that the piece he sold. Nor Mrs. Sullivan: He sold that piece behind where the brick wall is supposed to go. Mr. Tent: So actually the person who bought that, it would be his obligation to put that wall up. I am just wondering if that was why he got rid of the 50 feet. Mr. Dettore: We were never told to put a wall behind the property under discussion. It was next door to the west. That was a piece of property purchased about ten years later. The back fence was already there so they didn't do anything about it. They didn't insist that we put a wall on the United Construction property. The piece that we bought next door that is where they wanted the wall. Mr. Engebretson: We can't iron these problems out tonight but I guess John can get this organized by the next meeting and if we do something tonight that is not appropriate, we will rescind it. Mrs. Sullivan: We feel that many cars coming onto Sunset, the road can't take it. Shirley Miller, 20150 Sunset: I am very much opposed to this being I live on Sunset and being I own one of the 1/2 acre lots. I find it hard to believe that you could not sell 1/2 acre lots out of that property. That is a very desirable area right now in Livonia. Any vacant lot is being built on. It is a very hot area right now. The cluster `ow homes that he is proposing to go in would be 21 families, at least 2 cars per family. That would be 42 extra cars. He has no plans on going out onto Eight Mile. He wants to use solely Sunset. We just had a street improvement last year. Mrs. Karakula, 30880 Fargo: I am opposed to this, and nobody else has brought this up, but we don't have sidewalks in our area and the children play in the street and with that much traffic with that many homes being built, I think it would not be very good at all. When we received these letters it said one-family residential homes. I wouldn't have known unless I signed the petition that the lady brought over the other day that these were cluster homes not as I would determine single family homes. Mr. Engebretson: If I may address that issue and put your mind at rest. There is nothing going on here that is deceptive. This is a two step process. The first step is to go through the zoning and the second step, relative to the construction of the multi family condominium type use, would be a waiver use that would come as a separate public hearing so you would have been notified of that as well if you had been notified about this hearing. John Mifsud, 20179 Sunset: I am better than two acres directly behind this. I don't know what they are planning on doing, coming across the front lawn? I don't know where his road is. I have a suggestion. Why 11079 doesn't he split this all up and see what the cost is and we will all give him a couple of dollars. I don't see the guy losing his shirt on this either but he looks like he is landlocked to me. Mr. Tent: I would like to put this as part of the minutes. I would like to refer John Nagy to the minutes of June 3, 1986, the appeal case `%m" #8104-40. That wall was required and it went to the ZBA and they denied their request that the greenbelt be substituted for the masonry wall. I would like to have you look into this and come up with an answer. Could you check into this? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-1-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #4-333-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-3-1-8 by United Construction Inc. requesting to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-3-1-8 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning provides for lot sizes which are inconsistent with adjacent existing residential lots in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area. __ 3) That this area is already currently well served by uses which may be allowed in the proposed zoning district. 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. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-3-2-6 by Dembs Roth Construction requesting waiver use approval to operate a moving and storage business with outdoor storage of truck trailers on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Shane presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Shane how do you enter and exit that piece of property? Mr. Shane: From the eastbound service drive. Mrs. Sobolewski: From the front? Mr. Shane: Yes. 11080 Mrs. Sobolewski: Is that fenced in? Mr. Shane: The back portion is fenced in. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this petition. We have also `4411 received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating they have no objections, however, if storage is to exceed 12 feet in height, rack sprinkler protection will be required and all N.F.P.A. 231C Standards will apply. We also have in our file a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable. However, they recommend that the first two parking spaces located on the west side of the building be eliminated. This would permit the trucks an easier path to transit along the drive and reduce the chance of parking lot accidents. Also in our file is a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Leonard Gyselinck, 27300 W. 11 Mile, Southfield: I am with the Dembs Roth Group. Currently we have the opportunity to relocate an existing Livonia tenant, that being North American Van Lines. Currently they are located at 13500 Ashurst Court, which would be between Stark and Wayne Road off of Schoolcraft. They are currently in a facility consisting of 28,800 square feet. On that particular site they have 20 cars, 13 truck parking and 3 truck wells for storage and parking of trucks for a total of 16 trucks. An additional tenant of ours has need for their particular building. Their lease is another 18 months to 2 year lease in the existing facility. If we can relocate them to this proposed facility, which was once held by Taylor Piping or Gage Pipe Manufacturing Company, we can achieve two things. Number one, we can occupy a vacant building. Number `. two, we can increase the volume for the moving company. The new building would be 47,000 square feet. It would facilitate 48 cars. It would handle 27 trucks and it would have a 3 truck truckwell. It should also be noted that in the current location at 13500 Ashust Court, most of the truck storage, truck maneuvering and truck visibility is from the front of the building. At the new location all of the truck storage, loading and parking would be in the rear. It would face the P.L. , which would be the public land to the rear and it would be totally enclosed by fencing. The intent of their operation is not to store trucks but to store merchandise in the building. The trucks are used to transfer the furniture and the items in the building from one destination to the other. It is not meant to be a trucking storage facility. I have copies of the existing building and I have photos of the proposed building showing where the parking is if you would like to see them. (Mr. Gyselinck passed the photos to the Commissioners) Regardless of our tenants in that building, Dembs Roth takes pride in the buildings that we have in Livonia and the upkeep of the buildings. We are undergoing a major exterior renovation to that project at this time which involves new landscaping, new irrigation, repainting of the exterior of the building totally, repairing and patching of the asphalt as required. Some of the work has begun. We have reviewed this with the Building Department. We will proceed with the renovations as weather 11081 permits. Their existing building, which is located on Ashurst Court, is currently a non-conforming use for a moving and storage facility, which was brought before the Board and approved. If we are allowed to move them out of that building at this time into this facility, we have already applied for and will proceed with *ft, upgrading that building also to include a fire protection system and other exterior maintenance items that we normally perform at the end of tenant move out. The company that would be moving into their facility is a conforming use to that district and again parking with building and zoning would conform to the appropriate uses in that area. Mr. McCann: He did a nice job. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are there any lights in the back for the trucks that are parked there overnight? Mr. Gyselinck: Currently there are what they call wall packs, sodium vapor lights that were existing to the building and yes they are in the back of the building. Mr. Vyhnalek: Our notes indicate that you are going to have parking for 30 trucks and trailers that are 10 feet by 60 feet. Mr. Gyselinck: That is correct. It has the capability for 30. Our current need is not that many. Mr. Vyhnalek: On the diagram it shows them all lined up nice and neat towards the P.L. property. How are you going to mark that if it is not paved? Mr. Gyselinck: What they do, especially in the winter, they have to have power for their diesels and they will be getting one power outlet per double truck area. So in order to have power for their trucks they will have to line up close to get the power to their particular vehicle. Normally what we do is we provide a power pole along the fence line and that allows the trucks to plug in to keep their diesels warm during the winter months. In terms of marking or indicating on the pavement, we can indicate at the pavement line in the front of the asphalt if there are heavy double lines indicating the double area for backing in and storage of the trailers. You will note that there is a 123 feet of paving and 110 feet of non-paved surface. What that is really doing is saying that there is plenty of room for them to put the trucks in piggyback and still maneuver in front. We did not chose to jam the site. We wanted to have easy access in and out and keep all their storage in the back. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to use this non-paved area for storage? Mr. Gyselinck: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is that, crushed rock? Mr. Gyselinck: That is 22a gravel crushed topping and 3 inch crushed lime stone base. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is a solid base. They will not get stuck in there? `rr.. 11082 Mr. Gyselinck: This is a crushed base for most asphalt parking areas. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have plans in the future to asphalt? Mr. Gyselinck: If they require the asphalt, we could top over. Our immediate fir.• plans are not to asphalt. Mr. Vyhnalek: We have an ordinance. Within a two-year period we will require, if you are going to stay there, you to asphalt your parking lot and that will probably be one of the conditions. I have one other question. You bought this property? Mr. Gyselinck: No. We have been the original owners. Mr. Vyhnalek: It was leased out? Mr. Gyselinck: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: These three truckwells. Do you park trucks in them overnight? Mr. Gyselinck: When a truck comes in, if a well is empty and he is going to be loading in the morning, he will park in the well. If the well is full, he will load or park in other areas. They will designate certain trucks to use the well so they can unload them first so he may not be the first truck in to use the well. Mr. Vyhnalek: I understand that. The parking of your cars for your employees, is that on the west side? Mr. Gyselinck: The parking for the employees will predominately be in the rear, which will be the truck drivers. They will park their cars in the "4011' rear of the building. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many employees do you have? Mr. Gyselinck: There are going to be approximately 20 employees, which would include mechanics and office personnel. Mr. Vyhnalek: The truck drivers, once they come in, will leave their cars for maybe 3 or 4 days? Mr. Gyselinck: That would be only the local truck drivers, which there are five. The rest are from the corporate office, which will come in a truck and leave with the truck or use one of the company vehicles. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you understand what the Police recommended that you take the two parking spaces off and put them in the front? Mr. Gyselinck: We have no problem with that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-2-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was 11083 #4-334-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 17, 1990 on Petition 90-3-2-6 by Dembs Roth Construction requesting waiver use approval to operate a moving and storage business with outdoor storage of truck trailers on property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington Road and Hubbard Avenue in the `vr. Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-3-2-6 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 3-12-90 prepared by Dembs Roth Group which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That there shall be no more than thirty (30) trucks or trailers parked or stored on the site (outside of the building) at any one time. 3) That the two handicapped spaces marked on the plan be moved to the front per the Police Department letter. 4) That the parking lot in the rear be reviewed for possible blacktopping in two years. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, announced 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 Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #4-335-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 598th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held on March 27, 1990 are approved. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was 11084 #4-336-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table to May 8, 1990 the Sign Permit Application by Burn Sign Company for Star Furniture to erect a new wall sign located at 33500 Seven Mile Road. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing \r resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #4-337-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan for Riverside Roller Skating Arena located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan and Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Landscape Plan dated June 1989, as revised, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 2) That an underground sprinkler system shall be installed. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #4-338-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table the proposal by the Embassy Suites Hotel to install additional site and building lighting units until date uncertain. _u._ A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Sobolewski, Engeretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Tent ABSENT: LaPine, Morrow, Kluver Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #4-339-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-3-8-3 by Belle Construction Co. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a 78 unit condominium housing project located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in Section 31, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 4/13/90, as revised, prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plans dated 3/27/90, as revised, marked Sheet 3 through Sheet 6 prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. , Architects, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. 11085 3) That the Landscape Plan, Sheets SLP and Ll, dated 4/13/90 prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. , Architects, is hereby approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. ",,. 4) That an underground sprinkler system shall be installed so as to provide for proper irrigation of the landscaping. 5) That the petitioner shall meet with the City of Livonia Police Department to determine what sidewalks will be necessary for the project. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was ##4-340-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 84-6-2-22 by Windmill Fruit Market requesting approval of all plans required by Section 19.06e(1) of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install an outdoor compactor/dumpster on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Wayne Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated March, 1990 prepared by Windmill Fruit Market showing the location of the proposed compaction facility which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the proposed compaction facility as detailed on a brochure from ,` McClain Industries, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 599th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on April 17, 1990 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. CITY P NING COMMISSION a ymond// Tent, Secretary ATTEST: 7662/1.6, ;'1,', ,7/h Ja k Engebetson, Vice Chairman jg 41.1.