HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-05-08 11086
MINUTES OF THE 600th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 8, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 600th 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 35 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
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 90-3-1-6 by
the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the
north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh Road and Horton Avenue in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to R-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
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. The
Planning Department also received a phone call from Roger Kline,
owner of Lot 5, who resides at 37434 Ann Arbor Trail stating his
objection to this petition. He stated he has been paying
commercial taxes on that property for years and had hoped to sell
it one day to a business. He further stated he thinks R-1 zoning
is inappropriate for that corner because who would want to build a
home at Ann Arbor Trail and Newburgh. We also have in our file a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to this
petition, however they do maintain overhead lines on this property
that would conflict with any construction.
11087
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, perhaps you can answer this. The homeowner from Elk
Rapids, he said Lot 5 was his. Could a viable C-1 commercial be
put on that lot?
_., Mr. Nagy: Not on the individual lot by itself.
Mr. Morrow: It would require more of a joint venture?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is my opinion.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Since none of these lots do conform to R-1, if they did conform,
how many lots could be put there?
Mr. Nagy: We did a sketch in the office, which would require a combination or
redivision of the property, but theoretically you could get
approximately 9 residential lots.
Mrs. Fandrei: Is there any plan in the near future to widen Newburgh Road or Ann
Arbor Trail in that area?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. What actually precipitated this rezoning, when the City of
Livonia acquired the right-of-way for Newburgh Road to provide for
its future widening to five lanes, the City had acquired, within
the subject area, Lots 1, 2 and 3, which are vacant. In addition,
Lot 8a is owned by the City of Livonia and that property was
recently sold to an adjoining lot owner to the north and it was
upon examination of this property owner's request to purchase the
subject area that caused the City and ultimately the Planning
Commission to reevaluate the zoning of that area for the
appropriateness of a commercial development. Since the lot owner
°�.. of 7a wanted to expand and use it for residential purposes, it was
thought at that time that possibly we should study that and see if
the whole area should be used residentially or commercially. If
the City felt that Lots 1, 2 and 3 should have residential
development, we should look at the larger area and see whether or
not the overall area should be continued to be developed
commercially or residentially. To answer your question, yes there
is a plan to widen Newburgh Road. The road hopefully will be
expanded in the 1991 construction season.
Mark Smith, 37424 Ann Arbor Trail: I think I have to agree with Mr. Kline, the
owner of Lot 5. I have been here and checked out a few things and
my understanding is there is also a plan to widen Ann Arbor Trail
in the future. I have been told they are taking 27 feet off my
front yard. Once they turn that into a four or five lane road, I
can't forsee single family homes in there.
Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Smith. Do you live in that area Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith: Yes I live at 37424 Ann Arbor Trail, Lot 4.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-1-6 closed.
11088
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-341-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
'r, 1990 on Petition 90-3-1-6 by the City Planning Commission proposing to
rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh Road and Horton Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from
C-1 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-3-1-6 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are
compatible to the adjacent residential uses in the area.
2) That this general area is currently well served with commercial type
uses.
3) That none of the effected lots are currently used for commercial
purposes.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will remove the non-conforming
status of the two residences currently located within the affected
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.
`r.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-3-1-7 by
the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located west
of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and Edward Hines Drive in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from C-2 to P.S.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine: I have one question. At one time it was all one parcel and the
state bought that one section and tried to buy the other to put the
road through and apparently it hasn't been finalized yet. It's in
comdemnation right now, is that correct?
Mr. Bakewell: That is my understanding.
Mr. Nagy: It was a county project rather than the state.
Mr. LaPine: Any correspondence Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this petition. We have also received a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition however they do maintain overhead lines on this property
that would conflict with any construction. Lastly, we have in our
No. file a letter from Wayne County Department of Public Services
11089
stating they are in support of this change in zoning because they
feel the P.S. classification is not as intrusive to the adjacent
park lands as the present C-2 zoning is. They further state the
Parks Division petitioned the Livonia Planning Commission to place
these lots on the Master Open Space Plan in that this interesection
has a key placement as the entryway into the Middle Rouge Parkway
and any efforts the City of Livonia could extend to the Wayne
County Park System in their struggle to preseve the continuity of
the Middle Rouge Parkway and appropriate uses of adjacent land
development is greatly appreciated.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, since the objective here is to ultimately see the
County acquire this land and make it part of the park system, I
guess I am wondering why we are moving from commercial to
professional service when, in fact, the ultimate objective would be
to make it public land.
Mr. Nagy: We have, as the letter pointed out, already designated this area
for park purposes. However, the zoning still remains C-2 and there
is some struggle now going on within the County to acquire this, so
the zoning is only in anticipation that may prove fruitless on the
part of the County so we feel that perhaps we should have a more
appropriate zoning classification as an interim use to try to avoid
potential traffic conflicts and traffic congestion in the area.
Hopefully this is an unnecessary intermediate step but it is in
anticipation of an unlikely potential adverse effect on the part of
the County and we at least want to have a more sympathetic zoning
classification in the area.
Allen Green, Attorney for Norm Newman, owner of property in question: We were a
little bit at a disadvantage because other than getting the notice
in the mail of the proposed rezoning, we had no idea of what the
potential reasons were. We object to the rezoning for many
reasons. The property in question is a fairly unique two parcels
that has been split up. It is very difficult to use that parcel of
property. We have had discussions with various commercial users
for the property. There are no office users for the property. We
are a little surprised that the City is considering rezoning this
to an office type use when for example yesterday in Crain's the
Assistant Planning Director said we have far too much office
already and we have too much capacity and goes on to describe that
in great detail. The land has been zoned for C-2 for sometime. It
is shown on the Master Plan as C-2. It is shown on the 1990
version of the Master Plan as C-2. Its true that back in 1986 the
Planning Commission recommended that the Master Park Plan be
amended to include this property as future park land. It is my
understanding that the City Council did approve that. It is not
reflected in the Master Plan. The Master Plan still shows it is
C-2. After that was done, the County had an appraisal done on the
property for purposes of purchasing it apparently for the park
land. After the appraisal was done, which was done at the County's
request, they dropped all efforts to buy the property. There has
been no negotiations. There has been no offer to purchase the
11090
property. In fact, I think what happened is the appraisal came in
at a level that the County just thought was too high to pay for the
property. In that appraisal, which I have a copy of here, the
appraiser said possibility for higher, better use, this is talking
about C-2 zoning of this property, is extremely remote and
improbable considering lot size, location and zoning. Therefore
the highest and best use of subject property would be for
commercial development. Everything, both the need in the City
along with the Master Plan, which is supposed to guide the City in
its future development, along with the appraiser for the County
have all viewed this land as being appropriate as a C-2 parcel. To
the extent the County wants to buy it for a park, it is still
vacant. There have been no offers or intent to buy it. We think
the real intent is to downzone this property to a classification
that eliminates possibly 90% of the uses that are presently allowed
on the property, which substantially deteriorates the value and if
six months from now, the County comes in with an offer based on the
fair market value of what it is presently zoned, we think that is
improper, and I have still not heard any planning analysis
whatsoever, traffic analysis or studies, etc. indicating that a
professional office use is a more appropriate use for this property
than the current zoning. I think in order to change the zoning,
and the Master Plan indicates this is an appropriate use, there
will have to be such an analysis. There has to be reasons for it
other than the fact the County would like to condemn this property
at some point and this would make it easier for them to do.
Mr. McCann: Does your client have any current plans on the books? Does he have
a contingent purchase agreement?
Mr. Green: I am not aware of any.
Mr. McCann: Does he have any lease agreements with regard to the property being
C-2?
Mr. Green: No.
Mr. McCann: Does he have any building plans or projects before the City on a
C-2 basis?
Mr. Green: No.
Mr. McCann: So he has nothing at this point?
Mr. Green: That is correct.
Mr. Kluver: How long has your client owned this property?
Mr. Green: I believe his family has owned portions of this property for 40
years. He has been in the process for the last year or so actively
talking to different commercial users.
Mr. Kluver: One year, two years, four years?
Mr. Green: He has gone back to at least 1983.
11091
Jeffrey Borin, 3000 Towne Center, Southfield: I am with Borin Investment Company
and Borin Group. We own the parcel kitty corner to this parcel
marked C-1 (He pointed it out on the map). I just have a question.
I am sorry I missed Mr. Nagy's presentation. Is the whole parcel
proposed to be zoned for office use? There was something in this
`, petition that said there was a mixed use proposed for the westerly
three lots. Is this proposal tonight to rezone it to all office?
Mr. LaPine: The proposal tonight is to rezone it all to P.S. , professional
service. Everybody thinks you are talking about high-rise offices.
We are talking about professional service, doctor's office,
lawyers, things of this nature.
Mr. Borin: I just want to know how does that zoning compare to the C-1 zoning?
Is that a similar zoning?
Mr. LaPine: It is non-commercial.
Mr. Morrow: You indicate you own the property adjacent to the piece marked C-1.
What has been the activity level on that commercial? It seems to
have been vacant for some time and is more a neighborhood use.
Have you been approached by people who could develop that.
Mr. Borin: We bought that parcel about two years ago. We approached the
Zoning Board of Appeals on our parcel for an office building and
they granted us the setbacks, etc. that we requested. We are in
the process now of drawing plans for that parcel and we probably
will be developing that parcel shortly. I would say within the
next two years, if not sooner, we would have an office building
that we would present to the City.
Mr. Morrow: You are not going to develop it as C-1?
Mr. Borin: Yes, that is true but again that was our decision. Our parcel has
a particular situation. It is a rather small parcel and we felt,
in our case, it was better suited for an office type of use.
Mr. Morrow: I guess that is the point I am trying to make. We have seen one or
two site plans that have never come to fruition. It appears now
that you are developing it as office.
Mr. Borin: Yes, those are our plans. I was curious as to what the Planning
Commission had in mind. Quite frankly, I am neutral on the
situation. I just feel I wanted to know what you had in mind, what
Mr. Newman had in mind and to let you know what our plans are.
Mr. Morrow: What we are looking at tonight is to develop the property adjacent
to you to a similar classification as you are developing your
property to.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I am somewhat confused with this Wayne County Department of Parks
and Recreation. Our notes say they attempted to acquire the
property and Attorney Green said they have had no dealings with
them.
11092
Mr. LaPine: I believe the understanding we had, John correct me if I am wrong,
when the County tried to buy the property apparently the Michigan
Trust Fund ran out of money and it was abandoned.
Mr. Nagy: There is a contingency in using the Michigan Land Trust Fund that
`fir you cannot use it for condemnation purposes and because the
property owner was not willing to enter into a voluntary purchase
agreement, the county would have to condemn the property to acquire
it and that precluded them from using the Land Trust Fund to
acquire the property.
Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding that the County is still interested in this
property.
Mr. Nagy: Absolutely.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It sounds like the County wants to buy it but they don't have any
money to buy it. How long can this go on? It is just a little
confusing.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-1-7 closed.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make a tabling resolution to let this County
project take its course. I really don't see any advantage gained
by anyone by changing this zoning to something that there is no
intent for it to be implemented in that form and I think it would
not be fair to the property owner. He should negotiate with the
County and if the County is really serious, then they should sit
down with the property owner and negotiate with him. If they don't
have any money, then they should understand this petitioner may
chose to develop this property in the form it has been in for some
time. I would like to offer a tabling resolution to date
uncertain.
Mr. McCann: I don't believe this petition was brought forth to negotiate in
any way an advantage for the County or anyone else to purchase the
land. This petition was brought forth by the Planning Commission
to determine what is the best use of that particular property in
the City. I think we determined we no longer needed any more C-2
along Plymouth Road and in that particular area we felt if it was
going to be in private ownership, the best possible use would be a
business office or a professional office type of setting. That is
the question we have to address here tonight. What is the best use
for this piece of property and I don't think by continuing this in
any way it is going to change the members' belief as to whether it
is proper C-2 property.
Mr. LaPine: Even if the County does not buy this property, I personally think
C-2 is the wrong zoning for that location based on the amount of
traffic going up and down Edward Hines Drive and Plymouth Road.
With C-2 where you have stores with people coming and going all the
time, I think it is a bad situation on that corner. With P.S.
zoning, doctor's offices or lawyers offices we would have a 9 to 5
operation and would have less problems.
11093
Mr. Engebretson: Just for the record, I don't think its suitable to develop that
property in a C-2. My only concern is I don't think office is much
better than commercial. I think it belongs to the park land.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-3-1-7 by the City Planning Commission proposing to
rezone property located west of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and
Edward Hines Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from C-2 to P.S. ,
the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-3-1-7 to date
uncertain.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: McCann, Sobolewski, Kluver, Fandrei, Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#5-342-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-3-1-7 by the City Planning Commission proposing to
rezone property located west of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and
Edward Hines Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from C-2 to P.S. ,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 90-3-1-7 be approved for the following reasons:
``. 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the off-street parking and building setback requirements of
the proposed zoning district will provide more flexibility in
developing the land because of its size and shape.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which tend
to generate less vehicular traffic.
4) That the subject area is currently well served with commercial type
uses as are permitted by the existing C-2 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, LaPine, Fandrei
NAYS: Engebretson, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
11094
Mr. Vyhnalek: I voted no because I don't think C-2 or P.S. should be on this
property. I think it should be park land.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-3-1-9 by
Rupp Construction, Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the
1ft.
west side of Inkster Road between Capitol Avenue and Grantland Avenue in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from P to R-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
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have
also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objection to this petition.
Mike Rupp, 15617 Hidden Lane: The intent here is to rezone to R-1 and also develop
as soon as possible and thereafter, construct two residential
homes.
Mr. LaPine: What type of home?
Mr. Rupp: Ranch on slab or crawl space. Basically between 1200 and 1300
square feet.
Mr. LaPine: Are they going to be three bedrooms?
Mr. Rupp: Three bedrooms with a bath and a half.
Mr. Tent: I guess Mr. Rupp realizes that he is 600 square feet short. You
'4111.0 will have to go to the ZBA.
Mr. Rupp: I am aware of that.
Betty Trabeski, 26224 Cathedral, Redford: I am here with my mother who lives
next door to this lot Mr. Rupp wants to build on. It is just
vacant now and rather than it should go into anything else like a
parking lot. We were afraid it was going to be turned into a
parking lot for Erb Lumber which we didn't want. Residential would
be fine as long as they don't build mansions.
Mr. LaPine: They will be compatible with the general area.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-1-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-343-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-3-1-9 by Rupp Construction, Inc. requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road between Capitol
Avenue and Grantland Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from P to
R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 90-3-1-9 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
11095
2) That the proposed change of zoning will remove a spot zone of
parking in the predominately residential area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development of
the subject property consistent with the adjacent residential uses
in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-1-10 by
DesRosiers Architects for Jose and Stella Evangelista requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between
Plymouth Road and Orangelawn Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33
from RUF to R-C.
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
that Farmington Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent
adjacent to the parcel in question. They further state they feel
the Wayne County Department of Public Services may require a
passing lane to be built on Farmington Road in connection with the
development.
'tor Al Paas, 1080 N. Woodward, Birmingham: I represent DesRosiers Architects. We are
representing Jose and Stella Evangelista. The proposal for this
parcel is for R-C zoning to allow construction of residential
condominiums. The area currently has an existing abandoned single
family home on it that has been vandalized and is not occupied at
this time. Adjacent to this parcel to the north there are other
residential parcels and futher to the north and south are
professional offices. Directly across the street there is a public
park. We feel the area can be developed as residential. There
doesn't seem to be a real need for additional office development in
the area at this particular time. Speaking with the City staff
people, there was an indication there was some interest in trying
to consolidate this parcel with other parcels. To the best of our
knowledge the other parcels are not available. The parcel directly
to the north, which is a single family residence, I believe was
just upgraded and improved as a single family residence which would
indicate the party has no intent to sell that parcel for any other
use. In terms of trying to develop the parcel as RUF in terms of
1/2 acre single family lots, the configuration of the parcel with
132 feet of frontage on Farmington Road and some 600 feet of depth,
doesn't lend itself to a single family type of development so we
feel a well planned condominium residential development here, which
would consist of one and two story basically townhouse type of
units each with their individual garages, would be a suitable use
for this property.
11096
Mr. Tent: Mr. Paas, you indicated that the property north of this would not
be available at this time. Has anyone from your firm or the owners
of the property approached the people to the north to see what
their plans were so they could combine the two parcels to make it
more compatible?
Mr. Paas: I am not aware of what negotiations have taken place but the owner
of this property and the adjacent owners and our firm have not
entered into any negotiations.
Mr. Tent: You indicated earlier in your conversation they were not
interested. How did you find that out?
Mr. Paas: I am not saying they haven't been approached. I am not aware as to
what the negotiations have been or to what extent they have been
approached. I spoke with the owner this morning and the indication
was the property was not available.
Mr. Tent: That was the extent of the conversation? Would you pursue that
further? What we have here is spot zoning and it would be more
desirable to utilize the entire package and that would be my
concern.
Mr. Vyhnalek: As one Commissioner, you just don't have enough land to justify
putting in six or seven dwellings. I know it is 600 feet deep but
by the time you get a road in there and the greenbelt, that is all
you are going to have. There won't be room for anything else. As
one Commissioner I really think you should do what Mr. Tent
recommended and that is to talk to the three land owners to the
north. I think it is too small to put in comdominiums.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I am totally against putting condominiums in there. That area is
a beautiful area, very residential, very well wooded. If that home
is vacant, you can't see it from the road. The other homes in the
area are very well taken care of. I don't think it should be
condominiums. I think it should remain residential.
Mrs. Fandrei: I can appreciate the neighbor to the north not being intersted in
selling her home at this point but I am wondering if we were to
table this and the owners were to negotiate further, that they
might offer to purchase the last 500 feet since it is 627 feet
deep. The back portion isn't usable for residential. She might be
interested in selling a large portion of the rear, which would give
you a opening for a little bigger development.
Mr. Morrow: The only comment I would have, certainly we are faced with spot
zoning here and we shouldn't be in a rush to do any spot zoning.
We should try to find the highest use for the land, looking to
develop it in as large a piece of property as we can. I am not
saying a condominium development would not fit nicely in there but
certainly not in that small of an area. I don't think we should be
in a hurry to rezone it until we see if we can put a more viable
type of development in there.
11097
Mr. McCann: It is not that I object to tabling this but to approve this would
be to approve spot zoning. I just myself personally don't see it
going in there. You look at those homes on Orangelawn and they
have 1,000 foot depth. If they came back with another project,
they could bring it back as a new proposal. I don't think it would
be appropriate zoning for that area. It would be spot zoning.
John Colucci: I own the property to the north of this. My law office is where
you see the P.S. The address is 10811 Farmington Road. I own the
two parcels in between and they measure roughly 200 feet across and
627 feet deep. I am concerned about the rezoning. I don't really
object to it. There is a vandalized house on the subject property
and my tenant lives right next to it on the north side. It is
terribly overgrown. There are kids going in and out. I have had
to put up security lights. My tenant is in fear for her safety as
is her husband. If you would go on the property, you would see how
disheveled it is. There is trash all over. The house is partially
boarded up. It doesn't have a basement. It doesn't have a sewer.
It uses a well. That is how primitive it is. Something should be
done with it. I have never been approached for the sale of the two
additional parcels or any part thereof. I bought the pieces mostly
to protect my law office because I didn't want some wild
development that would affect the operation of my office. Some day
something should be done with that land. It isn't practical to
keep it the way it is. I have two houses, one on each parcel and
it was upgraded. I like to keep the properties neat and clean but
I can't do anything with what is laying south of the second piece
so I am asking that something either be done by way of cleaning it
up or some kind of use that is compatible with the area be
initiated. R.U.F. is not the most practical use for that piece of
,,oft. property. I have a self-serving interest because I own the other
two but I can keep them as residences, which is consistent with the
zoning, or we can put something in there some day that will enhance
the entire neighborhood and not adversely affect my office. If Dr.
Evangelista would like to do something and expand his proposal, I
would be willing to listen but I have never been approached and if
the feeling is, he is going to put up five or six condominiums, I
do have a concern. I don't know how you can do it on 130 feet of
land.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Colucci, you painted a dismal picture of the surrounding land
next to you. You are a property owner there and I am sure you are
concerned. Have you approached the Inspection Department?
Mr. Colucci: I did. They said I would have to file a complaint and then I got
the notice about the rezoning so I thought maybe tonight I could
meet with the representative of the architect and find out what
they are going to do with this.
Mr. Tent: I have seen the property but if you do have a problem and even if
we didn't have this petition before us, I think it behooves you to
go ahead and file a complaint with Inspection. We want to keep the
City looking decent and if the people don't let the proper
authorities know, we won't be able to clean these properties up.
11098
Mr. Colucci: I am not blaming the City.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask a question to the first gentleman, Mr. Paas.
Does your client own the property?
Now Mr. Paas: It is my understanding they are the owners of the property.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Colucci, you say you own Lot 137 and the lot with the dotted
line?
Mr. Colucci: Yes, Lot 137 and south 1/2 of Lot 138 and then I own the north 1/2
of Lot 138 and Lot 139.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You own all that land. That should make it simple.
Dale Brubaker, 33681 Orangelawn: I would like to agree with this lady over here.
(He pointed to Mrs. Sobolewski) It is a very nice neighborhood and
we have a new generation moving in. Everybody is putting additions
on their houses. I have 13 trees in my yard and the P.S. has a
vacancy sign out. They are not using all those doctor complexes.
At the corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Farmington they are putting in
more condominiums. Are all these condominiums really necessary
next to a rural urban farm setting? We think it would be better to
leave it rural urban farm than to overdevelop it.
Fred Bryson, 33780 Orangelawn: I am against the condominiums because like he
mentioned at Farmington and Ann Arbor Trail they just finished that
project. They have another one on Ann Arbor Trail and another one
on Wayne Road. I feel we have enough condos in the area and I
don't see enough people fighting for R.U.F. How long have your
clients owned the property? That property was just up for sale
approximately two years ago. I can only assume your clients bought
it but someone has to start working on that house. I feel the
property should stay the way it is, rural urban farm.
Tom Gering, 33685 Orangelawn: I am against condominiums. Mr. Paas said he didn't
think this property is good enough for residential because it is so
small. I have 1/2 acre and it is very nice. It is a beautiful
area. The kids get to run. It is a very desirable area. Not
everyone wants to live in a subdivision. I don't see how you can
set condominiums in there and there are too many condominium
projects in the area. Sure it is run down but why did they let it
get run down? So they could rezone it? Somebody should come to
them and say clean this area up. I am totally against this and so
were the other neighbors I talked to. I wish we could have gotten
them here.
Mr. Morrow: I just want to make a comment. We are looking at a residential
classification, certainly a more intense classification than what
you folks have in the R.U.F. Condos normally denote private
ownership where apartments are for rental. I just want to make
sure we are all on the same wave length. The ones the prior
gentleman made reference, are those condos or rentals?
Mr. Bryson: Pikes Peak is the project name. There is a Century 21 sign on
display so they probably are buying them.
11099
Mr. Paas: A couple of comments. We do feel the residential proposal is less
intense than an office proposal, which would be the other likely
use for this property being bounded on the north and the south by
offices. It is a little different than property on Orangelawn so
‘44.1. what is appropriate on Orangelawn may not necessarily work as well
on Farmington Road. Obviously in terms of combining this property
with other properties, it makes it a little bit more difficult as
our client is in a situation where in order to utilize the
property, he is forced into negotiations with the adjoining land
owner. It gives him a slight disadvantage in terms of negotiating
so we say well if you want to utilize your property, you have to
combine it with the adjacent piece of property, it puts the
adjacent property owner in the driver's seat. That is our only
concern with the idea that you would like to see it as a combined
proposal. That puts our client at a disadvantage. We feel we can
come back with a residential use for this property and that
residential would be appropriate in this area.
Mr. Engebretson: You are taking the position that you chose not to negotiate with
Mr. Colucci.
Mr. Paas: No not at all. I am saying if we were in a position that in order
to utilize this parcel of land, if the City is saying in order to
develop it, you have to combine it with the adjoining piece of
property, then basically our parcel has for all intents and
purposes no use until he negotiates with the adjoining property
owner and comes to some sort of resolution so the value of his land
is considerably decreased by that action.
Mr. Engebretson: Would it be your wish that the Planning Commission deal with this
`r petition on its own merits without any regards to the possibility
of joining with Mr. Colucci's property?
Mr. Paas: If dealing with it meant approving the petition, of course we will
deal. If it meant denial as opposed to tabling, the answer would
be no. We are not objecting to the idea of a combined parcel, I
simply want to make you aware that it does impinge some degree of
hardship on our client if the City is saying this piece, as it
stands alone, cannot be developed in any reasonable manner.
Mr. Morrow: It is certainly not our intent to put anybody at an advantage or
disadvantage. We are solely here tonight trying to develop that
property to its best use. As one Commissioner, your petition is
spot zoning. I would vote to deny it. If we consider any other
type of use, it is good planning practice to develop as large a
parcel as possible. There are no guarantees. The ball is in your
court. All we are saying is we are trying to get some input not
only from you and your clients but also from the residents. We are
not here to put anybody to an advantage or disadvantage.
Mr. Paas: We would obviously like a more desirable project. It would give us
a lot more possibilities of how it could be developed. We are
certainly open to a larger parcel of land and we will pursue that
avenue.
11100
Mrs. Fandrei: I do feel the R-C is appropriate here but not on this size piece of
property. I do not have a problem with the R-C and the condos. I
would rather see the condos than continue the P.S. from the south
or from the north. That would be my concern so rather than seeing
that happen someday, I would support it if you had a larger piece
of property.
Mr. Paas: I think our client would be interested in knowing whether that was
the feeling of the Commission, whether R-C on a larger piece would
be more desirable than P.S. in terms of future planning on this
property.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is what I feel.
Mr. Morrow: One comment. Certainly there are no built in guarantees to getting
anything. I just don't want to study a piece of property until I
know it is a viable petition and, at that time, we will certainly
study it. I just don't want you to leave thinking if I can put
this package together, the Planning Commission will approve it.
That is not what we are saying.
Mr. Paas: I understand.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-1-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
##5-344-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-4-1-10 by Desrosiers Architects for Jose and Stella
`„ Evangelista requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Orangelawn Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-C, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
90-4-1-10 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning would represent spot zoning in
the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future
Land Use Plan which recommends office use for the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will not provide for a unified
and compatible development for the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engeretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek
NAYS: Fandrei
ABSENT: None
11101
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 90-4-1-12 by
Angelo D'Orazio requesting to rezone property located on the south side
''". of Seven Mile Road between Whitby and Myron Streets in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 9 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objection to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
objections to this petition.
Mr. D'Orazio: I request rezoning for that piece that is only 22 feet wide. We
have a yogurt store and we don't have enough seats to have a viable
business.
Mr. Tent: Mr. D'Orazio, you wanted to sell yogurt. That was the original
proposal when you requested a strip mall shopping center. What
prompted you now to start selling hot dogs and hamburgers?
Couldn't you make a go of it by just selling yogurt and ice cream?
Mr. D'Orazio: We have to have something else to support the business.
Mr. Tent: When you came before us the first time, why couldn't that have been
brought up at that time?
�.. Mr. D'Orazio: At the time I thought it would be a good business but it is not
that good of a business.
Mr. Tent: I am concerned because we have had other situations in the City
where they have requested the same thing. They came before us in
the same way because they couldn't produce in that area either.
feel if we open up the gates here, we are going to have a lot of
requests throughout the City and I was just wondering why you
couldn't make it on ice cream alone?
Mr. Engebretson: This is a difficult situation. We have a new strip mall. We
have a new business there and they are in need of expanding the use
to include some business that wasn't intended for and the problem
is there have been a number of cases in the past two years where
there have been similar situations that have been denied and part
of the concern is it would set a precedent. The City Council also
has dealt rather decisively with this issue in the very recent past
where there was a proposal to allow this kind of use in a C-1
district, which would then have cleared the way for a waiver use to
satisfy what Mr. D'Orazio is looking to do, and the Council who
ultimately makes those decisions in the City decided not to do that
and so taking into consideration all the precedents we have and the
precedent that this could set, I think we have a real dilemma and,
that while we wish the business operator well and wish him success,
I don't think we can solve business problems through zoning. That
is consistent with the other actions we have dealt with in the
11102
past. I think that should be our position here as much as we would
like to be cooperative and help this business to prosper.
Mr. Morrow: Certainly I share the same concerns that Jack has. I don't like to
individually go against people but the precedent is there. Just so
there is a little history, when Mr. D'Orazio first brought that
piece in, the Planning Commission recommended it be professional
office type of zoning because it is a step down to adjacent
residential but he prevailed at the Council level for a C-1 and
then he built a shopping center. One of our concerns was he would
be too close to residential and that goes along with our original
thinking. We, as a Commission , have been inundated lately with a
lot of requests to change C-1 to C-2 to put in restaurants. I
supported P.S. at the time because I didn't want to intensify that
use so close to residential. As much as I don't like to vote this
way, I feel from a planning standpoint I couldn't support this
petition.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-1-12 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-345-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-4-1-12 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting to rezone
property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Whitby and
Myron Streets in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from C-1 to C-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-4-1-12 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning represents spot zoning in that
the balance of the center would remain in the C-1 zoning district.
2) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to set a precedent of
rezoning a small part of a commercial development to a different,
less restrictive zoning district so as to accommodate a proposed
use which is contrary to good land use and zoning principles.
3) That the subject area is currently well served with C-2 zoning.
4) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to and
incompatible 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: Obviously there is a problem here. Maybe the zoning ordinance is
not compatible with the needs and so in need of changing. I would
11103
like to recommend to the staff to take a look at the ordinance to
see if we can amend it in order that we don't have this continuing
problem in the future.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to go back to the previous item and ask the staff to
r"` file a complaint with the Inspection Department on behalf of the
Planning Commission regarding that property we were dealing with on
Farmington Road.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-3-2-5 by
One Stop Hobbies requesting waiver use approval to conduct outdoor
recreational activities, specifically radio control model car racing and
model truck pull competitions (Sundays only), on property located on the
south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is
acceptable provided the barriers are of such a design and installed
in such a manner that a vehicle could not go out of control and
"escape" from the area. Also in our file is a letter received from
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or
problems were found. We have also received a letter from the
Division of Fire stating their department has no objections to its
temporary (1 day use) set up. However, it is expected that the
existing access driveways on the north, east, and south sides of
the complex remain clear of any parked cars, booths, displays, etc.
for any responding emergency equipment. Lastly, we have received a
petition with approximately 25 signatures of homeowners in the area
stating the reasons they do not approve of the granting of the
waiver use.
Donald Grinde, 5804 Addison, Detroit: I am part owner of One Stop Hobbies. After
hearing the letter from the 25 residents, I am confused on their
feelings about model racing cars. If I had known about their
letter, I would have brought some cars here tonight. They are
electric cars. They are quiet. I run many in my house. They
don't make a lot of noise. We are a public oriented business. We
support all the local youth activities in Livonia. We provide a
resource for our customer's children and adults to play with their
radio controlled cars. We do charge a nominal fee to race on
Sunday but all money is returned to them in the way of trophies,
etc. Yes, it generates interest in the mall. L A Plaza, I am sure
you are aware, is only half full and that is a main concern of ours
and the rest of the tenants of the mall. I will read this to you
"We the undersigned merchants of the L A Plaza wish to express our
support of One Stop Hobbies' Petition 90-3-2-5 which will allow
radio controlled cars and truck pulling on Sundays in our shopping
mall. This activity will provide a good exposure for our mall and
provide a safe area for kids and adults to run their radio
controlled trucks and cars. We feel this will not ruin the parking
or injure the plaza in any way. We encourage the Planning
11104
Commission and the City Council to approve the petition before
you." This has been signed by Elliott Travel, Beaute Crafte,
Mario's, Jewelry House of James, Absolute Hair, Stoyan's Inn and
the Pony Express. There are other businesses in the mall but I
couldn't consult with the owners. Our tracks are PBC pipes, about
`or 3 inches, totally portable. No danger to the environment,
pollution wise or noise wise. There is more noise coming from Ford
Motor Company on Plymouth Road than from our cars. There is more
noise made by Semi's on Plymouth Road than our cars. We have
roughly about 30-40 racers that come out with their children and
family. Maybe the boys and girls that come out with their parents
are laughing and having a good time but they don't make that much
moise. Maybe there are four people who come out in wheelchairs
play out there with their cars. They just ripped down all the
trees with the bulldozers and that made more noise. There is more
noise up and down Levan with regular cars. We moved the tracks to
the front of the store in consideration of these people. We didn't
see any problems. We provide clean family fun. There are no
parking problems. Mario's Pizza does open up occasionally and the
Coney Island might open up. I feel we are doing a positive thing
for Livonia as well as the mall. I see no problems. We are very
courteous. We have fire protection. I am a retired firefighter
from the City of Detroit. We do keep the kids away from the
tracks. We have what they call marshals. These are not gas
powered cars. There is no noise pollution. We are doing a
positive thing.
Mr. Engebretson: Is this a new idea for your particular operation there or have
you conducted meets like this in the past?
Mr. Grinde: We held races last year. I did not know I had to have a waiver.
I believe one of the gentlemen associated with this board here or
with City Council said you have to apply and do this thing right
because it is a good thing you are doing. I never had one person
come to my store and say you are disturbing my backyard barbecue.
I would have taken steps to solve the problem.
Mr. Engebretson: What would you have done?
Mr. Grinde: Last year we had racing on the bottom portion. This year we have
it in front of the store.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the intent of these activities? Is it to promote
activity for the shopping center, for the business?
Mr. Grinde: We feel it is a combination. It will help exposure of the mall.
Also it gives the families something to do. The majority of
families are from Livonia. There is no place to go to do this. We
pay for the track. It is to give the kids something to do. The
kids are running them on the streets because there is no place to
put them so we give them a place to run the cars. This is our
second year for truck pulls. We have people who come from all
over - Canada, Ohio, Indiana. They all come to Livonia. Last year
we had a national event. Due to scheduling problems we had to hold
it in Plymouth and Chevrolet was the corporate sponsor.
11105
Mr. Engebretson: You have anticipated some of my concerns. You mentioned you
had anticipated maybe 30 to 40 people there and now it has turned
into a national event. I guess I am mostly concerned about not the
noise the individual cars make but I raised a family and I
understand the kind of noise that comes out of 8 and 10 and 12 year
old boys and girls, particularly if something exciting is going on.
I can just picture that mall parking lot filled with people
attending an international event.
Mr. Grinde: I will also give you my word there will never be a national event
at L A Plaza due to the fact the weather is so unpredictable. This
is just for 30 to 40 people.
Mr. Engebretson: For 30 to 40 people to come in and enjoy this activity I don't
have any problem with doing that, I just want to make sure the 30
to 40 people who have a significant vested interest in their
property there and in Livonia are happy. You are probably aware we
have a motto that says residents come first.
Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned you are putting your track in front of your store
Our diagram shows it is still at the southwest.
Mr. Grinde: (He pointed out where the track would be). We could move it over
next to us if that would please the board. We are the only store
that is open on Sunday and trust me if there were kids running wild
or screaming and yelling, I can sympathize. I too want to move to
Livonia. I guess you would have to come and see it.
Mrs. Fandrei: I am the one on the board who has experienced one of these. I am
very comfortable with the car racing. The only noise would be from
'tiew the visitors. I thought it was fun. I came across one in Grand
Haven a couple of summers ago and my husband and I enjoyed watching
the race. My feelings would be if you could move this to the east
without the other occupants of the stores objecting, that would
shield the sound from the residents to the south. I do have
another question. The Fire Department mentioned booths or display
set ups. Would you have any of that?
Mr. Grinde: No we don't permit any of that.
Mrs. Fandrei: There is nothing that would hinder cars coming and going or the
fire department coming?
Mr. Grinde: All major areas are open. Everything is self contained. There is
no need for barriers because the real cars themself are the
barriers.
Mrs. Fandrei: The only other thing I have a concern about is the truck tracks.
What is that?
Mr. Grinde: The radio controlled trucks are a larger version of the cars. The
drivers stand behind the track. We have a sled loaded down with
weights. The truck pulls them in a straight line.
Mrs. Fandrei: It is a minature Silverdome experience.
11106
Mr. Tent: You said this was operational last year. How long did you run it
last year?
Mr. Grinde: Last year it ran from the third week in September until the first
of November.
Mr. Tent: You never received any complaints?
Mr. Grinde: None.
Mr. Tent: I have one more question. This is for the 25 people who signed the
petition. I would like to have you address this. If you heard him
last year and you didn't complain, was there a reason? From what I
hear it is very quiet and now we have a petition about the noise.
I am trying to understand why you didn't complain last year.
Mr. Grinde: I will move the track if that is what they want.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You never mentioned the time.
Mr. Grinde: We run on Sunday from 11:30 a.m. until we are done, usually about
4:30 p.m.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If you did this for ten weeks last fall, did the same people come
back week after week?
Mr. Grinde: We have our own following. Sometimes we have different people.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I know there are fields for airplanes like this. You go to any
subdivision in Livonia and you will see kids running these cars up
and down. I feel we do need a place and I feel if you put it over
towards the east, I don't think the neighbors should complain but I
will wait and listen to what they have to say but they do not make
noise because I have two kids in my neighborhood who run them up
and down and there is no noise.
Mr. Grinde: It does not interfere with TV sets, radios and cable.
Mr. Morrow: Aside from your fellow tenants, I don't think the viability of the
center will rest on whether you have this. Are there any reasons
other than that, that it has to be at this site?
Mr. Grinde: Being a new business, we are only allowed to have so many employees
on our payroll. If we take the track 30 miles, even 4 or 5 miles,
that means I have three other people that help me, that means they
would leave the store and we would have to close on Saturday and
financially that would not be good for my business. It is just a
convenience for the people to come here and to store the track in
my store.
Mr. Morrow: I don't object to the event for the families. In good conscience I
can't grant a waiver. A waiver is something over and above the
normal use in the area. It could be a nuisance in this case. If
you talked to Parks & Recreation maybe there would be something
11107
they would like to get involved with. If you knew how long we
coped with this shopping center in developing it C-2, and bringing
along with the residential, I couldn't be any part of a waiver that
would allow any sort of nuisance over and above the normal C-2 that
;— we placed there. I just want to let you know that is where I am
coming from. I have no objection to what you are doing but I just
can't support it anywhere on that site.
Mr. Engebretson: You said that if the activity were moved to another site, 5 or 30
miles away from the store, that in order to conduct these races on
Sunday, you would have to close your store on Saturday.
Mr. Grinde: I meant Sunday.
Mr. LaPine: When you first started to make your presentation you said there is
a nominal fee that is charged. I understand you paid $500 for PCV
piping, etc. What is the nominal fee?
Mr. Grinde: The fee for the racers is $5.00 for the first car, $3.00 for second
and third cars. What they get in return is a trophy for first
place in all the meets for each of their classes. We have a
general raffle at the end of the day, which would be a gift
certificates from the store, products from the store, etc. I will
deduct $10 to $15 per event to pay off the track. The truck track
was paid off over a year ago. When we do our truck pulls they get
larger trophies. They pay $8.00. We are giving basically
everything back. We are just covering our costs.
Mr. LaPine: You are telling us you don't make a profit.
`rr.► Mr. Grinde: No sir.
Mr. LaPine: It seems like a lot of work you are doing considering you are not
making any money.
Art Vassallo, 38425 Richland: My wife is part owner of One Stop Hobbies and I am
an RC enthusiasts myself. We have four kids. They all have RCs
and they race them up and down Richland Street. It is really a bad
street for RC racing. It is close to Ann Arbor Road and Hix.
There have been numerous accidents there. When we had our old
business on Ann Arbor Road and we moved to L A Plaza, one of the
considerations was to have racing there because there are other
kids on the streets who have radio controlled cars and parents
asked us if we could come up with a place. The truck pulling, we
take our showroom all over the state and it is mostly indoors
except in the summertime. I am presently in charge of the rules
for truck pulls and safety is always number one. We moved here
from Dearborn Heights and I was in charge of rules for Little
League baseball. Safety was always number one there too. The cars
don't make a lot of noise. It is much quieter than baseball and it
is a lot more fun I think. My only concern would be that some of
the residents who are complaining that we do make too much noise,
maybe come out and check out one of our races. We did tape last
weeks race but we didn't bring it here. We would be willing to
bring that in or anyone can come in our store and view the race and
hear what is going on.
11108
Mrs. Fandrei: These are not little trinkets. They are expensive aren't they?
Mr. Vassallo: Yes. Most of the trucks average over $500 to $700. There is a lot
of engineering in these trucks. It is very interesting and has the
`, backing of Chevrolet Truck. I think that tells you a little bit
about the sport.
Mrs. Fandrei: Basically, people who go to these, buy these cars and trucks from
you. The races aren't income producing other than to purchase the
trucks and cars. Is that right?
Mr. Vassallo: It is an outlet for people who spend this amount of money to have
someplace to race these cars.
Mrs. Fandrei: But at the same time they buy them at your store?
Mr. Vassallo: Yes or any other local hobby store.
Mrs. Fandrei: The point was that you are not making any money on the race, you
are trying to accommodate the people who purchase them at your
store.
Mr. Engebretson: I don't think there is anyone here who is taking exception to the
integrity of what it is you are doing. The issue is if this is the
right place. The waiver use is not a trivial event. It is a big
deal. It runs with the land. Once it is there, it is there
forever and whereas you may run a low key event and have everything
under control, if you don't make any money, you are not going to be
in business very long and someone else can come in and conduct a
more intense kind of event because the waiver use is there. It is
`fir. not a casual decision. The video tape you referred to that you
made last weekend, where was that tape made?
Mr. Vassallo: At our store.
Mr. Engebretson: Did you conduct an event there last week?
Mr. Vassallo: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Will you be conducting an event this weekend?
Mr. Grinde: Yes sir.
Mr. McCann: I would like to make a tabling resolution for one week so we may
have an opportunity to take a look at one of these events.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-2-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
#5-346-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-3-2-5 by One Stop Hobbies requesting waiver use
approval to conduct outdoor recreational activities, specifically radio
control model car racing and model truck pull competitions (Sundays
11109
only), on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City
Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-3-2-5 until the
meeting of May 15, 1990.
`r.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Morrow, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-2-7 by
Philip Funke requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area
and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the north side
of Grand River Avenue between Inkster and Eight Mile Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Tent: That restaurant is vacant. Is that correct?
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
`r.
Mr. Tent: How long has it been closed?
Mr. Bakewell: I can't answer that.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this petition. We have also
received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the plan is
acceptable provided the shrubs are no higher than three feet above
the drive, and the tree's lower branches are no lower than six feet
to provide a clear view for average vehicles to observe the walk
and roadway. Also, curbing is needed along the parking spaces
adjacent to Grand River to prevent encroachment on the walk.
Lastly, we have received a letter from William MacDonald,
Supervisor of the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the
following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The sidewalk
stops at the driveway on the east property line. It must be
extended to the north property line. 2. The entire parking lot
must be repaired and restriped. 3. The pole sign overhanging the
right of way must be removed in its entirety. 4. Deficient
parking; 12 spaces are provided - deficient 3 spaces.
5. The proposed location of the dumpster, next to the building, is
unacceptable. 6. Deficient landscaping. 7. One half of the
vacated alley on the north belongs to this property and is not
11110
indicated on the site plan. He further states, in his estimation,
the existing site could not support the proposed addition and is
currently developed to the maximum extent. We have received a
letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no
objections to the proposed addition. Lastly, we have received a
letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this
petition.
Mr. Tent: I have one more comment, the Department of Public Safety indicated
parking spaces must be 10 feet wide instead of the 8 1/2 feet by 9
feet. Has that been rectified?
Mr. Nagy: Yes it has.
Phillip Funke, 2158 W. Eleven Mile, Berkley: We have been trying to make use of
this property and we have a double need because of the requirement
of additional toilet facilities so that required additional space.
We are trying to justify the cost by providing more facilities for
the customers. That is the biggest addition we can make on the
site and I think we have complied with most of the requirements.
Mr. LaPine: How long has the restaurant been closed?
Mr. Funke: Since about two months ago. They wanted to spend $50,000 to
$60,000 to refurbish it.
Mr. Tent: You said the present owner just purchased it two months ago. I am
quite familiar with that property and I, as one Commissioner,
looked at that and that has really outlived its usefulness. In the
old days, they would get off the bus and buy a hamburger but what
Nifty you have there now, is totally inadequate. It is built up to its
maximum and I, as one Commissioner, could not go for developing
that area any more. You have to meet the setback requirements and
you have to lease some parking space from the adjacent shopping
center so actually everything we have is so overbuilt in that area
that I don't see how we can honestly develop that into a drive by
restaurant.
Mr. Funke: The window was a secondary thought. They don't need the window.
What would you do with this property?
Mr. Tent: I have been watching that property for a while and it is a shabby
looking place. I was hoping they would tear it down.
Mr. Funke: What would you do with it then?
Mr. Tent: I feel it can't be used in its present state as a restaurant any
more.
Mr. Funke: I have done 250 restaurants and that can be made practical if you
use the proper planning.
Mr. Tent: We had a Ram's Horn at Seven Mile and Middlebelt that came before
the Planning Commission with the same situation. They wanted to
expand their operation and every architect in town could not figure
out how to do it.
11111
Mr. Funke: What did they do?
Mr. Tent: They left it like it is. Parking is very important and we insist
on it.
`ow,
Mr. Kluver: I would like to make a tabling resolution. The purpose for the
tabling resolution is you look further into that area of the City
of Livonia, and its infrastructure in these old areas. We have to
have consideration for rebuilding and bringing them up to today's
standards and we have to keep businesses operating. I think we
have an obligation here to see if there is some possible way to
make this feasible and work.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-2-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
#5-347-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May
8, 1990 on Petition 90-4-2-7 by Philip Funke requesting waiver use
approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing
restaurant located on the north side of Grand River Avenue between
Inkster and Eight Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-4-2-7 to the study
meeting of May 15, 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.
�•► A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-2-8 by
Wonderland Marine, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for outdoor sales
and display of boats in connection with a retail sales facility on
property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington
and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal
is acceptable provided no display of boats is permitted in front of
the existing building front. Also in our file is a letter from the
Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no
11112
objections to this proposal. The Fire Marshal's office also has no
objections but is requesting that no storage of boats be allowed
against the exterior walls of the building, thus restricting Fire
Department access or strategic placement of men and/or equipment.
,om. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objections to this petition. Lastly, we have received a
letter from David G. Miles, Managing Partner of Plymouth Farms
Associates, owner of the property for which the waiver has been
asked. He states the building has been vacant for over one and a
half years and feels that Wonderland Marine would make a good
tenant and would put the property to good use for the benefit of
them as owners and for the City of Livonia. He further states
Wonderland Marine is presently doing business in the City of
Livonia and their moving into his facility would keep them in
Livonia and therefore he requests a favorable approval of their
request.
George Mitter, 30303 Plymouth: What we are doing here is to fence in the area that
is in red on the map and blacktop and cement the area for use of
display of boats and storage of boats while they are being
serviced. We also are asking for approval of our racks that we
have now on Plymouth Road. They are approximately 13 feet tall
and boats fit on top of the racks and are approximately 4 feet
higher. Those racks will be placed behind the building. I agree,
we are all trying to make Plymouth Road a better area. Where I am
located at now, I have outgrown that building. We need to move.
We don't want to leave Livonia. We also have our store sold and
the gentleman who is willing to purchase the building, he is
willing to put a greenbelt in like you have asked and put in plenty
of parking behind the store so I think this move for me and also
'rr. Livonia is a very good move for both of us.
Mr. McCann: One of the notes is regarding the storage of boats, the visibility
from the main road. When people drive by now, you have a boat on
your roof. You have boats in the backyard. You are not going to
have that visibility here. Do you understand that one of the
conditions will most likely be that there will be no storage of
boats, new, used, being repaired, in the front part of the
building?
Mr. Mitter: Definitely. I understand that. My plans for the building are to
put in all plate glass windows. $150,000 will go into that
building before we even move into it.
Mrs. Fandrei: Along the line of Mr. McCann, the storage area that you are
referring to is going to be very visible from Farmington Road.
There is a parking lot next to this. I would like to see some type
of screening for this area. You are talking about blacktopping.
The only screening I could think of that would be pleasing would be
a strip wide enough to accommodate something like ivy that could
grow in a relatively quick time. That is my biggest concern. It
will be visible from Farmington Road.
Mr. Mitter: Wouldn't we though create a situation for the thievery. You are
11113
asking for a greenbelt that would grow 20 feet tall. I have
several stores now throughout the Wayne County area and the minute
we have brush or anything growing by the fencing, this is where
they come through. If you need to have that done, I will do that
but I really think you are asking me to create the thievery that we
have seen now coming into our area. I think we would be inviting a
thief to come in and hide in the bushes and cut my fence open. If
you need to have it done, I will do it.
Mrs. Fandrei: You have a good point. I was concerned about visibility.
Mr. Mitter: I have plans to light this area up.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, do you have any suggestions?
Mr. Nagy: I think what we all want to see, landscape screening, is not
necessary in that area because of the industrial nature of the area
to the north.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, we have indicated no storage of boats in the front of the
building and the Fire Department indicated no storage of boats
against the building so they can get their equipment in, so if we
were to approve this with the resolution we have, would we be
protected enough or must we have that as another condition?
Mr. Nagy: The ordinance itself, the C-2 zoning district regulations, prohibit
the display of motor vehicles, boats, trailers in the front yard.
Mr. Tent: Sometimes they say they didn't understand.
Mr. Mitter: No I understand. I have no plans at all for storage in the front.
Mr. Nagy: In the rear yard, you may want to condition that. He would be
allowed to store in the rear yard so if you want to regulate it,
other than through the adherence to the site plan, to keep the area
free, you should add a condition to your resolution to prohibit the
storage next to the building.
Mr. Tent: I just want to make sure he understands and we understand.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you own the building on Plymouth Road? Are you going to sell
that?
Mr. Mitter: That has been sold on the condition we move here.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How big?
Mr. Mitter: The back yard is 40 feet wide by 110 feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What kind of business could go in there?
Mr. Mitter: The gentleman who bought our store is the owner of Wine Barrel. He
is planning on putting a deli or party store in there. He has been
in touch with the City already.
11114
David Miles, Managing Partner of Plymouth Farms Associates: We would respectfully
submit that you give this petition a favorable recommendation.
This building has been, as many of you know, a former Highland
Appliance Store and has been vacant for quite some time. One of
the problems we have had is because it is a big depth of a store.
A business such as a boat business would be excellent for this.
Also to answer your concerns about outside displays of boats in the
front, we actually have in our lease with Mr. Mitter he can't put
boats in front. I think it is a good use for the building and
keeps Mr. Mitter in the City and I look forward to a favorable
recommendation if possible.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to keep the same name?
Mr. Mitter: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you just store your boats or used boats also? Do you store
boats there for people who just want to leave them there?
Mr. Mitter: No.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you keep as many boats there in the winter time?
Mr. Mitter: I actually bring in more boats in the winter time to build up my
inventory.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-2-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
``. approved, it was
#5-348-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-4-2-8 by Wonderland Marine, Inc. requesting waiver
use approval for outdoor sales and display of boats in connection with a
retail sales facility on property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 90-4-2-8 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan prepared by Ellis/Naeyaert Associates which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the height of the boat rack plus boats shall not exceed 18' .
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 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
,ft. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
11115
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. Morrow: I have a request. Is there any way we could soften the view from
Farmington Road without violating your security and causing
vandalism? I would like to see you give some thought to it. It is
not a condition but give it a thought.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-2-10 by
Chi Chi's Inc. requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area
and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the northeast
corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 24.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their department has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating their
office has no objections to the proposed addition. Also in our
file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the proposed
addition is acceptable to their office. They further state there
are no sidewalks along Schoolcraft or along the North drive. They
recommend that sidewalks be installed at least along Schoolcraft.
We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
err have no objection to this petition.
Edward Goldberg, representing Chi Chi's: Any questions I can answer?
Mr. LaPine: Give us the reasons why you feel we should grant you this waiver
use. Why you have to increase the size of the restaurant. How you
are going to alleviate the parking problems you have.
Mr. Goldberg: With our existing site plan, which I believe allows for 239 cars,
we have asked, in conjunction with our landlord, for some overflow
parking which would create our request for 12 additional spaces
which we felt would be our maximum level on Friday and/or Saturday
night from approximately 6:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. , which would put
us in a situation based on our total capacity on a 2-1 ratio, which
I believe is in compliance. Our objective behind asking for the
addition simply would be to provide more comfortable dining for our
patrons. At times we find ourselves in a busy situation whereby we
are on a wait type of a factor that is too long for our patrons.
We find that by adding additional seating or providing more space,
this will alleviate that problem and in a sense what it would do,
it would make a faster turn over ratio and alleviate a long wait
type or uncomfortable situation in our lobby area. That is what
our goal and objective would be.
Mr. LaPine You are not physically increasing the size of the building?
11116
Mr. Goldberg: The basic part of the building in its original format. We
presently have a grass area that is in a sense part of the
building, which has a sidewalk that wraps around. What we would be
looking to do is to increase the two walls of the building which
would create some additional seating within our restaurant. We are
not asking or looking for any major construction whereby we would
be disrupting the normal flow of the existing building. We would
be simply adapting the grass area into part of the present
building.
Mr. Tent: The Department of Public Safety indicated sidewalks would be
required along Schoolcraft. Would you be agreeable to honor that
request.
Mr. Goldberg: I believe we presently have a sidewalk in place.
Mr. Nagy: Yes he has one there it just didn't appear on the site plan.
Mrs. Fandrei: What you are doing, you are removing some of your landscaping.
Mr. Goldberg: Our objective is to take the present grass area in the corner of
the building and reconstruct the building.
Mrs. Fandrei: But you are removing landscaping.
Mr. Goldberg: We are not disrupting any normal flow of the sidewalk or any major
change to the outside or exterior of the building other than simply
bringing those walls up to the level of the present walls.
Mrs. Fandrei: I understand that but you are removing the landscaping, that being
`,.. the grass area.
Mr. Goldberg: Our plan is to take the existing landscape and re-utilize that
throughout the restaurant grounds. We would not destroy any of the
landscape.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, removing this landscaping, is that going to decrease the
required landscaping for that site?
Mr. Nagy: He is well over the 15% requirement.
Mrs. Fandrei: Your plan is to re-utilize the plant material in other areas.
Mr. Goldberg: Yes absolutely.
Mrs. Fandrei: That is one of my main concerns. We have a nice looking building
because the landscaping is in place. If you are going to remove it
and put it in another area, that is acceptable. Would you have
enough area between the building and the sidewalk to utilize some
of that landscape.
Mr. Goldberg: Yes. Wherever possible we would look to enhance the building. We
have some additional spots in mind for taking at least two small
trees that are presently there and we have some specific spots in
mind to utilize them within the present site.
11117
Mr. LaPine: Do you have a parking problem there now?
Mr. Goldberg: At this time I would say no. We are not at full capacity in our
present use of the lot. Our lot is vast in size. We found
,,` ourselves where we would reach our maximum point where the lot
would be full would be Friday or Saturday night and from
approximately 6:00 p.m. until 8:30 - 9:00 p.m.
Mr. LaPine: Didn't you request an addition to the restaurant a couple of years
ago?
Mr. Goldberg: Yes. There was a request, I believe, in 1984 for an addition to
the building. Several things have changed since that original
request. In remodeling our restaurant we have changed our seating
in our lounge and took the capacity of our lounge from 146 seats
down to 105 seats so by remodeling the lounge, we actually lost
seats but we did create a more comfortable situation for our
guests. The second point that took place in 1984, we were the only
restaurant located within that area and, of course, when you open a
new facility, it was extremely busy and there was less competition
in the area, which made for a busy situation. However, that has
changed somewhat and in a competitive market place we have to
provide a comfortable and pleasant atmosphere for our guests and
that is really what our primary goal is in asking for the addition to
our restaurant.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-2-10 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#5-349-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-4-2-10 by Chi Chi's Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing
restaurant located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft and Middlebelt
Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-4-2-10 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan prepared by Godsey Associates, Architects dated
4-9-90 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
2) That the Building Elevation Plan prepared by Godsey Associates,
Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
3) That the total number of customer seats shall not exceed 428.
4) That the petitioner shall submit to the Ordinance Enforcement
Division of the Department of Inspection a copy of a recorded
instrument which provides for the petitioner's use of up to 12
off-site parking spaces for employee parking only.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
11118
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek,
Fandrei
NAYS: McCann, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-3-3-2 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #178-90,
proposing to vacate a 20' wide public alley located south of Plymouth
Road between Berwick and Auburndale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34.
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 Fire Marshal's office stating
vacating this alley would hamper fire operations in this area,
therefore, it is their recommendation that the alley at the rear of
DePalma's not be vacated or barricaded at any time. We have also
received a letter from Consumers Power indicating their company has
facilities in this area and would object to this petition unless a
provision for the operation and maintenance of their facilities is
included in the final resolution.
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau recommending
the petition be denied for the following reasons: 1. The
ingress/egress for the parking lot is limited to one drive onto
Plymouth Road and the alley. 2. A twenty foot aisle is necessary
for circulation of traffic between parking aisles. 3. An
additional drive onto Plymouth Road would be poor design and create
additional traffic friction and accident potential. 4. The backing
of vehicles across the sidewalk into Berwick would be unsafe. 5.
No more than four spaces could be obtained by closing the alley.
The gain would be offset by the problems. 6. Overflow parking is
available in the parking lot on the east side of Auburndale. This
is approximately 350 feet from the door. 7. If the alley were
closed half the width would probably revert to the houses south of
the alley, thus negating any gain and complicating the movement of
vehicles. 8. The placing/removing of barricades as proposed cannot
be depended on, nor can it be assured that all parked vehicles
would be removed.
11119
We also have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating it is the opinion of that department that the
precedent set by approving this request would be far more damaging
than any benefit derived from vacating the alley. The letter
No.. states that historically the restaurant business, especially on
Plymouth Road, has been somewhat tenuous. Hours of operation,
customer load, deliveries, etc. do change. Vacating the alley is
permanent. The disruption of traffic flow, the elimination of one
way traffic in an area too narrow for two way traffic, the
precedent set for the remaining six blocks of alley, are all
against this proposal. They state perhaps the Commission should
consider a trial period of barricading the alley as Mr. DePalma
originally requested, prior to any action as final as the vacating
of the alley.
Lastly, we have received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they
have no objection to this vacation provided easements are reserved
the full width of the existing alley to protect their existing
equipment. They state if the reservation of an easement is not
desired, they request that the vacation of subject alley be
postponed until the Detroit Edison Company has had an opportunity
to arrange for relocation expenses with the property owner.
Mr. Engebretson: This came to us from the Council after the owner of the
restaurant sought some relief exploring several possibilities for
additional parking there and it is clear the Planning Commission
was to conduct this public hearing to investigate the impact of
vacating this alley but we heard from the Department of Public
Safety and others that there are serious drawbacks to almost any
other possible use of this space, whether it is vacated or
`► barricaded temporarily. I think by denying our own petition, which
was brought on behalf of the Council, we put to bed quite
emphatically this issue and I think the restaurant operator needs
to look to other ways to solve the problem. It is a nice
restaurant but there is no way that this problem can be solved by
dealing with that small alley space.
Mrs. Fandrei: I don't think that we, as a Planning Commission, want to set a
precedent such as this.
Mr. Tent: We really are not denying him any additional parking because with
the valet parking you can move those cars to the City-owned parking
lots so he doesn't have any hardship as far as I am concerned.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-3-3-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-350-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-3-3-2 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution ##178-90, proposing to vacate a 20' wide public alley
located south of Plymouth Road between Berwick and Auburndale in the
11120
Northeast 1/4 of Section 34, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-3-3-2 be denied for the
following reasons:
`1ww 1) That the subject alley provides necessary public access to the
abutting commercial uses.
2) That any additional off-street parking gained by the proposed
vacating would be very minimal at best.
3) That vacating the subject alley would have a severe negative impact
on the movement of vehicular traffic in and out of the area.
4) That if the alley were vacated, the south one-half would revert to
the abutting residential property to the south and therefore,
become unusable to the abutting commercial uses to the north.
5) That the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police and
Division of Fire as well as the Ordinance Enforcement Division of
the Inspection Department all recommend that this proposed
vacating be denied.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of
Ordinances.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Kluver: The staff made a very detailed analysis of the parking problems
`r.. that existed in that area, block by block. I would like to make a
suggestion that that study be packaged and forwarded to the Council
and also various parties involved with the recommendation that
possibly they can solve their own problems.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-2-6-3 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #163-90, to
determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 relating to the location
and height of radio towers and antennas in the City of Livonia,
including therein the consideration of cellular mobile towers.
Mr. Nagy: The proposed amendment is to add to the appropriate section of the
Zoning Ordinance that deals with the location of television and
radio towers and antennas and satellite antennas to include as well
the cellular mobile towers. The cellular mobile towers would then
be subject to the same type of regulations television and radio
towers are and that is the only change in the language.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-2-6-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously
approved, it was
11121
#5-351-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8,
1990 on Petition 90-2-6-3 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Council Resolution #163-90, to determine whether or not to amend Section
18.42 relating to the location and height of radio towers and antennas
Niftyin the City of Livonia, including therein the consideration of cellular
mobile towers, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 90-2-6-3 be approved for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for the location
and control of all types of antennas and towers including cellular
mobile towers.
2) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with the goals
and policies sought to be achieved by the Zoning Ordinance.
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.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next 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. Borin was asked to make a statement for the record that he would put up a wall.
Mel Borin, 27300 Franklin Road, Southfield: I am the Managing Partner of Mid-Plaza
`. Associates. In light of things that developed at the last meeting,
especially in connection with my neighbor who I was working with and
will continue to work with, it is his desire to personally support me if
I do construct a brick masonry wall. I would be willing to do it. I
have already investigated it and I have priced it out. I see it is the
right thing to do.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-352-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April
17, 1990 on Petition 90-3-1-5 by Mid-Plaza Associates 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 recommend to the City Council that
Petition 90-3-1-5 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning reprsents only a very minor
extension of the C-1 zoning district in the area.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the adjacent uses in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide a uniform zoning
classification over all of the property owned by this petitioner.
11122
4) That the proposed change of zoning is a logical and reasonable
action since the petition area is part of an overall development
most of which is currently zoned and developed for commercial
purposes.
Now
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.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-353-90 RESOLVED that, Sign Permit Application by Burn Sign Company for Star
Furniture to erect a new wall sign located at 33500 Seven Mile Road 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. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-354-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Burn Sign Company for Star
Furniture to erect a new wall sign located at 33500 Seven Mile Road be
approved subject to the following condition:
"ter. 1) That the sign plan and graphic drawings #S-3b, S-3c and S-3d dated
March 1990 prepared by Burns Sign Company are hereby approved and
shall be adhered to.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-355-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to provide for the regulation of restaurant
uses as waiver uses when located in department stores, supermarkets or
other developments (in lieu of allowing such uses as accessory uses).
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. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
11123
#5-356-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 599th Regular Meeting and Public
Hearings held on April 17, 1990 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: LaPine, Morrow, Kluver
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#5-357-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
90-4-8-4 by Bi-Con Construction for Abe Jaafar requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing
building located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft
and Bentley in Section 23 subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site and Building Plan as shown on drawing #1-G72 by Bi-Con
Construction Co. , Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That the petitioner shall upgrade the site landscaping by replacing
all dead or dying plant material, repair and re-strip the parking
lot as needed by July 1, 1990 and abide by all zoning grants
presently in force regarding window signage for both businesses.
Nor A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson,
Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#5-358-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Revised Building Plan submitted in connection with
Petition 71-2-8-1 by Schostak Brothers and Co. requesting approval of
all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in
connection with a proposal to remodel the front of the specialty shops
on property located on the north side of Seven Mile at Farmington in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That Site Plan S-1 dated 4/24/90 by Schostak Bros. and Co. , Inc. , is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
11124
2) That the new Building Elevation and Landscape Plan shown on Sheet 3,
dated 4/23/90 by Wah Yee Associates is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3) That the Building Detail and Sign Plan shown on Sheet 4 by Wah Yee
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the new landscaping be installed upon completion of the
remodeling project and that the petitioner make a valid attempt to
transplant the existing trees slated for removal, to another part
of the site.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#5-359-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Schostak Brothers for AAA
Travel to erect new wall signs at Laurel Park Office Complex be approved
subject to the following condition:
1) That the sign plan and graphic drawings shown on Plan #641 dated
3/8/90 prepared by Lacraft, Inc. are hereby approved and shall be
adhered to.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`.. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#5-360-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Wagner Sign Co. for
Officemax to erect a new wall sign at Wonderland Center be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Sign Plan 900324 A dated 4/11/90 for Officemax prepared by
Wagner Sign Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2) That this approval be subject to the petitioner being granted a
variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess sign area.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 600th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on May 8, 1990 was adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
r
/ j/ / - Raymo d W. Tent, Secretary
'r.,• ATTEST: 4`r, JLC , 1. �__
William LaPine, Chairman
jg