Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-07-18 10748 MINUTES OF THE 582nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA %ow On Tuesday, July 18, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 582nd 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 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann Brenda Lee Fandrei Members absent: Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. LaPine informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been 'tor furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to rezone Lot 351 of Supervisor's Livonia Plat #6 located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Clarenceville Cemetery in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.S. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the proposal. Mr. LaPine: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the granting of this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was 10749 #7-156-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to rezone Lot 351 of Supervisor's Livonia Plat #6 located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Clarenceville Cemetery in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-11 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the lands along Eight Mile Road in this area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-20 by Charles Tangora for Marvin Walkon requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth Road and the C. & 0. Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-1 to C-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. Charles Tangora: I represent the petitioner, Marvin Walkon. At the study session I think we called to your attention the fact that Mr. Walkon is also the developer of the property immediately to the north, commonly known as the Auto Village, which was completed about a year ago. Even though it was zoned M-1 that particular use is a quasi- commercial use and we did file and were granted a waiver use to operate an automotive mall in an M-1 district so we do have a quasi-commercial use to the north and a commercial use directly to the south. The piece of property we are now considering has laid vacant for a number of years. It is owned by Mr. Samuels, who is the owner of the shopping center that is directly to the south of it. As I indicated to you at the study session, the developers of this site are talking to large scale users. They are not interested in going into small scale or a strip center type of shopping center. They don't think this particular area is amenable to that because it doesn't back up to a large residential neighborhood and the type of use is the type of use that is generally found in the Livonia Mall and some of the other commercials nearby. I think, although there is not a tenant we can reveal to you yet, they are continuing to negotiate and if they are encouraged by this board and also by Council, I think this type of user will become a reality. \ w 10750 Mr. LaPine: Does your client own this property now? Mr. Tangora: No. Mr. Tent: This is a very significant zoning change. I recognize we are talking zoning now and not site development but I, as one commissioner, am haw very much concerned. It is zoned M-1. We are running out of industrial property in the City. I don't like to play games with speculative zoning. If you have a client, I would like you to reveal who the tenant would be. We can go ahead and rezone that to C-2 and we could find ourselves in a lot of problems. If the client you have is a Triple A client and is willing to come into the City, I don't see why you can't reveal who it is. Mr. Tangora: Mr. Goldberg is the one who has been negotiating with them and he is here tonight. He might want to join me. As we indicated we don't have anyone's name on the written document. Even if we mention a name to you, we cannot guarantee that this is going to be a tenant until we sign a lease. It is just like any other commercial type of development, Livonia Mall or Laurel Park Place. When those shopping centers were built, outside of the key anchor, there were no known tenants at that time. Tenants are not normally ready to sign leases until the approvals have been secured and construction has either started or near started. Mr. Tent: Is it Macro? Mr. Tangora: No it is not. Mr. Goldberg: I can understand your concern and I would like to be able to tell you tonight exactly who those tenants are. They have asked me at this time because one of them is new to this market and for competitive reasons, he did not want his name used. I wish we could tell you the names but I can't in good conscience and anything else would be doubletalk. The fact of the matter is one of the tenants expressed some concern that he did not want to begin negotiations until there was some sense that the zoning was achievable because around the country they have gone in and they get going and in some communities they don't get the zoning and it is a long, long process. I stand ready to answer any other questions. Mr. Tent: I appreciate your honesty but I want to see what you have because they could back out and we are stuck with C-2 zoning in an industrial area. Mr. Goldberg: I would love to make a compelling argument otherwise but I can't look you in the face and say anything different. Mr. Morrow: My comment is a little more direct. If I look at an area in the City that is well served with commercial, that would probably have to be, if not number one, right up there. One of the things that has made the City of Livonia what it is today is the manufacturing belt and that is where this property is. To me I don't think we can have too much manufacturing. I do think we can have too much commercial. There would have to be an overriding need for commercial in that area for me to support commercial zoning in an industrial belt. 10751 Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tangora, at our study session you said the building would be 37,000 square feet? Mr. Tangora: Again, approximately. Mr. Goldberg: We gave you a rough idea and until we end up with a final tenant, we '014m► cannot answer that question. It is large user designated. Mr. Vyhnalek: You said there would be no more than three possibilities. Mr. Goldberg: Our current site plan contemplates three users. It would be three or four users that we are talking about. One of those users is a large user currently in the 25 to 30 thousand square foot range. Mr. Vyhnalek: On Mr. Walkon's property to the north, what is the greenbelt between the building to the east and the property line? Mr. Goldberg: My recollection is it is 40 feet between the building and the lot line. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Goldberg could you give us a sense of when it might be appropriate for you to reveal who the prospective tenants are? Mr. Goldberg: I would love to call up tomorrow and tell you we have a name to give you. It could be tomorrow or it could be two months. It is just in negotiations and again, in response to Mr. LaPine, if I told you any differently it would be historic. Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked that question was you have heard from Mr. Tent about his concern about this and Mr. Morrow's feelings that there needs to be a compelling reason to make this significant change and I am wondering if you need more time or is it impossible to predict? Mr. Goldberg: It is impossible to predict. Mr. Engebretson: I am just wondering if we are in one of these positions where he who blinks first loses. Mr. LaPine: If we rezone this property and if you could tell us who the prospective tenant is going to be, we might be enthused but on the other hand if we rezone this property and you can't get that tenant and you get someone else, we are stuck because once it is rezoned, we can't change anything. We should only be talking about if this land should be rezoned, but the fact is what is going in there might be important to us, so you see the position we are in. Mr. Morrow: I think you have gotten to the heart of the issue here tonight because zoning cannot be conditioned. The petitioner has certainly developed a satisfactory track record to the north and even if they promise us something, they may not be able to deliver. We have to resolve that issue. Laurie Schwartz: I live in one of the properties abutting the auto mall. As far as the neighborhood concensus goes, and there are several of them here, we have been very pleased with the auto mall. We came to all the 10752 meetings and the people here that we worked with then fulfilled all their promises to us and have continued to upkeep the property. They built the wall as we wished. There were many different plans but for our safety and protection we asked for a concrete wall and that is what is there. Our property values have increased, which I am very pleased about. We would prefer the commercial as opposed to `' industrial because we live there. The idea of having manufacturing right behind us is not appealing. If we want to move we have to deal with trying to convince someone that our property has good value because we do have industrial by us. I think for our benefit a C-2 rating is probably more to our advantage than having light industrial or factories. I think they delivered the promises they made to us. They came back to move the entire system forward to add twenty feet to our greenbelt and they have maintained it. We have had no problems with the tenants. Our concerns have not materialized. It has been a very advantageous relationship. We prefer it to industrial. From a neighborhood standpoint we would prefer retail and we trust their promises to us that they will continue with the wall and continue with the upkeep on the greenbelt. Mrs. Fandrei: You have a forty foot greenbelt? Ms. Schwartz: Yes between the property line and tenant parking lot. Mrs. Fandrei: Where do you live. Ms. Schwartz: I am the third one south of the Cadillac plant. Mrs. Fandrei: So you aren't close to the present C-2? `, Ms. Schwartz: I am very close. Mrs. Schwartz: And you don't find that displeasing? Ms. Schwartz: No. Mr. Morrow: Laurie, you are aware that wall is required by ordinance? Ms. Schwartz: Yes but it did not have to be a concrete wall. At that time we were given an option. They gave us a six foot wall and the ordinance only calls for a four or five foot wall. Mr. Morrow: If this land were to change hands for any reason, and I can tell you are pleased with the current owner, say for whatever reason it changed and another developer came in, would you feel as comfortable in that commercial zoning as you are now? Ms. Schwartz: I believe so. Mr. Walkon: As is evident, you have an industrial piece of property squeezed in between a commercial piece and a quasi-commercial piece. The strip center, as you are well aware, has not been well maintained. The auto mall, which I developed, has been well maintained. The whole group, the neighbors are here, and each one will speak as to every 10753 promise we made to that neighborhood, we fulfilled. The strip center is an eyesore. This is going to be first class. If it is not first class, we won't develop it and we will let our option drop. If it is going to be a strip center, we will not build it. We will not own a strip center. It is a "Catch 22". We have nine months for rezoning. If this matter is tabled for a significant length of time, the petition will die. It will die not because of a vote, it will die because of time frame. The reason this property is sitting for as long as it is sitting is one word - price. You can't build a factory at over $4.00 a square foot. It doesn't make economic sense. This property has been for sale prior to the auto mall. It is not sold because of the price. The neighborhood is saying and they are saying it clearly and loudly. We don't want a warehouse. We don't want a factory. If they want a factory let them go in an industrial area." This is Plymouth Road. This is Middlebelt Road. This is a commercial area. You have a strip center. You have an auto mall and you have an odd ball piece. We have tried to be frank with you. The tenant will not commit when they see that you don't have zoning. So you have a very difficult situation. The question should be, before this body, should the property be zoned commercial? Does it make sense between Samuel's strip center and the auto mall to have an industrial piece of property? Does it make sense for the City and does it make sense for that whole neighborhood and they are all here. They want it. Mr. LaPine: Let's assume you got the rezoning, how long would it be before you would be able to purchase that land? Mr. Walkon: We have a purchase agreement presently. It is subject to rezoning for C-2. That is one of the conditions. Mr. LaPine: If you got the rezoning, you would purchase the property right away. Is that correct? Mr. Walkon: Yes. Mr. LaPine: You made the statement that if you can't get the prospective tenant you hope to bring in there, you won't build a strip center. Consequently the zoning is there and you might sell off that property and the next guy might bring in a strip center. Mr. McCann: I think the first thing about the "Catch 22" he brought up is if this is rezoned to C-2 and you say if you can't get a prime tenant, you are telling us we are going to get garbage back there. That is not what we want. We have a ton of C-2 in that area of Livonia so you are telling us maybe we should look for another option. Maybe it should be research and development. Maybe it should be C-1. I like what you are telling me. I really like what the audience has to say about your auto mall. It is saying a tremendous amount about you and your operation. However, your "Catch 22" scares me more than anything else. M-1 probably isn't the best thing for that area but give us something. `r• 10754 Mr. Walkon: Let me try to give you something. If I can't tie up the tenant that I want, I will drop the option and the property will not be sold. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Walkon do you presently own the auto mall? 'r. Mr. Walkon: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: So you have control of the condition of the property. You would continue to own this piece if you were to get it zoned and have control of the condition of that also? Mr. Walkon: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned that we heard from the residents. We heard from one resident. I guess it is my desire to hear from the individuals. If they are here I would like to hear yes or no from them. If they prefer the commercial, I would like to hear that from them. Mr. LaPine: I will go to the audience one more time. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Kim Mylar: I live in the house right next to Cadillac. I personally do not want industrial. I deal with trucks all day long and I would prefer commercial. These gentlemen are very cordial. The wall is great. The greenbelt gives us privacy. I am raising a family and I feel very comfortable and very safe with the greenbelt and the wall. With industrial, I get so much noise from Cadillac right now, I don't need any more. I was very pleased that they extended the greenbelt. That was one of our concerns. I do like having the auto mall there. Mrs. Sobolewski: Kim, you realize that Auto Village is already on M-1, which this firy piece of property is zoned presently. If these users do not come in and use that land, then he could sell it as C-2. You could have restaurants, like McDonalds, or something that is not quite as desirable. Art Fleming: The northern line of the property in question runs into my property. All I can do is reiterate what the two young ladies have said. I feel the same way about this project as they feel. Mr. Tent: I would like to address the three people who spoke. I am just as equally concerned as you are as to what is going to be put in that property. If I were in your position, I wouldn't want manufacturing either so I would grab at anything that would come my way. As one commissioner, I would like them to come in and show me what is going to be used on that property. We have had other areas in the City where developers have come in and they have said we are going to build a Jacobsons, we are going to build this. We have nothing at this point to tell us what is going to happen. He said he has a first class tenant but he can't tell us. Well, we have a first class City and if that tenant wants to come in our City, he should let it be known that he wants to come to Livonia and he wants to be treated fair. All I ask is tell me who you are. Bring in your plans and I would certainly go along with it. I want him to tell us what they are going to put in there. I feel we could work something out. I `irr. 10755 don't want to go along with speculative zoning and if it doesn't materialize, then someone else can come in with a strip center. If they come in with the developer, we will give them time, but once you get that zoning, the ball game is over. `,, Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Walkon, could you live with C-1 zoning rather than C-2? Mr. Walkon: I would want an opportunity to think about that and do some research before I answer that. Let me try to address the concern. It is basically if we can't get the users, we are not going forward. We will drop the option. That is clear. As far as C-1, I am not sure. I would like an opportunity to find out exactly if the users we are talking to would be able to go into that zoning. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-1-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #7-157-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-20 by Charles Tangora for Marvin Walkon requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Plymouth Road and the C. & 0. Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-5-1-20 until August 1, 1989. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-21 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and Angling Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to C-1 and P. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. LaPine: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #7-158-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-21 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers Avenue and Angling Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to C-1 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-1-21 be approved for the following reasons: 10756 1) That the proposed change of zoning to the C-1 district represents only a minor extension of a zoning district already established on the subject site. 2) That the proposed P, parking zoning district is needed to serve the '`v uses permitted by the C-1 district. 3) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and uses in the area. 4) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for development of the subject property as permitted by the C-1 zoning district, at the same time, protecting the interests of the surrounding property owners as well as the City of Livonia as a whole. 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 89-6-1-22 by Darryl Rogers for International Development requesting to rezone property located east of Belden Court and south of the C. & 0. Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-l. 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 petition signed by 93 area residents stating they feel that further encroachment of commercial into residential areas would be a detriment to this community and cause problems in the future, such as noise, trash, pollution, as well as possible decline of property values. We feel that with the availability of other already vacant commercial properties in the area that it is not necessary to rezone this residential property for commercial development. Mr. Morrow: I have one comment. As we get into the public hearing, I want the people who signed that petition to understand we are not talking about commercial property, we are talking about a manufacturing, M-1 district. I just want to clear that up. Darryl Rogers, 32400 Telegraph Road: Basically what I am attempting to do is rezone approximately 30,000 square feet of R-5 to M-1 and from my understanding of the property up at the top where it says M-1, there is a proposed industrial road that the City of Livonia has been attempting to install. About ten years ago they wanted to connect it all the way through the Belden Park and have it running all the way out to Stark Road. I own all the property on the east side of Belden Court. I also own the first lot of M-1 just above the parcel in question. What I am attempting to do is pick up a little more industrial property and final out this industrial park. I would be putting up a wall abutting all the R-5 property. Right now there is 10757 a 20 foot setback and I would be willing to make some concessions, making it approximately a 100 foot setback from the R-5 property. Also, right now what I could do do, I have been working with the property owners of the M-l. Again, I own the balance of the property on Belden Court. I own the next M-1 piece and then there are another Nft,. 12 acres owned by Tom Sullivan and I have been in negotiations with him to open up and create an easement, creating another 12 acres of industrial property there. I understand the residents are concerned. I guess there are two ways to approach the situation. What I am trying to do is just final out an industrial park. That is one option. The other option is to create an easement and provide a road down that 12 acres and build ten or twelve industrial buildings. Mr. LaPine: This parcel that you are trying to rezone, was that purchased from the person who owns the house? Mr. Rogers: Yes. The last house at the end of Beacon, was a small house. The property was approximately 3.96 acres and that is who I am buying the property from. Mr. LaPine: Do you need this parcel to put together another parcel to put a building on for a tenant you have in mind? Mr. Rogers: Yes I need the parcel to put a building on it. Mr. Engebretson: I am trying to understand what you mean by finaling out that industrial park. Mr. Rogers: I am ready to build more buildings and I am trying to get site plan approval. I can do one of two things. I can leave access for the `tor future to extend Belden Court into the M-land the twelve acre parcel that Tom Sullivan owns or leave an ingress and egress to serve the additional property. Mr. Engebretson: What I am trying to understand is you have indicated that you intend to build a 30,000 square foot building on that property so what does that have to do with the development of that M-1 property? Mr. Rogers: Because when I build one building, I am going to build four buildings. It is going to be a very nice layout for me and I am not going to create any type of easement back to the balance of the property. If I don't get it, I will have more property than I need at the end of the cul-de-sac and I would have to look at different alternatives for site plan. Mr. Engebretson: If this zoning change were not granted, you still would be in a position to final out your industrial park, wouldn't you? Mr. Nagy: Maybe I can clarify this. Since the petitioner owns the land on the east side of Belden Court, the additional M-1 area does not have access by way of a public dedicated road so what Mr. Rogers is saying is if he builds on the four lots the road cannot be extended. What he would do if he got this rezoning would be to extend Belden Court into the new area. Rather than coming up Stark Road he would extend the court so as to open it up for future development. t`, 10758 Mr. LaPine: Couldn't he do that anyways? Mr. Nagy: He could do it without this rezoning. It would just enhance his property. Mr. Morrow: Do you own the property now? Mr. Rogers: It is under contract right now. Mrs. Sobolewski: If he is successful in getting this piece of property rezoned John, does he open up the right to access a road? Mr. Nagy: No it doesn't automatically give him that right. It gives him that option. The plat has been approved so to extend that road, we would go through a platting process. All it does is give him that option at this time. Mrs. Sobolewski: So he does have a chance to put his foot in the door? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you know how much M-1 we have left in the City? Mr. Nagy: Our land use inventory shows approximately 500 to 600 acres of vacant land. Mr. Vyhnalek: M-1 is a prime use in Livonia. Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Are there plans to put a road through there to open up that M-1? Mr. Nagy: It is shown on our Future Land Use Plan as well as on our Future Thoroughfare Plan but it would be there for the benefit of the abutting property owners and only be implemented if the property owners want it to happen. Mr. LaPine: As of right now that property cannot be developed? There is no access to it? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Tim O'Brien: I own the house and the lot at the end of Beacon Road, which includes the lot which is under discussion. I therefore have 127 angry neighbors who have signed the petition. They are saying I am opening up the back door and getting all this land developed. Their concern is rezoning this one section from R-5 to M-1 will open a precedent for all the other R-5 to go to M-1. That is for the City to decide. I own that entire lot and to be truthful I have a house with an additional three acres and the house doesn't need that much land. The wall at the back is still 462 feet from the front of the house and you can't see. I would like to know that the rest of the R-5, which is currently undeveloped, that it would either stay that way or or would that go to be voted on to be all changed and would there be a possibility of more than the M-1 would be developed? Mr. LaPine: All we can tell you is if someone came in with a petition, we would have to consider it. 10759 Mr. O'Brien: This petition is just for this one section of land? Mr. LaPine: That is correct. Do you know who owns that one parcel east of the parcel in question? Mr. O'Brien: I think that is part of the concern. The gentleman who owns other '411o. M-1 also owns the R-5 and it has been undeveloped for twenty years. I am in favor of the petition. Paul Desrosiers, 34940 Beacon: Mr. O'Brien stated some of my concerns. Right now I don't think they proved a necessity to rescind the zoning on that property. I have figures from Mr. Poppenger of the Planning Department that just alone on the I-275 corridor there is an 18% vacancy rate right now on a study he just finished and he is doing a study on the rest of the City and he said there is going to be at least an 18% vacancy rate in the rest of the City. It also stated in the February 20th edition of the Observer they quoted the Planning Commission as stating there are 50 vacant commercial buildings right now along Plymouth Road and now with this petition they seek to rezone residential into more commercial properties, which could potentially sit vacant. According to some of the local real estate, Livonia is a very desirable City to buy a home in and you can sell your home in Livonia in less than thirty days. These restrictions were designed to protect the homeowners. This will create a domino effect. The next guy who comes along how can you argue with him. Some of the other residents are here who agree with this. The petition was signed by approximately 83 out of 120 of the homeowners. We request the Commission doesn't use its powers to invade the residents here and I would appreciate it if you would do what is best for 120 residents rather than what is best for one person. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Morrow pointed out earlier, this is not a rezoning to commercial, it is a rezoning to M-1. Mr. Desrosiers: I understand that. I am not quite familiar with what M-2, M-1 or commercial or manufacturing stands for. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Desrosiers, are you more concerned with the domino effect? In other words, we are considering this parcel on its own merit regardless of anything around it. Does your apprehension center around this parcel or the possible domino effect you see could happen? Mr. Desrosiers: Both. I am concerned with the parcel because we already have a noise problem with the dumpsters and U.P.S. This is going to move more dumpsters and more businesses closer. We are already trying to deal with Waste Management dumping every morning at 4:00. On Belden Court there are six vacant buildings already. The whole corner that he is hoping to expand is vacant property. There doesn't seem to be a need to take more residential property away from the residents. Mr. Vyhnalek: What would you say if that M-1 property was developed and a road put in there and then homes put in across the road. Would you object to that? 10760 Mr. Desrosiers: Not at all. I would have no problem with the road going down the middle and homes being built on the south side and manufacturing on the north side. Mr. Vyhnalek: As one Commissioner that is what I would be heading for. If a road went in there I would have homes on the south side. Some of our `ow buildings on M-1, light manufacturing, are better to look at than any commercial building. The greenbelt and shrubbery and architecture are pretty nice around the City. It is up to us to see that it is done that way. Kevin Sullivan: We own the 12 1/2 acres of industrial and the balance of the R-5, which is a total of 21 acres in that area. We have over the past few years acquired these parcels to try and develop this site and to basically do something with it. Mr. Rogers has approached me on the phone. We have made a few calls back and forth. I have no guarantee from him yet of a road going through there from his area but his option seems to be the best as we have approached the City for the last four years trying to get something done with that parcel and the City has not given us any real direction or help in this area. Basically that is why the property has been sitting. We have made attempts to buy all the parcels that would affect us to get a road up to Stark Road but we have not been effective in doing that so we remain at the point we are now and we are basically blocked in by Belden Park on one side and a couple of the residences on the far east side. Josephine Smith, 34401 Capitol: I am Lot 104. We were concerned when Mr. Rogers bought this property. When he bought the property from Mr. Sears, he knew then that what he wanted was to rezone to commercial. They were `, hoping for commercial. Once you give in to him, we are so worried in our subdivision. We keep fighting for our subdivision. It just seems like you are taking piece by piece away from us. Mr. Rogers knew when he bought this property from Sam Sears that he would try to keep edging in. This is what we are worried about. Our subdivision is very small and very old. Quite a few of the residents are here. We hit about 9/lOths of the homes and they are really against it. Pete Wood: I live on Brewster Street. I am a little confused like some of the other homeowners. The piece of property that is in question is connected to the M-1 and I guess the way we are all looking at it is that all that blown up into nothing but buildings and the way I understand it the Court is going to be used to tie that property together. Mr. LaPine: That is a possibility. It could be extended to open up the M-1 but even if this parcel is not rezoned, He could still extend the Court. Mr. Wood: Is there access to the M-1 now? Mr. LaPine: To the best of my knowledge no. Mr. Wood: I would put my concern as a resident of the subdivision and having little kids and the fact that the rezoning of that will tie the property together and again what would happen at the end of Boston Post, I just wouldn't like to see that as a neighbor. 10761 Mr. Tent: A point of clarification. The R-5 on the map is that owned by Mr. Sullivan? Mr. Sullivan: We own approximately 7 1/2 acres of the R-5. Mr. Tent: If I understand this correctly you certainly would be completely *ft. amendable to the M-1 staying where it is and if the take line beneath the M-1 was zoned residential, you would be perfectly content with that. From what I see there now the industrial is there and they are locked in and where the cul-de-sac is they could work their way into the M-1 and they could develop that and we could possibly develop something in residential. Isn't that right Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: It is theoretically possible. Mr. Tent: Mr. Sullivan, would you be willing, if you had a buyer, to sell that R-5 so it could be developed into a residential property and retain the M-1 above? Mr. Sullivan: We have been approached by a number of large companies in Livonia in the past few years. We have it and they want it. Right now we are stuck. We say we cannot give you a road right now and what they do is drop it right then. Mr. Tent: We have been very fortunate with some of these developers recently with doing some of these things. Maybe we can work something out. Mr. Morrow: If I follow this correctly, this does not preclude the opening of the manufacturing district above the line. This is a fairly small parcel as Mr. Desrosiers pointed out they are afraid of the domino effect because of the fear of the unknown. Planning likes to develop as much property at one time as they can and not piecemeal it. This land has laid fallow for sometime and it would be nice if they could come together and bring forth a plan showing an extension of the M-1 in conjunction with additional residential or some plan to give us guidelines so we could make a decision. I think that is where Mr. Tent was coming from. That little piece of industrial by itself means nothing but I can certainly appreciate where the neighbors are coming from when they say a partial plan coming down the pike as it relates to zoning because these people are fairly well beleaguered in that neighborhood and they seem to be weaving a path back and forth between City Hall. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #7-159-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-6-1-22 by Darryl Rogers for International Development requesting to rezone property located east of Belden Court and south of the C. & 0. Railroad in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-6-1-22 be denied for the following reasons: 10762 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a further encroachment of industrial zoning into a residential area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage similar requests on other vacant property in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to and not in harmony with the 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine, Vyhnalek ABSENT: Kluver Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-6-2-37 by Keith A. Newmarch requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto reconditioning shop on property located on the northwest corner of Plymouth Road and Belden Court in the Southwest 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 Traffic Bureau stating that it was unclear from the sketch whether or not a drive is located on the south side of the building. Assuming one exists, then the parking pattern is acceptable. If there is none, a turn-around area is required on the southwest corner for the angle parkers at the rear. They state further that no ingress/egress should be allowed onto Plymouth Road. It would increase the number of friction points that are already there and would be very close to the Ford Transmission gate. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objections to this development. We also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal and lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Keith Newmarch, 11401 Mayfield: I am requesting a waiver use for a 22,000 square foot building on Belden Court. The question was asked if there was a drive. The drive runs all the way around the building. There is an exit and an entrance at the back of building and exit and entrance in the front of building. There is no drive going onto Plymouth Road. The only access is off Plymouth onto Belden Court. Mr. LaPine: There are overhead doors both at the rear and the front? Are you taking the complete building? Mr. Newmarch: I am taking the complete building. Mr. LaPine: What is reconditioning? 10763 Mr. Newmarch: I hand wash, polish and steam clean engines and steam clean interiors. The polishing is done by machine. Mr. LaPine: Is this similar to the one we just approved off Schoolcraft? ,` Mr. Newmarch: Yes it is. Mr. LaPine: Except they don't do any steam cleaning of engines. That is a large building to do this type of work. How does it operate? How do they get the cars there? Mr. Newmarch: People will be dropping their cars off. I expect a lot of walk ins. If they need transportation, we will transport them to their place of business. We will be picking up cars from places of business and bringing them to the building. They will be cleaned up and transported back to the building. Mr. LaPine: Will any vehicles be kept overnight? Mr. Newmarch: No. Mr. LaPine: We will go through it one more time. You will steam clean engines and you wash and polish cars? Is that basically all that will be done? Mr. Newmarch: Basically yes. The hand washing will be done on the inside of the building. There are five overhead doors. There are two on the sides, two on the front and one on the back. The cars will be pulled around the back of the building, they will be brought in there. They will be washed and the engines will be steam cleaned there. They will then be pulled inside and the carpet will be steam cleaned and the interior cleaned. Mr. LaPine: How many vehicles a day do you anticipate you could handle? Mr. Newmarch: At the peak I am estimating fifty per day. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Newmarch, is this a new business venture? Mr. Newmarch: Yes it is. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have any background in this? Mr. Newmarch: I was in automotive collision business with my older brother. When I was 12 years old my brother was cleaning exteriors and I was cleaning the inside of cars. Mr. Engebretson: How many square feet are you proposing to utilize there? Mr. Newmarch: 22,000 square feet. One side of the building will be used for a detail shop. I also came in front of the City Council for a limousine license. The other side will be used for the limousine service. Mr. LaPine: Are we going to have two businesses here? Limousine service plus the reconditioning shop? 10764 Mr. Newmarch: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Is this something that you will rely on Plymouth Road to attract customers or do you have contracts with used car resale lots, etc? Where will you be getting your clientele? Mr. Newmarch: Large corporations. I don't want to get involved with used car lots. Most used car lots are locked into contracts for $65.00 per unit. If you get a car coming in, you are making money. If you get a customized van coming in, you will lose money. I will charge $125 to $140 depending on the truck and the color of the vehicle. Mr. Morrow: Do you require frontage on Plymouth Road to promote your business? Mr. Newmarch: No. Mr. Morrow: How do you promote your business? Mr. Newmarch: Word of mouth. Mr. McCann: You seem to know somewhat about this. Are you currently doing this some place right now? Mr. Newmarch: I have done it in the past in Oakland County. I was in a 5,000 square foot building. I was doing 270 cars per week. My people were running into each other. I had cars all over the place. Mr. McCann: Is this a business you sold? Mr. Newmarch: I closed down. I couldn't operate out of 5,000 square feet. That `' was in 1981. Mr. McCann: You believe the market is still there? Mr. Newmarch: Yes I do. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you doing anything in that building right now? Mr. Newmarch: No. The structure is there but there is no floor. Mrs. Sobolewski: Will you be owning both of these businesses? Mr. Newmarch: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski: I didn't realize you had to go to Council for a limousine license. Mr. Newmarch: To operate a limousine service in the City of Livonia. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, is that a permitted use? Mr. Nagy: As long as the limousines are stored in a building and no major repairs are done. Mrs. Sobolewski: Can you fill us in about your limousine service? 10765 Mr. Newmarch: The limousine business differs. I was the top driver for Rodeo Limousine in Farmington Hills. There were times when I was coming in at 6:30 in the morning. Other times I left at 7:00 in the morning and I was in by 6:00 that evening. The hours differ depending on the run. The limousines will be stored inside. The only time they will '4111. be outside of the building is during opening hours. My hours are from 7:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening for the detail shop. When the detail work is done, the limousines will be parked inside. Mrs. Sobolewski: How many limousines are we talking about? Mr. Newmarch: Right now I am in the process of picking up one car. I hope within three months I will have four or five vehicles. Mrs. Sobolewski: Will your drivers start from there and conclude there? Mr. Newmarch: I am hiring chauffeurs right now. I had a write up in the Observer about my limousine service. Mrs. Fandrei: You do not plan on doing any major repair to the limousines in that building? Mr. Newmarch: No, none at all, The only thing that will be done there is they will be washed and cleaned inside. All oil changes and lube jobs will be sent out. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Newmarch I certainly don't want to badger you. I want to make sure I understand what is going on here. I think I asked you if you had any similar type of experience in the past and you said no and in `'r response to Mr. McCann's question you said you operated a similar business and that because of its success you decided to close it down. You outran your capacity of 5,000 square feet. I own a business and if I had that problem I think I would instead of having a 12,000 square foot building, I would get a 20,000 square foot building and then a 40,000 square foot building. Am I misunderstanding what you say? Mr. Newmarch: I apologize for that. I was in business in Farmington Hills at Haggerty and Ten Mile. The 5,000 square feet included the offices which brought it down even further. I had problems with the landlord because I explained to him what I needed for sewer systems and he put in a nine inch sewer in the back of my warehouse. My employees were taking squeegees and pushing the water out into the parking lot and I ran into problems with my neighbors. I had to close down. Mr. Engebretson: Then eight years later you decided to do it again on a much greater scale. Are we going to have those problems in Livonia? Mr. Newmarch: No. There is no floor in there now. It is all dirt. I have a lease and the agent put into the lease what I wanted in the warehouse as far as drainage. Everything will drain into those sewers. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have provision, in your plans, to scrub the oil and grease out of the water before you put it into the sewer system? Soy 10766 Mr. Newmarch: I have chemicals that I can add to the water that will delete the grease. It cuts through the grease. Mr. LaPine: A number of times you mentioned the detail shop. Is the detail shop the cleaning of the cars? Mr. Newmarch: The reconditioning of cars. John Osborne: I was not originally here on this particular question but it has aroused my curiousity in that Mr. Newmarch has stated high pressure steam and I would like to ask him what safety measures he is going to take because that is very volatile. Mr. Engebretson just raised the question about solvents and their disposal and my question is on their storage as well. Chemicals added to oil don't really delete it. They emulsify but yet you still have oil plus chemicals and you have a dirt floor. Mr. LaPine: Number one, it won't be a dirt floor. It will eventually be a concrete floor. Number two, let me ask John this. Wouldn't he be required to have some kind of tanks to hold any oil. Mr. Nagy: He would have to submit his plans and handling of the waste water to the Wayne County Health Department. They will review those plans and see that it is properly handled but he will have to take the oils out of the water before they go into the sanitary system. Mr. Vyhnalek: I think Mr. Newmarch should answer about the steam. Mr. Newmarch: The steam cleaning unit that will be steam cleaning the engine is a portable unit. The hoods are opened up. The unit is then hooked up to the hot water tank. A switch is thrown so the unit will heat up inside. You roll it up and part of it rolls underneath the car and then the unit sits over the engine and steam is then pressurized into the engine itself. There is no steam coming out on anyone. It takes a matter of ten to twelve seconds to steam clean an engine. The unit is turned off and that is it. Mr. LaPine: The only cars you will be reconditioning are vans and cars. No trucks? Mr. Newmarch: I don't know how many owners of semi trucks will want their engines reconditioned. Mr. LaPine: So there is a possibility I am going to see some semi's going through here? Mr. Newmarch: I really don't want them in there. Mr. LaPine: Well you own the business. If you don't want them in there, you can say no trucks. Mr. Tent: Mr. Newmarch, you indicated you don't own the property but you have a lease on it. Is that correct? Mr. Newmarch: Correct. 10767 Mr. Tent: How long is your lease? Mr. Newmarch: Five years. It commences September 1st of this year and goes until September 1, 1994. Mr. Tent: These improvements, will that be up to you to put those in or is your landlord going to take care of that for you? Mr. Newmarch: The landlord will take care of the improvements inside the building. I am responsible for the landscaping. I am responsible for snow removal and lawn maintenance. Mr. LaPine: Have you signed that lease yet? Mr. Newmarch: No I have not. Mr. LaPine: It is predicated on getting this waiver use? Mr. Newmarch: Correct. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-2-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-6-2-37 by Keith A. Newmarch requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto reconditioning shop on property located on the northwest corner of Plymouth Road and Belden Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-6-2-37 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That industrial subdivisions are developed with more restrictive standards in order to encourage less intensive and more desirable industrial uses than what is being proposed. 4) That the proposed use is not permitted as of right in the M-1 zoning district because of its commercial nature and non-manufacturing aspects which will tend to be detrimental to the continued development of the subdivision for more desirable uses. 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: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine NAYS: McCann, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Fandrei ABSENT: Kluver 10768 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, Say 1989 on Petition 89-6-2-37 by Keith A. Newmarch requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto reconditioning shop on property located on the northwest corner of Plymouth Road and Belden Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-6-2-37 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) Vehicles shall be limited to automobiles, recreational vehicles and boats not to exceed 28 feet in length and light trucks not to exceed 3/4 ton capacity. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accomodate 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. Ntily A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine ABSENT: Kluver Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. Mr. Tent: My opposition to this petition is not the integrity of the person who is going to do it, I just hate to give up our industrial property. We have a piece of valuable property in this area and it is large and industrial users are looking for property to locate in Livonia and I hate to give up this amount of space, in this location, for a piece of commercial development. The property could be used for a much better use as far as the City is concerned and that is my only objection. I have no quarrel with the petitioner but I have problems with the location and I feel strongly against this. Mrs. Fandrei: This property has been on the market for rental for at least a year and a half minimum. It hasn't been rented for anything other than what this petitioner is proposing. I have no problem with it myself. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Tent, if this limousine service most likely will go in and he cannot use 22,000 square feet for a limousine service, I feel that `. this business would be compatible to that service and then we hate to have something else go in there. I think this is a viable project along with the limousine service. 10769 Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to echo Mr. Tent's comments that I have no quarrel with the petitioner or with his business plan but I too think it is the wrong location and I would like to make a motion that we table the item to the next regular meeting when we will have hopefully nine members here and we will settle the matter. 'rr On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #7-160-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-6-2-37 by Keith A. Newmarch requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto reconditioning shop on property located on the northwest corner of Plymouth Road and Belden Court in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-6-2-37 to August 1, 1989. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-6-2-39 by Ilio A. Alessandri requesting waiver use approval to establish general office uses within a Professional Service district located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. 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 Traffic Bureau stating the proposal as submitted is satisfactory. We have also received a ``. letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objection to its development contingent upon the installation of an approved water supply and fire hydrants on site. An approved city hydrant must be provided with a minimum fire flow of 2,000 G.P.M. No building shall be in excess of 350 feet from this water supply. Special consideration should be taken in the placement of the hydrants for accessility to Fire Department Connection in the two future retail buildings. We also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Parking is adequate for the proposed use; however, no allowance was made for medical use. Any medical use of this property would generate a parking deficiency. 2. It is our recommendation that the protective wall be a minimum of 6' high. 3. The proposed ground sign will require further evaluation. Charles Tangora: I represent the petitioner, Marcello Scappatucci. Mr. Alessandri is the architect. I think you might recall Mr. Scappatucci when he appeared before you and asked for the original rezoning and worked with the neighbors that were directly behind him and worked into a program that the neighbors did support the project for a professional service use. Although I was not representing Mr. Scappatucci at the Planning Commission level, I did represent him at the Council where the zoning was eventually approved and with the support of the neighborhood. At the Council level I did indicate, and it was always 10770 known to me, that Mr. Scappatucci planned to build three offices where the professional service use was and one of the offices was to be used by his own building company. At that time we understood that to do that it would have to be further approved by the Planning Commission and the Council for waiver use. I am not very sure and I would like to have a clarification because I was not at the study session on this particular matter. The agenda says we are here for the waiver use petition. Has the site plan also been approved and is that before the Planning Commission for approval tonight? Mr. Nagy: Yes it is. Mr. Tangora: The site plan speaks to two buildings in the commercial section and three similar type buildings in the professional service classification. As I have indicated part of the petition, the waiver use, is that Mr. Scappatucci be allowed to use these also as a general office usage and allow him to occupy the middle building and if necessary to use the other two buildings for general service in the event that the professional services are not forthcoming. My recollection of the site plan was all five buildings were going to be similar in design and they were all going to be constructed as they indicated with a low roof level. They all look like office buildings including the two buildings that would be utilized in the commercial zoning. I understand that at the study session the architect was asked to bring in some material that Mr. Scappatucci intended to use on the building and we have done that. We have a sample of the roof material that is going to be used. We would be happy to answer any questions that the commission would have. Mr. Engebretson: A question to Mr. Tangora. Perhaps better to Mr. Scappatucci since '41m. Mr. Tangora wasn't present during the original rezoning process. Does this waiver use that is being sought here keep faith with the agreement worked out with the neighbors back some number of months ago when the zoning change occurred? Mr. Scappatucci: There was confusion somewhat. I went through the neighborhood and I told them I would be locating my office building there, which is approximately 12,000 square feet. I think everybody understood but they don't understand the meaning of the waiver. I did go back to the residents and explained what the waiver was and what it permits. A little more than a dentist, doctor or lawyer, which would allow a builder and maybe a real estate office. It is possible they are confused. I tried to explain the best I could that professional office is restricted to doctor, etc. but doesn't allow a builder or a real estate company. I did my best to have them understand. They all understood at the beginning that my office would be located there and it would be one-third of the office space. We are in the rental business as well as building business and basically that is why we need 12,000 square feet. Mr. Engebretson: Would you say that was a yes or a no? I am asking you if this kept faith with the agreement you made with the neighbors who objected strongly to the original proposal and had a lot of valid points of concern and my recollection is you negotiated and made some agreements that satisfied the neighbors. 10771 Mr. Scappatucci: We feel it is still the same. The confusion is, does it permit me to move in there now? I feel I did make it clear to them I wanted to move my office in there. Mr. Engebretson: I think the record will show that you did indicate that you intended to locate your general offices there but I am still unclear as to how we stand on the other buildings. Maybe Mr. Tangora who deals with this all the time, maybe he can step in here. Mr. Tangora: Originally I think the back portion was planned to be commercial. That was the major opposition and there was a meeting that resulted in the professional service for the back and the neighbors did support that. I was at the Council meetings and made those representations to the Council that Mr. Scappatucci was going to relocate there and knew that he had to get a waiver use. We just had a discussion with some of the neighbors that are here outside and their concern is that we are changing zoning here and I told them we are not changing zoning. They were concerned if Mr. Scappatucci decided to sell, that there would be some different type of use and we tried to convince them we are not changing zoning and what the waiver use was for was not to eliminate the professional but only to have a combined use along with the professional and the general office. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding from the time we heard the case that Mr. Scappatucci was going to have his offices there. Are you asking us at this time to give him a waiver for his office but the other two buildings will stay professional services or are you asking that all three buildings be changed to general office? Mr. Tangora: It is my understanding that the petition for the waiver use is for all three professional service offices. Mr. McCann: I seem to recall at the time that we discussed that you were going to move in that you would have to get a waiver use. Mr. Nagy, wasn't it our intention originally that he would have to come back for general offices after he finished construction and this was the original plan that he was comining back and that was to be general office down there? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. In addition there were other comments made to the neighborhood that are embodied in the site plan. The neighbors should be well aware the rezoning did not go all the way to the south property line. There is a fifteen foot residential strip. That land is to attach to the residential property. All five of those buildings will be one story, colonial architectural style in appearance. The parking is all planned for the front of the buildings. Buildings in the C-1 zoning will be for all intents and purposes offices in their appearance. Parking is predicated on office usage of property not commercial. There is heavy landscaping. I think to that extent the proposal as presented to the Planning Commission, it is consistent with the promises that were made at the time of the rezoning. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Scappatucci, on your site plan and your landscaping plan, there is a difference in the southern most building in the dimensions. The `fir.• 10772 site plan states 175 feet and the landscaping plan states 180 feet. Which one would be correct? Mr. Scappatucci: The size of the building is 175 feet. The landscape plan is wrong. Mark McCartney, 38910 Minton: Our house abuts up to the southern side of the Nur property in question. I don't believe the proposal that is in front of you is in accordance with what we, the members of the area, agreed with. We saw the bottom half, the southern side of the property, zoned as professional office and in every conversation I have heard with Mr. Scappatucci he was describing that as law offices, dentist, doctor type of office. If he was going to move his office there I think he would have the option that he could move into the top half, which is commercial. Is that correct? Mr. LaPine: I don't think he could because he couldn't operate a general office in a C-1 district. Mr. Nagy: He can put a general office in a C-1 zone. Mr. McCartney: If he was to obtain approval from us, through your hearings, to use general office, he could move his office into the professional area. Is there any limiting information as far as types of construction equipment that could be stored in that area? Mr. LaPine: I don't think he intends to have any storage there, particularly construction equipment. Mr. McCartney: Is there anything in the ordinance that would not allow equipment? 'goy Mr. LaPine: It does not allow construction equipment in a general office. The distinction between professional and general offices is a real fine point. As a matter of fact, we are considering changing the ordinance so P.S. and general office is basically the same thing. Maybe Mr. Nagy can explain that. Mr. Nagy: Peculiar to Livonia's Zoning Ordinance we do not have a general office zoning classification. Mr. Scappatucci, at the very beginning when he proposed the zoning change, could not have filed for a general office zoning classification. The only alternative he had was to put C-1 in the back for any type of general office. Livonia Zoning Ordinance takes out of the permitted use classification of professional services, general offices such as real estates offices, management offices, insurance offices, builder's officers, manufacturer reps, etc. All those kinds of uses are taken out of the permitted use and made subject to waiver use approval. They are prohibited but the prohibition can be waived and the use is allowed. It is a special use and there is not a change in zoning. The zoning remains intact. What Mr. Scappatucci is trying to do is allow greater flexibility and the opportunity to rent building space in the P.S. portion of the property for what we call general offices. Mr. McCartney: So he is not asking only for his own use, he is asking for general use for all those facilities. That is why I disagree. I don't think he is operating in good faith with our original agreement. I am opposed to the plan because I think if we reduce our uses for that \my facility in way of a lower type, less than professional offices, that 10773 can adversely affect the values of our homes in that area and I also believe that as it was planned with the neighborhood strictly professional space on that southern half, that that is still developable property for him, which is much better than what he originally purchased in that area. tirr• Mr. Morrow: When this petition originally came forward, I was opposed to the professional service zoning going that deeply into the residential area. However, that is academic now because it does exist. I have long been an advocate that there is nothing sinister about general office usage. In fact most of the people in Livonia that work in an office would be precluded from occupying that space but more importantly perhaps is the fact that general office is much less intense a use whereas if we have doctors, dentists and lawyers, they have clientele moving back and forth. Office is more stable. They come in at 8:30 a.m. and go home at 5:00 p.m. I have always been an advocate that general office is an appropriate use within a professional service up until we get the office classification that includes everything. I just want to make that clear as an extension of what I think you were getting at Mr. LaPine. Mr. Osborne and Mrs. Osborne, 9486 Patton: We are the new owners of the second home directly abutting Mr. Scappatucci's land. We are new in this process. I am seeing two buildings on C-1 and I am seeing diagonal lines. Are there three buildings planned back there? Is this where the point of contention is? Prior to purchasing our home we checked with the neighbors and heard of the plans. That sounded fine and now I hear it a bit differently. I am wondering if this waiver totally precludes any type of retail or food service. `"r► Mr. LaPine: Yes it would. Mr. Osborne: Are any of these potential lessors going to have night hours? Mr. LaPine: Unknown. Mr. Osborne: Additional telephone lines hanging in the air? Mr. LaPine: Unknown. Mr. Osborne: There is a school in our neighborhood and children travel back and forth. Those are my concerns. Mr. LaPine: At the time of the rezoning we heard all those concerns and in our best judgment the concerns about the traffic, we don't feel that was going to be that much of a problem. Mr. Osborne: Moving into that home, there is a lot of traffic. Mr. LaPine: There is a lot of traffic on any road that you go on in the City of Livonia. Mrs. Osborne: We have seen some heavy equipment back in there and from what I understand from what he just said, none of his equipment was going to go in there and they are not doing any building so what is the equipment being stored in there for? fir. 10774 Mr. LaPine: I have not been out to check the site but there will not be any storage of heavy equipment. It is not permitted. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Osborne, I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that as fir. you can see on that map the area under consideration here tonight is the part that is furthest from the road. The building that abuts your property that is done. What we are talking about now, as Mr. Morrow pointed out, is just crossing over a real fine line whether we would restrict this to attorneys and doctors and so on with the people coming in and out versus people that would tend to come to work in the morning and leave at night. With your concerns about traffic, general offices would probably be a less intense use of that property than what was approved previously. Maybe that will put your mind to rest a bit. Mr. Osborne: I question his use of rental. Mr. LaPine: He is going to lease space to prospective tenants or he is going to rent space. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Scappatucci can speak for himself but I believe, the way I understood his comment, he has employees that have the function of servicing rental properties and collecting rent receipts that you own in this area. Is that correct? Mr. Scappatucci: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: John, in the P.S. district could a 24 hour medical service be there? 14°' Mr. Nagy: Yes, it could locate there. Mr. LaPine: So there is another thing you have to look at. John Raymond, 9384 Marie Ct. : As far as Mr. Scappatucci moving in. I would like to see him there because if we have a problem, we know where to find him. I have seen a lot of buildings that he has built and he does build a quality building. I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is with the traffic. I wish him well. Dick Gluth, 9434 Patton: I am not really concerned about the waiver Mr. Scappatucci is asking for. The reason I am here is if we go to general office is there a possibility of a 24 hour medical center? That is my concern with this general office waiver use. I don't have a problem with Mr. Scappatucci putting his office there. Mr. Vyhnalek: What will your office hours be? Mr. Scappatucci: Between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Mr. Vyhnalek: You don't have any possible tenants that would stay open 24 hours? Mr. Scappatucci: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the latest? No` Mr. Scappatucci: 7:00 at night. 10775 Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have internal compaction? Mr. Scappatucci: Yes, in the office area and two dumpsters in the commercial area. Mr. Vyhnalek: You can assure your neighbors the garbage will not be picked up at four or five o'clock in the morning? Mr. Scappatucci: It will not be picked up at four or five o'clock in the morning. Mr. Tent: Mechanical equipment on the roof, will it be shielded? Mr. Scappatucci: There is no equipment on the roof. Mr. Tent: How about landscaping. Any changes? Mr. Scappatucci: We did add more landscaping in the office area where originally there was little landscaping between the buildings. John Olesko: I am the first one west of this project. I ate dust from Christensen's Nursery for twenty some years. Anything he does is going to be an improvement. Mr. Engebretson: Is it permitted to include the condition that would restrict the use of the office buildings past the hours of say nine o'clock? Mr. Nagy: I think the same issue was mentioned earlier. I think the Law Department indicated it could be reviewed as a restraint of trade unless the petitioner voluntarily restricts himself. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Scappatucci, would you agree that you would not lease any space in those offices that would have a 24 hour service? Mr. Scappatucci: Yes sir. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-2-39 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was ##7-161-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-6-2-39 by Ilio A. Alessandri requesting waiver use approval to establish general office uses within a Professional Service district located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-6-2-39 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked sheet A-1 dated 7-1-89 prepared by Ilio A. Alessandri, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. Nak 2) That the Landscape Plan dated 7-3-89 prepared by Ilio A. Alessandri, Architects, is hereby approved and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Nftl. 10776 3) That the Building Elevation Plans marked sheet A-5 and A-7 dated 7-1-89 prepared by Ilio A. Alessandri, Architects, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 4) That this approval shall not include real estate or insurance office uses. 5) That pursuant to representation made by the petitioner no office shall remain open later than 10:00 p.m. 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 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance 11543. 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. 4) That general office uses are less intensive then medical offices, which are permitted by right in the P.S. zoning district, as evidenced by the significantly less restrictive off-street parking standards for general office uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 11543, as amended. Nom' Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-3-3 by Ashley Construction, Inc. requesting to vacate a portion of Pembroke Avenue located east of Newburgh Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. 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 vacating proposal. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities in the subject area and therefore they have no objections. Michael Priest: I am with Ashley Construction. We are proposing to vacate this portion of the street that was never really used as a right-of-way and thereafter to incorporate the land into a residential development. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #7-162-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1989 on Petition 89-5-3-3 by Ashley Construction, Inc. requesting to vacate a portion of Pembroke Avenue located east of Newburgh Road between 10777 Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-3-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is not needed to serve any public access purpose. 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more advantageously used in private ownership. 3) That, when vacated, the right-of-way area will be placed back on the City's tax rolls. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #7-163-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-17 by Linda LaMaumauiex requesting to rezone property located south of Grantland Avenue between Arcola Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from R-1 to P, the City `os. Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-1-17 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of off-street parking to serve the adjacent use. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with good planning principles which seek to minimize traffic congestion by providing sufficient and well located off-street parking areas to serve commercial services. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is of such a restrictive nature as to be compatible to 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-164-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated June 15, 1989 from J. R. Gunnigle requesting a one-year extension on Petition 87-8-2-39 by Louis G. Redstone Associates for waiver use approval to renovate and construct an N" addition to the existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10778 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan and conditions set forth in the Planning Commission and Council approving resolutions found under Petition 87-8-2-39 for the following reason: 1) That the proposed development as detailed by the approved site plan has considerable merit and will provide for a major improvement of the subject facility and adjacent property. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #7-165-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 580th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 13, 1989 are approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #7-166-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 581st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 27, 1989 are approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #7-167-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 362nd Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on July 11, 1989 are approved. 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. McCann, it was #7-168-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Metro Detroit Sign for an awning sign to be located at Montgomery Ward TBA Center in the Wonderland Shopping Mall be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Awning Sign Plan prepared by Minit-Lube, Inc. and submitted by Metro Detroit Sign Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That the sign shall only be illuminated the same hours as Montgomery Ward's TBA facility is open. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek Nft' NAYS: Morrow, Fandrei ABSENT: Kluver 10779 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ``► On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 582nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on July 18, 1989 was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION „..7(.477"/ �.47 , i Raymo W. Tent, Secretary ATTEST: William LaPine, Chairman jg 0