Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-01-26 10108 MINUTES OF THE 551st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 26, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia Slur held its 551st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 75 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski Donna Naidow R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Michael Soranno Richard Straub 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. Vyhnalek 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 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 tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying reso- '416, lutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 87-12-1-39 by Alan C. Helmkamp to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Meadow View Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to P.S. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from our Engineering Department which states that since the site in question is a designated historical site, it will be necessary for the owners to receive approval of the Historic Preservation Committee for any alterations of the building in accordance with Section 2.56.090 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. In addition, that Department has been advised by representatives of the Building Department that it will be necessary to receive approval of the Building Code Board of Appeals as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to converting the existing building to a professional use. There is a letter in the file from Barbara Keogh, President of the Meadow- brook Hills-Woods Homeowners' Association in Northville stating that that association wishes to be on record as strenuously opposing any action to downgrade the zoning of this property. } Also, there are letters from Kip M. Bonds, 38560 Morningstar, Livonia, and Clement & June A. Holcomb and Robert and Betty Mazure, all residents tio. on Eight Mile Road in Northville, opposing this request for rezoning. 10109 Alan Helmkamp, 36420 Sherwood, Livonia: To reiterate some comments made last week, I believe this petition represents an excellent opportunity for the com- munity to retain one of the remaining historical structures. I believe this refurbishing of the house for a small law firm would allow the main- tenance of the historical site. Last Thursday, following our session last week, we took a room at the Novi Hilton and invited neighbors over for a question and answer session. About twenty-five people took us up on our offer and many of them are here. I believe some of the concerns regarding traffic reflects a frustration over the commercialization which has already been approved. My firm has six full time and five part time people and that would not be a noticeable increase in traffic in relation to the family presently living there. I don't see how the use we propose should be a particular concern regarding traffic. There was a concern about this becoming a precedent in the area, particularly immediately west, which is vacant. I understand the land cannot perc and that is why it probably does not have a building on it now. I don't see where a heavily travelled Eight Mile would be a place for a residential develop- ment. I made a pledge to the neighbors that if any projects are forth- coming for the land immediately west of our parcel, we would be shoulder- to-shoulder with them in opposing that development. Even though we are a law firm, there will be no changes in the building. Even the drive- way will be gravel. We have been in contact with the Historic Preserva- tion people and they are very enthusiastic about the development. If we are putting $100,000 plus into refurbishing this building, we will do all we can to protect it. Mrs. Sobolewski: This is an historic site officially? Can you add to it? Are you restricted at all by the Historical Commission? Mr. Helmkamp: The house already has a Livonia historic designation. We can do nothing to affect the exterior of the structure. We can maintain it New but any materials used in any improvement would have to be consistent with the existing house. The two out-buildings are not part of the historic designation and could be removed, if needed. I would state publicly that we do not intend to make any expansion on the site or put in any additional pavement. We intend to leave the green space. Mr. Morrow: What is the cause of your going to the Zoning Board of Appeals as far as zoning and building? Mr. Helmkamp: I have not spoken to the authority of the letter from Engineering but I know we will need a variance to use the structure for this use. Also, the setback on Eight Mile Road. Mr. Soranno: Do you own it? Mr. Helmkamp: We have a purchase agreement contingent on the various City approvals. Mr. Soranno: Do you know if the owner has had it for sales as residential or were you the first taker? Mr. Helmkamp: I believe Mr. Siegmund can speak to that. He did have it listed as residential for half a year with no offers. Mr. Soranno: Do you plan to re-gravel the driveway? 10110 Mr. Helmkamp: Our driveway and parking area can be gravelled as opposed to pavement. The outlets will need some improvement but it would be gravel. Mr. Soranno: What about parking? '4111.1. Mr. Helmkamp showed a site plan to the Commission and explained the proposed parking plan. Mr. Soranno: That is the only additional part of the property you will use? The rest will remain? Is it sod? Mr. Helmkamp: All grass and old, beautiful trees. Kip Bonds, 38560 Morningstar: The petitioner pointed out that Eight Mile Road with the traffic would not be an attractive site for houses. We have five new houses started within one-quarter mile in the last two years. Also, he said this would not be a precedent. The place is all subdivision. This is a change in zoning. By definition, he wishes to have this changed to P.S. which is a total change from residential and that is a precedent. If it expanded around us, we will be an isolated island. It is not the traffic but it is that we are going to lose the value of our homes. We are protected by Ordinance now and that is what we are here about changing. Changing the Ordinance would cause us all a great loss. Mrs. Thomas, 38685 Jahn: One of the concerns is the size of the lots on Eight Mile Road. Putting a law office in front of our subdivision would leave open those lots to go office or commercial. Then nobody would want to build a home to the west of the Siegmund house or on Eight Mile. There is a good chance now that people with children would want to build in our subdivision. But if it starts to go commercial, there is a chance they wouldn't want to. '*411. Roger Beaune, 20558 Hickory Lane: There is another old house there and the man could sell that and there is another one in the area that could be sold but if this is approved, those could go commercial. There are five vacant lots also that could go commercial if this thing goes through. We bought this home and we look at high rise now but we don't need it in front of us. Kevin Madigan, 38620 Morningstar: I am opposed to any zoning changes along Eight Mile Road. It is pretty much residential and there is a brand new home going up. If it is allowed to be changed, then eventually we will get more. It is residential now and let him build residential. Douglas Wells, 20434 Meadowview: I would rather see it maintained in residential zoning. I have invested virtually everything in the last three to four years to acquire that property. We are concerned about our property. If they would go ahead with this type of project, couldn't they just get some type of variance rather than rezone it? If it were zoned commercial and the building burned down, then what they put up there could be much less desirable. Mr. Nagy: There is a provision in the RUF to allow professional offices or home occupations. A definition would have to come from the Law Department as to whether this would be a legitimate waiver use in the residential district for the full occupancy of the building. 10111 Mr. Wells: The law firm is interested in the characteristic of that house and I would rather it stay RUF. It could probably be sold for residential. I would rather see the whole area remain residential. ,` Mr. Morrow: If it is rezoned, the zoning runs with the land and it would be P.S. if it burned down. Charles Horka, 20535 Meadowview: The project would affect the value of our property and would open up the door for further commercial. It has the possibility of going to a much larger project than this gentleman explained. Robert Siegmund, 38525 Eight Mile: I am the owner of the property and have lived here for twenty-one plus years. It is a handsome home. It is much too large a property for us to maintain. We would never consider any other sale except something that would retain its historic nature. I am very proud of the fact that it was made an historic site and I think the intent of the attorneys is to keep it that way. It will be an anchor for all the property along Eight Mile. The rest of the properties on Eight mile has been up for sale for many years. We had our house for sale for several months but got nowhere because it was on Eight Mile. Nobody made an offer. I think to require that we don't get full use of the property but continue to maintain it in an historic nature would be a burden. Doug Abraham, 16832 Newburgh: I was with Alan with the neighbors last week. We received some phone calls from people saying they would support the project but it seems the ones who are opposed are usually the people who show up at meetings. We handle primarily personal injuries, real estate, traffic and a small amount of criminal cases, primarily from the area of Levan and Farmington Roads. Mr. Siegmund has had heart trouble and has indicated he has a hard time keeping the property up. The exterior will be more maintained with our business located there. We will plant more trees. We are interested in maintaining the lush greenery of the area. Some change is inevitable. I think our use will act as a buffer. Plymouth and Northville have older homes to preserve and have converted them to offices. Mr. Bonds: This rezoning is three stories. Nobody mentioned that tonight. I think the vast majority in the neighborhood are against the project. Mr. Nagy: The P.S. District regulations state absolutely that the height cannot exceed thirty-five feet. If he could get three stories in thirty-five feet, then it could be three stories. Frank Mahoney, 38560 Jahn: I would like to go on record as opposing this. I think our major concern in the subdivision is not what these people are doing but the change in zoning. You let one person in and more would come. Mr. Soranno: On what basis were the people in favor of it? Mr. Abraham: Because we were keeping the exterior building the same and if there is going to be any change at all, that this is by far better than any other change that might be made. Mr. McCann: Do you plan to stay in the building and be a resident yourself or do you plan to use this for office space to lease? 10112 Mr. Helmkamp: The only tenant will be our law firm and its employees. Mr. Straub: I was favorably disposed to this petition last week because I thought it an opportunity to protect a beautiful site in Livonia. Now, after hearing these people, I can't support the petition because the historic nature of the building will protect it much better than use by this law firm. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-12-1-39 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #1-7-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, on Petition 87-12-1-39 by Alan C. Helmkamp to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Meadowview Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to P.S. , the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-12-1-29 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends retention of the low density resi- dential use for the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning will encourage similar requests for changes of zoning on adjacent properties. (3) The proposed change of zoning would introduce spot zoning 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. Kluver: There has been continued development of residential uses along Eight Mile Road -- six figure housing, and a goal of the City is the retention of residential uses. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-12-1-40 by David R. Olah to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from RUF to R-7. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states they have no objection to the rezoning proposal. David R. Olah, 33407 Schoolcraft: I have a tentative site plan of the development. Mr. Kluver: Was this available at the study session? Mr. Olah: No, it was not. Mr. Vyhnalek: Site Plans have to be in the Department before the meeting on Tuesday. `r.• 10113 Mr. Olah: I would like to rezone to develop a condo project. It consists of 110, 1,000 square foot units. I believe this would be desirable to the community and an asset to the neighborhood. It is a good location for a condo because you have a buffer with the residential surrounding it and a major thoroughfare on the east and City owned land on the south. Our ingress and egress is exclusively from Newburgh Road and with the proposed widening of Newburgh Road, I don't believe there will be any problem with increased traffic flow. Mr. Kluver: Based on the Capital Budget for the City of Livonia, when is Newburgh Road going to be widened? Mr. nagy: The City is acquiring right-of-way right now and hopefully it will be widened in 1988 or 1989. Mr. Straub: The Future Land Use Plan recommends the property for residential and I feel the area is already well served by the type of usage you are proposing. Dennis Theut, 9317 Newburgh: For the last couple years, we have seen development going in on Ann Arbor Trail. It seems only logical that this would be a nice thing to put in there. The only way to get the use of this property is to allow somebody to buy it in a package deal for a develop- ment like this. From a land use point, that is about the only thing I can see for the property. Single family residential just won't fit in there. Mr. Soranno: Couldn't that be developed residential? Mr. Nagy: The land is wide enough for a public road of 60' and the minimum lot size for R-1, R-2 and R-3 is 120' . It is wide enough for a road down the `ow middle and a row of lots on each side. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-12-1-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #1-8-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 on Petition 87-12-1-40 by David R. Olah to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-12-1-40 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends low density residential use for the area. (2) This area of the City currently is well served with medium density residential type projects, both existing and proposed, such as would be permitted by the proposed change of zoning. (3) The proposed change of zoning would permit an encroachment of multiple family residential uses into a single family residential area which is contrary to good planning principals. 10114 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ,` adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-12-1-41 by U.S. Homes to rezone property located on the west side of Merriman Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to R-7. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. There is also a letter from Frederick P. and Cynthia L. Sala indicating their strong objection to the proposal. Alan Gottlieb, 31731 Northwestern Hwy. : We are planning a planned residential develop- ment of 106 units. There are fourteen single family lots on Osmus and Norfolk. I believe there are fifty-two cluster houses and forty town- house type units abutting the commercial/industrial zoning. A project like this has never been done in Livonia. I can understand where the homeowners would be upset with multi-family. I realize the R-7 zoning is not what I am looking for here -- only a planned residential develop- ment, but there is none in the City. We are not going to be apartments. I will assure the neighbors of that. I met with a majority of the neighbors on Osmus and Norfolk and had a preliminary meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. My number of units and lots are lower - from 113 to 106. It would be the same type of project I built on Shadyside. It has a single family flavor; not multi-family. I would have to leave it up to the Planning Commission and Council on how to zone this property based on the site plan. Mr. Straub: Would an R-2 cover the intent of your project? Mr. Nagy: There is a cluster option under the R-2. The R-2 would provide six units to A higher density could be achieved for a project like the petitioner wants through the waiver use cluster option. The problem we have with trying to accommodate the plan as presented is you have single family in cluster to be sold with the condo arrangements and then you have rental. The condo owners own the common areas and they are maintained by the condo owners but the area and roads would also be used by the rental units. We have some difficulty trying to recommend the project at this stage because of that conflict. Mr. Gottlieb: We would adjust the by-laws where the rental units would pay the fee for the use of the pool, clubhouse and upkeep. The roads I didn't give any thought to. I would need a legal opinion on how to do that. If this is allowed in the City, I would like to do it. If it is not allowed, obviously I won't be able to do it. It doesn't have to be R-7 zoning if there is some other ordinance that would be applicable. Mr. Vyhnalek: The Council has recommended six dwelling units per acre and are thinking of seventy units total for the area presently zoned C-2. Is that correct? tr.- 10115 Mr. Nagy: That is the area to be developed to the west which is already zoned R-2, There is a court judgment where the property owner and City agreed to place seventy units on the R-2 zoned area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Does he comply with that? Mr. Nagy: He is three over. Mr. Straub: I think the question as to whether the petition can be amended to R-2 is very important. I couldn't support an R-7 but I would have less difficulty with R-2. Mr. Morrow: I am troubled with the R-7. I felt at one time that we were trailing in that category but we have other R-7 developments in that area. I under- stand there is a high vacancy rate in the development across the street. If we can pursue an R-2 zoning, I think we should. Mr. Soranno: I am concerned about the overall appearance. A single family plus rental units. I am wondering if you were able to bring anything to give us an overall look at what it will look like. Michael Downes, Architect, 26105 Orchard Lake Road: After we met with you, we met with the Council and we pursued what would happen with the site plan. We were trying to find a correlation between the different units. The single family units are divorced from the project. The cluster and townhouse development is an entity to itself. Assuming we get a rezoning, we have to come back for site plan approval and that is when I would like to show you the various types of housing. We did cut down the single family lots and now have fourteen. Also five town house areas. Mr. Kluver: I have a problem. Basically, the scheme of your plan seems to have merit vow but I look upon it as increased density by putting in the cluster and rental. A simple way would be to come up with an R-2 and develop the property into a nice residential area. Tom Wilson, 20421 Osmus: People in the area bought their property because of the way it is zoned. I don't see any reason why we should have our property down valued just to make some developer rich. Debbie Hastings, 20220 Parker: We are concerned with R-2. They can build cluster homes there now. We would like to see a lesser density. He said he would put single family in the area and that would keep traffic off our street. The way it is zoned now, he could build cluster homes and dump all that traffic on our street. I guess I am for it but would like it at a lesser density. Robert Hastings, 20220 Parker: This deal with the apartments and R-2 -- actually it is wide open. This proposal for R-7 going out on Merriman -- I am not for R-7. It seems that the Council could look into the whole project and we will go along if we get what we want and that is to close the streets and not dump all that traffic on our streets. The builder agreed to go to 80' lots which coincides with the whole neighborhood. I am opposed to the R-7 but his complete plan I wouldn't be opposed to. ',rr. 10116 Angelo Forest, 20123 Osmus: I don't have a problem with the townhouses or clusters as long as they go out to Merriman and we don't get the traffic. I don't think they will create a problem for the whole neighborhood. If there was a way to create some landscaping to screen it so we don't see it, it r4121. would be better. Mr. Gottlieb: I would like to amend the R-7 and make it R-2. I want to build this project. I have been very frank and I still will be getting the lots on Osmus and Norfolk. In the R-2, can I still build the townhouses? I don't have a problem going all cluster but I think this was a trade off. Mr. Nagy: I think you can put a townhouse arrangement in a planned unit develop- ment within the R-2. We still have a problem with the rentals and condos using the same roadway. The issue is how to share those costs. The zoning would permit townhouses in the planned residential development. Mr. Downes: The rental units still have an owner. There is an owner for four units. That owner would have to join the condo association. He would have to pay maintenance dues just like the rest of the development, only he would have four instead of one unit. In fact, the whole area is condo. Mr. Soranno: Is the fact that you would have to give up the single family to go all cluster strictly financial? Mr. Gottlieb: I just thought that the rental would be a good buffer between my sales and the rentals. Mr. Straub: Are you satisfied with the feasibility of your project with R-2 zoning? Mr. Gottlieb: Absolutely. We are amending our petition. David Mroz, 20333 Osmus: I am basically in favor of the development as a planned unit development. The developer has taken the R-2 area which was originally under a consent judgment for seventy units and he is propos- ing to develop it as an entrance and exit for a planned development. That will take the heavy traffic out of the residential area. At the same time, he is putting in fourteen single family homes. I am in favor of the proposal. This is by far the best proposal for the property in the eleven years I have been there. Everything else I have been against. It shows good intent to help preserve the neighborhood. Tom Wilson, 20421 Norfolk: The only objection I have is to the rental project. The project sounds pretty good. Only with one way in and out there will be a real problem with the traffic there. Alice Melaragni, 31492 Norfolk: We approve of this development. We need these homes along Osmus and Norfolk. These are nice homes and will add value to our homes. He is going to buffer the factories. We won't be seeing the lights or hearing all the noise from the factories on Eight Mile. I believe this man will build a nice development as he has on Shadyside, especially if he enlarges that because we need a turning lane. Grant Hamilton, 31560 Norfolk: We are in favor of the project. We like seeing the residential homes. What will R-2 do to the total units in the project? 10117 Mr. Gottlieb: There will be ninety-nine. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Gottlieb met with the neighbors to explain what he is doing? yam„ Mr. Gottlieb: Yes. Mr. Morrow: If he gets the zoning, he will have to come back and explain the site plan. It will not be a public hearing per se. Your comments are part of the record and we are trying to determine what the appropriate zoning is. Mr. Nagy: There will be another hearing on the zoning by the City Council. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-12-1-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #1-9-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 on Petition Petition 87-12-1-41 by U.S. Homes to rezone property located on the west side of Merriman Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-12-1-41 be approved, as amended by the petitioner to request a rezoning from RUFA to R-2, for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be compatible to and in harmony `. with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would represent an extension of an existing zoning district in the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a variety of single family type dwelling units 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: Straub, Morrow, Kluver, McCann, Sobolewski, Naidow, Sobolewski NAYS: Soranno ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-54 by McDonald's Corporation for waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. 10118 Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates they have no problems in connection with this proposal. There is a letter in the file from Alan C. Helmkamp, Attorney representing the petitioner, sub- mitting a petition bearing the signatures of twenty-nine business owners omay or tenants along Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Merriman in support of this petition, and there is also a letter from Roy D. Larson, President of Larson Fabrics, Inc. , indicating his support of the request. Alan Helmkamp, 16832 Newburgh Road: We are not talking about another restaurant on Plymouth Road but we are talking about a restaurant that is the Cadillac of its industry. Both McDonald restaurants we have in Livonia are on the north side. South-enders would have to go to Westland for an Egg McMuffin on a Sunday morning. It occurred to me that this could be a drawing for the businesses on Plymouth Road which need assistance. The businesses on Plymouth Road feel that this would be an attractive addi- tion to that strip of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Merriman. Four people turned it down stating they didn't feel qualified to sign, saying I should seek management above their level. Twenty-nine bus- inesses do want the project. With approval of this project, you will be satisfying the needs of some of the business people in the area. There are three people from McDonald's here tonight who can answer any questions you may have. Roy Larsen, President of Larson Fabrics, Inc. , 11820 Mayfield: I appreciate your reading my letter and I am in favor of this project. i Mr. Kluver; Is this a company-owned or franchised venture? Mr. Helmkamp: Company-owned and managed by the Company. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-54 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-10-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 on Petition 87-11-2-54 by McDonald's Corporation for waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-11-2-54 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. (3) The subject area is well served with restaurant type uses as evidenced by the fact that currently there are 24 eating establishments located within one mile radius of the subject site. 10119 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-2-56 by Michael Cardasis for waiver use approval to provide seating within an existing carry-out restaurant located within the Daniel Shopping Plaza on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Levan in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department states in its letter that they have no objec- tion to this proposal. Michael Cardasis, 17437 Doris Lane: We opened as a carry-out and business has been very good. We feel we need more seats to serve the customers. Mr. Soranno: I am not a proponent to restaurants on Plymouth Road but this operation is a carry-out and has the capacity to accommodate the number of seats specified. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-56 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #1-11-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-11-2-56 by Michael Cardasis for waiver use approval to provide Nom' seating within an existing carry-out restaurant located within the Daniel Shopping Plaza on the south east corner of Plymouth Road and Levan in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32 be approved subject to the condition that customer seating be limited to forty-five (45) seats, for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surround- ing uses in the area. (3) The proposed use is commonly associated with shopping centers in that it provides an additional service to persons doing business therein. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, McCann, Soranno, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10120 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-12-2-57 by Ken Bryant for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department which states they have no objection to this petition. Ken Bryant, 32255 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills: This restaurant is twenty- one years old and the dining room has been remodeled several times during that time, however, we need to expand the restaurant to a limited extendt. The real expansion is in the kitchen area. Mr. Kluver: You are increasing the seating? Mr. Bryant: Yes, we are, to ninety-two. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-2-57 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-12-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 on Petition 87-12-2-57 by Ken Bryant for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-12-2-57 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the site plan dated 3-2-87 prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevation plan dated 9-26-87 prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that a landscape plan shall be submitted within 30 days from the date of this Resolution for approval by the Planning Commission. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the pro- posed use. (3) 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. 10121 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-12-2-58 by Schostak Brothers & Company for waiver use approval to establish a restaurant within the Wonderland Mall Shopping Center located at the Southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department which states they have no objection to this proposal. Bill Thomas, representing Schostak Brothers, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. : We propose to add a restaurant within the shopping center. Mr. Vyhnalek: This is an Olga's? Mr. Thomas: Yes. Mr. Kluver: You are taking existing retail space and turning it into a restaurant? Mr. Thomas: This is not retail space at this particular point. It is vacant. Mr. Soranno: The hours will be the same as the Mall? Mr. Thomas: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-12-2-58 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #1-13-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 on Petition 87-12-2-58 by Schostak Brothers & Company for waiver use approal to establish a restaurant within the Wonderland Mall Shopping Center located at the Southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-12-2-58 be approved subject to the condition that the proposed use shall be limited to a seating capacity of 116 seats, and the following additional condition: (1) that the building elevation plan marked sheet 2 prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 10122 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: g.. AYES: Soranno, McCann, Kluver, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-3-10 by Gary L. Walker to vacate a storm sewer easement located south of Five Mile Road between Henry Ruff Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states that they have no objection to this vacating request inasmuch as the construction plans for the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center provide for the abandonment of the storm sewer system in question. Gary Walker, Attorney, 2525 Telegraph Road: This is an old easement, on the property before the current development. The new storm sewer plans have been approved by the Engineering Department. The easement area exists but does not service the land any more. The new sewer system will do that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-3-10 closed. New On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-14-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-11-3-10 by Gary L. Walker to vacate a storm sewer easement located south of Five Mile Road between Henry Ruff Road and Bainbridge Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject easement is no longer required to protect public utilities in the area. (2) The proposed vacating is recommended by the City Engineer. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-9-3-9 by James P. Harms for the vacating of a ten-foot wide drainage easement located on the west side of Fitzgerald, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. ir• 10123 Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states that the petitioner has granted a new easement to the City to accommodate the relocation of a ditch through the property, therefore, they have no objection to the vacating proposal. James Harms, 30923 W. Warren: The easement is directly in the way of our house. We are putting in a new easement and we are asking that you vacate the old. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-9-3-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 111-15-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-9-3-9 by James P. Harms to vacate a 10-foot wide drainage easement located on the west side of Fitzgerald, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 114 of Section 5 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject easement is no longer needed in its present location. (2) A new easement has been provided to accommodate storm drainage. (3) The City Engineer has recommended the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-11-7-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the East 1/2 of Section 7 from recreation/open space to low-density residential. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Jack Shenkman, owner of the property was present. Attorney representing Mr. Shenkman: We are here because we feel that the issue before the Planning Commission is one that is very important to Mr. Shenkman and his rights with respect to the property. We strenuously oppose the change in the Master Plan, as suggested. We object because the proposed change does not take into consideration the uses of the property along Newburgh to the north and south. There appears to be a natural progress of the use of the property on Newburgh Road. Some residents of the City and activity of the community decided to change the character of this property to low-density single family development. We don't feel it is a good exercise of community planning to preclude property along Newburgh 10124 Road from uses other than single family. We are not here to address this body regarding the use of the property but we feel a use has been taken away, a use that would take care of the needs of the people in the single family dwellings and which really puts this property to its best use. To recommend a change in the Master Plan that would limit the use of this property, excepting the commercial at the corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh we feel would create an action that is wrong and not justified and, therefore, we oppose it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-11-7-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #1-16-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on January 26, 1988 for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, L120488 P 67, the same is hereby amended by changing the designation of property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the East 1/2 of Section 7 from recreation/ open space to low-density residential for the following reasons: (1) The proposed amendment will reflect the recent changes of zoning to single family residential classifications on the subject property. (2) The proposed new land use designation is the most logical and compatible category with respect to surrounding land 'Nov uses in the area. (3) The proposed amendment will reflect the Planning Commission's goals and policies for development of the subject property as demonstrated by its recommendation for changing the zoning of the property to single family residential classifications. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commis- sion with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commis- sion and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Vyhnalek, 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 Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was 10125 #1-17-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Mayflower Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, for the following reasons: o.. (1) The Final Plat conforms in every respect to the approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The City Engineer has recommended approval the Final Plat. (3) All financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-18-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-7-8-26 by Bi-Con Construction, Inc. , for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to reconstruct a party store located on the north side of Joy Road between Middlebelt and Oxbow in Section 36 subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #87162, Sheet 1, dated 12/10/87, prepared by Stenrose Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan 8736, Sheet 1, prepared by Bi-Con Con- struction Co. , Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan 8736, Sheet L-1, dated 1/18/88, pre- pared by Bi-Con Construction Co. , Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscape materials shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy; and (4) that any proposed signage shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to erection. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #1-19-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 88-1-8-1 by Roland Satellite TV for approval of all plans required by Section 18.42 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to install a roof-top satellite disc antenna on an office building located at 29299 Vassar (Livonia Pavilion East) in Section 1 subject to the following condition: (1) that the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Petition 88-1-8-1 prepared by Roland Satellite TV, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. 10126 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Straub, Soranno, McCann, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kluver, Morrow a! ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 551st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 26, 1988 was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Donna J. Naidow, Secretary ATTEST: -/17/1/1444/. Dold Vyhnalek, airman ac Sew