The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-12-20 1 10446 MINUTES OF THE 571st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA tir• On Tuesday, December 20, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 571st 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 approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski Herman Kluver Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann Jack Engebretson William LaPine Brenda Lee Fandrei 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 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 Sm. 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-10-1-31 by Allan N. Mendelssohn, M.D. to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-9I. 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 there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the site development. We also have in our file a petition signed by 41 home owners stating they want to formally cite their opposition to this petition. They find an R-9I rezoning unacceptable for several reasons. Multilevel buildings are undesirable. They would also prefer residents to be the actual owner of their homes. Although they are not against elderly housing they would like development limited to one unit dwellings. They also note that adjoining parcel of land is also up for rezoning (Petition 88-8-1.-22) . Originally the Commission was going to recommend R-2 zoning for that land. They strongly urge that both properties be rezoned along these lines (single family housing) as this would be the most compatable with the homes in the neighborhood. 10447 Nicolas Pastor, 19068 West Ten Mile Road, Southfield: I represent the owner and the petitioner in the capacity of his architect. We worked with the staff, with Mr. Nagy and Mr. Shane, and we have come up with a site plan. I might ask Mr. Shane if he does have a copy of the site plan we just sent you. Mr. Shane showed the site plan to the Planning Commission and the audience. Mr. Pastor: What we are primarily talking about with this rezoning petition is that this is the piece you saw on the screen and in talking with Mr. Shane it was suggested that we come up with this possibility as illustrated on this site plan. This is the northerly property line which abuts the residential, which we are very sensitive to .(Mr. Pastor pointed this out on map) What we are looking at here are three one-story structures containing two bedroom units with attached garages on ends of these buildings so this will be what we felt would be much more compatible and in keeping with and a good transitition between what is going on here and what, of course, is existing in the residential area. So again, we are looking at three one-story buildings containing twelve two-bedroom units with attached garages on the ends. The three-story structure contains 143 elderly units and these are all geared for a senior type of residence. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are talking three stories? Is that a height of 35 feet? Mr. Pastor: The three-story building would be less than 35 feet. Again, the building would be residential in character and blend in with the architecture we are proposing here. We are looking at an actual separation here of 50 feet so that the actual R-9I zoned area that we are looking for would not be adjacent to single family zoning. \or So even though this is unbuildable it definitely guarantees that no structure of any kind could be within this 50 feet. In addition to that, it moves the 75 foot setback line an additional 50 feet plus 50 feet. In addition to that, in working with Dr. Mendelssohn, we both agreed as a condition we will hold an additional 100 to 110 feet to the extreme northerly edge of this structure so you would be looking at about 235 feet from this northerly face to this property line. In addition, there is a heavily treed area that would not be disturbed. We would do everything necessary to maintain that wooded area so that we would again be sensitive to the single family in relationship to the three story structure. We feel we are trying our very best to provide that kind of space and transition from the single family to the three-story senior building. In essence, I think that was the crux of our proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is going to go in that area at the northern end of building? Mr. Pastor: This was planned pretty much for open space. We have plenty of parking. We meet the parking requirements. This will be more or less used as a park area, a park like type of environment with walking paths and some outdoor sitting areas. Some very passive quiet spaces for the senior residents of this structure and, of course, we are maintaining our 75 feet here from the edge of the one-story units as well. Mr. Tent: Mr. Pastor, this American House is this affiliated at all with the �"� senior citizen home on Middlebelt Road? 10448 Mr. Pastor: Yes it is and Dr. Mendelssohn is here if you have any particulars. Mr. Tent: I just wanted to know if this will be operated in conjunction with the other or will this be operated as a separate entity. `fir. Mr. Pastor: I would assume it is a separate entity but Dr. Mendelssohn would you like to comment on that? Dr. Mendelssohn: It will be operated under American House management, which operates 13 facilities in the metro area, the one on Plymouth Road and Farmington, the one on Middlebelt north of Schoolcraft and this would be American House Village. Mr. Tent: Will they be operated in the same manner as you do the other homes because there are good reports on what you are doing there? Dr. Mendelssohn: It is the same idea. It will be a little different because it will not be a full congregate type of facility. The services will be more limited because we want to encourage more independent living. Mr. Tent: As far as price range, will that run approximately the same? Dr. Mendelssohn: Much less. Full congregate runs $995 to $1350 a month including full services. This will come in at $575 to $625 a month. Mrs. Fandrei: What degree of congregate are you looking at? Approximately what amount. One of my main concerns is the lack of facilities within walking distance for seniors in this area which would be the drug stores, shopping, that type of thing. `'` Dr. Mendelssohn: This will encourage more independent living. I would say 80% to 90% would have their own cars. In our usual congregate facilities 5% to 6% have cars. This is a younger group of people. Mrs. Fandrei: Would you have a facility for the seniors that wouldn't have their own cars? Dr. Mendelssohn: We have two now, one on Plymouth and Farmington and one on Middlebelt. Mrs. Fandrei: That is not what I mean. If you have 5% to 10% in this location who do not have their own cars, would you have something available a van or transportation? Dr. Mendelssohn: Every facility has its own van. Yes we would make that available. Mr. Engebretson: The staff notes indicate that there is a relatively significant parking deficiency and yet Mr. Pastor mentioned the parking requirements are met by this plan. Can you clarify that for me? Mr. Pastor: I'm sorry. You are absolutely correct on that. What we did talk about in working with the staff and they agreed with us, at least I think so, if I am speaking out of turn I can always stand 10449 corrected, but we do have plenty of land area and what we did do was consider land banking the additional car parking if and when they ever got to a point where they were needed. So I think what I meant to say is that physically we have the space. We didn't want to add the additional parking. Traditionally for this type of residence, ``► in our experience which goes 120 some odd years, is that one car per unit is more than sufficient with this particular lifestyle. It is more like 3/4 to a unit. We feel we have plenty of car space rather than add that much additional asphalt and take away from the landscape. But if the City so choses that we provide additional parking up to the two for one, we certainly would do that but I think the planning staff agreed with us on our approach. Mr. Engebretson: I am not familiar with the term land bank when it comes to parking. I am curious where you would get that land from? The space that is being preserved at the top of the property with the wooded area. Is that where you would go? Mr. Pastor: Yes. For example we have additional space at the ends. What we are providing now is rather generous island landscaping. We could very easily and traditionally we would bring this entire driveway down and add another 15 to 20 cars in this area without changing the configuration greatly but it is not really needed or required. We felt it would be a much nicer environment to provide better and more landscape area. Again, we have our setbacks, we have our wooded area. We are going to try to stay away from touching that and there is no reason why we should have to. Dr. Mendelssohn: I would like to say something about the parking also. We have done this in each of the other two facilities. We put in what we felt was acceptable to the City and what was suitable for each Nor facility in terms of parking and then every two to three years I come to some committee here and we review the situation and we seem to have been right on, that we have met the parking need. However, there is land available should more parking be necessary. Rather than put it all in at once, we would rather keep the landscaping, the trees and grass. If the need arises then we will have to put in more asphalt and we have allocated for that. Mr. LaPine: I would like to get some clarification. We are going to have two classifications here an R-9, which will be single story, and R-9I, which will be three stories? Mr. Vyhnalek: R-9I is up to four, but they want three. Mr. LaPine: There is no possibility if this project does not go through and they should sell the property, we will not have the R-9I on the whole property? We will be able to maintain the one-story zoning that abuts the single family residential? Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. The extent, however, of the R-9 that abuts the residential property to the north is limited for a fifty foot distance for one-half of that border and then where the actual dwelling units are proposed the zoning is expanded. `. 10450 Mr. LaPine: That brings up my second question. The R-9I actually goes all the way up where he says he is going to leave 238 feet. Is that correct? Now let's assume that something happens and he sells off the property, can a developer come in and develop that 238 feet, except for the 50 feet, could he develop that without getting `. approval from the Planning Commission, once he gets the zoning? Could he go ahead and do it? Mr. Nagy: Other than having to come back and have an approved site plan, he could rely on the zoning that would be approved. He would have to come back and get City Planning Commission and City Council approval for any alteration in the site plan. Larry Vortanian, 37920 Grantland: I have been a resident there since 1970. I want it to be known on record I am against this petition. We have been coming down here to City Hall for a number of years. I have a list here of petitions for rezoning. We have been fighting to keep this area RUF. Back in 1981 we met with the City Planning Commission. We fought another petition for ML, which is light manufacturing. The Planning Commission finally agreed that we were going to try and leave this area residential. They rezoned the property at the end of Grantland for single family dwellings. We backed off on the lot sizes. Back in our Newburgh Estates Charter back in July of 1941 it stated that all of the lots that were sold were to be single family dwelling and one resident only. We have been trying to maintain this. We fought with the City Planning Commission for years to put in a park for our children to play in. Our subdivision is one of the only few subdivisions in the City of Livonia that does not have a park. Our children have nowhere to play. Either in the yard or on the street. As taxpayers of the City of Livonia, I feel this is unfair to us. The closest park is over at Garfield School, which is *law in another subdivision approximately two miles away. We feel if this R-9 goes through, the property located to the east all the way down to Newburgh Road and north to Grantland Street has already got signs up on it "For Sale Industrial". I don't know how these signs were put up. It is a residential area. We are fighting this. We would like to keep this single family dwelling for our sake, our children's sake. It is a beautiful neighborhood. Everbody was letting their houses go. Back in 1981 when we finally got a little compliance from the Planning Commission to leave this residential instead of putting industrial at the end of our street, they put in brand new brick homes. Since then everybody, and I mean almost everybody on the street, is improving their homes. I am putting on over a thousand square foot addition. A neighbor across the street from me is putting on a larger addition than that. I just feel it would be better for everyone involved. This is a prime piece of real estate, I realize this. The City of Livonia is going crazy with industrial and commercial buildings. We don't have that much room to build single family residential dwellings. There is more than ample land. You could put 200 homes in there if you used all of it with no problems at all. As taxpayers I am sure the residents pay their fair share of taxes and I think you would substantially gain from the area by leaving it single family dwelling. Mr. Vyhnalek: I want to clarify one thing. Mr. Nagy, that piece of land to the east, we have that tabled right? It was between R-2 and what? 10451 Mr. Nagy: We had recommended R-2 and we tabled it. Mr. Vyhnalek: Right and what did they want? ML? Mr. Nagy: It is the City of Livonia's property and the neighborhood was `- divided. The neighbors to the south wanted manufacturing, ML, and people along Grantland and to the north wanted R-2. Mr. Vyhnalek: We tabled that and it is still on the table. It is on the table sir and the signs shouldn't be up there. Mr. Vortanian: Well there are industrial signs. They are six foot square and they are there on two posts. Mr. Nagy: I think he is talking about other private property along Plymouth Road and Newburgh Road. Mr. Vortanian: There is a sign on Newburgh Road. Mr. Nagy: But not on the City's property. Mr. Vortanian: No it would be on private property. Mr. LaPine: You mentioned about single family homes in there. R-9 and R-9I is residential. It is for senior citizens. If you built 200 homes there, don't you believe you would have more problems with 200 homes with children and all the things that go with single family homes than having senior citizen housing which are older couples who don't have any children and you probably won't have that much traffic because they normally don't travel that much. They probably will stay home more than they will be coming in and out of the subdivision. What I guess I am trying to find out is what is your objection to senior citizen housing at that location compared to having 200 single family homes? Mr. Vortanian: As far as my objection to this. If this goes through then the whole strip all the way down is going to be rezoned. We are going to be boxed in. We have industrial right now on three sides of us. When Hydgrades fires up on a nice breezy day, it is not a pleasant odor. I am not saying we will get any problems from odors from senior citizen housing but further down the line if you okay the housing, then the rest of this property they are not going to put in more homes next to a commercial building. I'm sorry, it is a commercial building because someone is making a profit off of it. I just feel our property values are going to decrease and as far as traffic, there is so much traffic along Plymouth and Newburgh right now, our kids don't go off the street. I don't want my kids to deliver papers because they have to go out on Plymouth Road and Newburgh. I just feel that single family residence, a family oriented area with wives, husbands and children, would be a much better environment for everybody concerned. Mike McCulley and Vivian Larsh, Lot 23: Mike McCulley: Our home would be directly behind one of the three-story dwellings. 10452 Mr. Vyhnalek: It would be behind one story sir. Is your home on Grantland? Mr. McCulley: Yes, lot 23 on Grantland. Mr. Vyhnnalek: Then, according to our map, it would be in that 50 foot area on the rr► northwest corner to the left. Ms. Larsh: What you are saying is that the three-story building, given that height, is not going to affect any of the residents on Grantland? The seniors are not going to open up their shades in the morning and drink their coffee and the neighborhood residents instead of seeing the woods, they are going to see a three-story building. Mr. McCulley: We planned a very sizable addition to our home. Our families are going to merge and we plan to put on a sizable addition and we wish to express our views that we do not in any way mind senior citizens. They are more than welcome there. Single family homes for senior citizens would be fine. That is what we are looking for not multiple dwellings. Mr. Vyhnalek: What you are looking for is R-9 for the whole area? Single family. Ms. Larsh: Single story or single family senior citizens. Mr. McCulley: With regard to the question that was raised before. Wouldn't you rather have a three-story senior citizens' building rather than one-story houses with a lot of children and dogs. No. Absolutely not. Single family homes that would be fine because the additional traffic, it is not the traffic, you don't look at the people and the dogs, you look at the homes and the structures when you come outside your dwelling. That is why we decided this particular home was New right for us. We had a lot of questions about what is going to happen to the property directly behind us but we finally said, as all the neighbors seem to agree, if you look at the petition on Grantland, you have 99% signing against anything but single story homes. We expressed this with the real estate and finally we said if it is going to stay single family, let's expand this home and we will enjoy the property and that is what we decided to do and that is what we are looking forward to doing. We are going to put a sizable addition on but we are looking forward to a single family residence not a multiple dwelling to where it ruins our views too. Mr. Tent: Mr. McCully, are you one of the original 41 signers of the petition. Ms. Larsh: Yes. Mr. Tent: So you objected first of all to the project as proposed but if this were to manifest as a single story senior citizen type of development, you would have no objections. Is that correct? Ms. Larsh: No. Single story senior citizen is fine. Mr. McCulley: Let me stress what is worrying the neighborhood, in talking to the different neighbors, what we are really worried about is the wording along the different ways and the different tracts that this petition is going to get changed to where we don't mind single story homes or 10453 senior citizens homes we are going to get worried that they are going to double cross us in the meaning that we say a retirement home or senior citizen home is fine and then the first thing it is going to be three-story or duplexes and that is what we are worried about. We just want to keep it single family so we say if it is going to be residential senior citizen and still single story. That is our main concern. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. McCulley, you say you have no woods in back of your house. Mr. McCulley: No. Mrs. Sobolewski: This petitioner claims there is woods there. How about the lot next to you? Mr. McCulley: No. The woods start at Newburgh. There is nothing behind us. Mrs. Sobolewski: You are in Lot 23? Lots 24 and 25 have no trees? Mr. McCulley: No. We have a few trees but not a treed lot. Mrs. Sobolewski: Then at Lots 22 and 21 does it get a little heavier? Mr. McCulley: That is correct. Mr. Tent: Would you be in favor of this type of development with a single story building? Mr. McCulley: Absolutely. Mrs. Fandrei: How would you feel about two story? Mr. McCulley: No. Mrs. Fandrei: What is your addition going to be? Are you going up or are you going out? Ms. Larsh: Out. Mrs. Fandrei: I have a hard time with you objecting to a two-story structure if, this is something the petitioner might consider. You could easily have a two-story home next to you. Many, and I guess a high percentage of subdivisions in our City, especially the new ones, do. While there would be quite a bit of difference between what they are proposing for a three-story and your home, let's assume it is a two story, between that home and your home. These would be less difference and certainly you often see two-story homes next to ranches. Mr. McCulley: I agree with you and I do have to say that when we say we would not agree with that it is because there is a difference between a two-story individual home and a two-story institution and a senior citizen dwelling is not an individual home with particular architecture and its individual features. You are talking about a group development where they are going to come in and have a site plan and it is going to go boom, boom, boom. That is far from a two-story individual home. 10454 Mrs. Fandrei: Are you familiar with the two American House properties right now? The one on Middlebelt and the one at Farmington and Plymouth Roads? Mr. McCulley: No I am not. "4111. Mrs. Fandrei: Would you take a drive through the area and see them. They are two-story and they are lovely. This petitioner has a very good reputation in the City. Not just for his building and development but his maintaining of these facilities also. As one member of the Planning Commission I don't hesitate in what he is going to do as far as his development. I see your objection to the three story. Mr. McCulley: Do you also see there is a difference between a two-story institutional development and two-story residential home that would have an attached garage, a private driveway, rather than an open asphalted lot with cars and the planned shrubbery here and there? Mrs. Fandrei: There is a difference. There's no doubt. Some of the alternatives of the Master Plan indicates manufacturing for that area. We are sorely lacking in senior housing. You would have such a difference in senior housing vs manufacturing. You would have very little activity. I would think the compromise of two-story senior housing would be worth considering especially if you took a look at the ones that are already built and occupied. Mr. Vortanian: I know all you ladies and gentlemen here live in Livonia and have your own homes. I would like you for once to sit up there at your desk and honestly ask yourself how you would like to see this in your backyard. I would like you all to go out in your backyards tomorrow morning when the sun is rising and imagine in your backyard being able to see pheasants, being able to see fox in the afternoon, Nov all kinds of raccoons. We even have skunks. I would like each and every one of you to sit and look in your backyards and see what beauty you have out there now and wake up in the morning and imagine what it would be like to have commercial buildings surrounding your homes. I would like you to honestly look at that. This is what we have been fighting since 1971. We have been fighting to keep this a good productional piece of property, a good family oriented piece of land. We would really like you to consider, as the Council did back in 1981, to leave this single family residential. Scott Heinzman, 37601 Grantland: That would be Lot 11. I thought I would come down and express my views about this petition by Dr. Mendelssohn. There has been a lot of things being said tonight. The wooded area starts behind Lot 10. Directly behind my house is a field. Lot 10 and over to Newburgh is wooded. There is a little small patch next to the lot line. The rest all the way across the field is like old farm land with a lot of tall grass growing on it. There is kind of a priority situation here in terms of rezoning. First of all, not to rezone at all would be the highest preference. The City owns the one spot of land and Dr. Mendelssohn owns the other along the back of Grantland. I know without any input from anybody that the City land was originally recommended by you people as R-2, which is single family residential. That would be the most preferable of any rezoning. Right now we are talking about R-9I. We are very much 10455 against R-9I. Anything that would be a high rise that would allow high rise zoning, well high rise is about two stories, is definitely unacceptable. If Dr. Mendelssohn's plan runs into cost overruns and this land is rezoned and they start construction and decide to stop, would this land go back to RUF or would it stay R-9I? Mr. Vyhnalek: It would stay R-9I. Mr. Heinzman: We don't have any guarantees that this project is going to be finished and I know Dr. Mendelssohn seems to be a good guy and I know you have high regard for him but even still anything of a high rise would be unacceptable as a compromise. I realize there is a great need for senior housing. Preferably with senior housing, I would like to see something where the individual that lives there is the person who owns it so they are responsible for the upkeep and if there are any problems you have an individual to go to not a company and you don't have to wait months for something to occur. I think these two plots of land have to be considered almost simultaneously. I am not against one being senior housing. I could compromise to two level maximum for one of the two plots of land and the other one being single family housing. Mary Hirschlieb, 37651 Grantland: Lot 13. To the back of Scott's house and us it is pretty much virgin land. We don't worry about what is underneath our feet because there has never been a dump there, a waste area, a lot of things that the City of Detroit is fighting. However, like they say when you go out to take a breath of air sometimes you kind of wonder because we have Hygrades, we have a steel building up near Eckles and then you have a heat treat plant. It has made a difference. Do you realize that on that lot line we have some trees that go well over 100 years old. You tell me how many places in olur Livonia you have left where you can find trees 100 years old. Also behind us you have wetland area which is most unusual and it maintains a lot of our natural wildlife and yes we do have a fox in our area. We go back to working with City Hall since 1951. So we go back quite a ways with it but we are concerned with the environment. I think single family homes are still a good tax base. Commercial development does not last. Factories look very sorely after even ten years. Take a look around. We have almost any street in that commercial area has "For Lease" signs on it posted. You can drive and they might look pretty good on the front of the buildings. We are on bikes and take walks. Get out, look around behind it. Look on the side of it. See all the oil, all the metal shavings, everything they work with, all their dumping. Give them a few years. See what you have got. Look what Detroit is dealing with. When the factories leave, you have had it. People will restore homes and many areas have been restored because sometimes new homes aren't available. Do you ever see them restore a factory? It will just go in a state of depression. They will use it for a few years. If they want to expand, they will move on. These are some things to think of in the development of this area. We feel threatened by the Doctor, I believe, because he submitted one plan and then he withdrew which makes us wonder do we trust this man or not. We don't know him. I have a strange feeling about this `. 10456 three story structure and then on the other side of him to Newburgh is this all going to be three stories, maybe four, maybe more. We don't know. We don't know what you and the Council might decide on and after all we live there and that is our interest. He is looking at a profit interest. We are not. We are trying to raise our families and we are trying to stay here. My husband, Ken, and I go back in that area over 100 years. We are on the cover of your 1876 map and our families were here before then. If we want to trace our roots we have to go over to Greenmead. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mrs. Hirschlieb, may I ask you a question? Let's get back to the classifications that we were talking about R-9I and R-9, for one story and three stories to the south. We are not talking about factories or anything like that. You are against the senior citizen zoning classification? Mrs. Hirschlieb: Three stories. Mr. Vyhnalek: What about two stories? Just like a 23-foot two-story home in any subdivision? What about the one at Silver Village? Mrs. Hirschlieb: I prefer the one behind us here in the Civic Center. As I understand Silver Village is one story. Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you looked at the petitioner's property at all on Middlebelt north of Schoolcraft? Mrs. Hirschlieb: Yes I have seen the American House at Plymouth and Farmington Roads. Mr. Tent: Mrs. Hirschlieb, you know what your problem was there don't you? That 100 year old tree that you have in front of your house. That is why they are developing this into a senior citizen project. Don't you think it would be nice for these elderly people to be able to relate to those old trees. Mrs. Hirschlieb: That would be fine. Mr. Tent: Seriously, I want to address myself to your concern. We too are concerned that a developer will come in here and not do as he says and we want to make sure that they do. The developer here has two projects which he has done a tremendous job with. As the Chairman has indicated you should really go through both of them and see what he has done. I have confidence this will be a first class type of development. As Mr. LaPine had indicated I would prefer to see a senior citizen project of this magniture rather than 200 single family homes because it would be more controllable. The thing you started expounding on was manufacturing and I don't believe we are going to involve ourselves in anything of that type. Mrs. Hirschlieb: We are concerned too about what will be on inside corner between Plymouth and Newburgh. Mr. Tent: Were you one of the original signers of the petition? 10457 Mrs. Hirschlieb: I sure was. Mr. Tent: Then you would have no objection if this was a one story development for senior citizens? Mrs. Hirschlieb: We would go along with that. Mr. Engebretson: I certainly enjoy the value of all your comments. I was particularly interested in one of your points. Were you informing us that there is a DNR designated wetland area in the area under petition here? Mrs. Hirschlieb: I don't know if the DNR would be considered. We have always called it the swamp. It is quite a large area back in there. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is not listed in any of our maps so I don't think it is. Mr. Morrow: When we first saw this petition I was against the R-9I zoning in its present form, not because it was for seniors but because of potential for four stories. Now we asked the petitioner if he might consider an R-9 as it abuts the residential. He has given at least tacit approval to considering that although I don't think he has gone far enough. I guess I would have to see if that R-9 could develop to a larger extent to see if I could make a determination if an R-9 could co-exist with the neighbors to the north. If I were forced to vote on what I see here tonight, I could not vote for it but I would not be, based upon some of the comments I have heard here tonight, I would not be adverse to studying it further with the i neighbors and the petitioner to see if we could work something out. Dr. Mendelssohn: Thank you. I don't know whether to make some comments or not. I am threatening one woman and doublecrossing somebody else and I'm building an institution and I am not responsible because it takes several months to effect something in my facility, which is a surprise to me because I am here in Livonia every day and I am open to suggestions. Mr. Vortanian, I am a taxpayer too. I am your good neighbor. I am not far from you and I have been coming to these meetings for years also and I am proud of our area. I am proud of Livonia and I am proud that I contribute to it and I am proud that I contribute first class quality housing for the people in Livonia, north of you and south of you and when I say I am going to do something, I do it. I don't doublecross anybody and I don't build institutions. We are bending over backwards trying to make a nice facility for the senior people in this community. Some of you have not even been to our facility. Some of you talk about factories. Some of you talk about oil. Some of you talk about getting rid of the foxes and the pheasants and the squirrels. I don't build factories. I don't want any oil. I like foxes too. I'll tell you one thing. We would make a nice project but it has got to be a feasible project. I am not a charity. It has got to make money. I am not a big corporation, not an institution, not a state agency. To make money, our best chance for making money, there is no guarantee, is to put up a three-story facility. We have tried to bend over backwards. We originally wanted the entire area zoned so we could put up a three story here or here or here. We have split 10458 it because we want to accommodate our good neighbors. We have even moved this down so we are going to give you 75 and 50 and 100 and 110 feet. We are going to berm it. We are going to landscape it. We are going to make a buffer so if this whole area goes light manufacturing, which it is mapped or planned for, we are mapped and planned for that too by the way, but if it goes that way, we are going to be a buffer between that and you. We are going to give you some nice residential housing. It won't strap your Police Department. It won't strap your Fire Department. It won't strap your school system but we do pay taxes. We don't ride motorcycles. We won't park our boats in our backyards because none of us do this sort of thing. I just want to say one thing. Bob Gillette and myself have done our most to give quality projects to this City and we never did anything that we said we wouldn't do. We have gone along with you people and we ask that you go along with us. That's all. We are not an institution. We don't doublecross. We do what you and I and Bob agree to do. Mr. Vortanian: Dr. Mendelssohn, number one, you are doing this for the money in your pocket. The only thing I am going to lose out of this whole deal is property value so if you want to build, build the whole area, buy everybody out. I didn't know before that the City of Livonia owned part of this property. This puts a whole new perspective on this. We have fought to keep this single family dwelling twenty years or better on my part, much more on Hirschliebs. I am just letting you know now that I am not the only one, you have seen the petition, how many names are on it, we want single family dwellings so if this goes further, we will do what we did before, we will hire an attorney. We will run it with you. We will run it with City Hall. It doesn't make any difference. I am ,i, just telling you now this is not going to be a piece of cake. Mike McCulley: First of all, I would like to say that I appreciate that the Doctor is a Livonia taxpayer and that he does want to do something nice for us and maybe we are too naive to appreciate that he is doing something nice for us but if he wants to live behind one of his structures, I am sure he lives in a very beautiful home in Livonia and I guarantee it is not behind his facilities. He might have a very beautiful facility. The question is, is it one story or three story beautiful facility? We want to keep it one story. If it is feasible, he will have the blessings of all the neighbors. We don't have any objections to that. We would love to have them there. We still have a problem with the height not of his quality. His other two properties are beautiful. His other two properties directly affect us not in the least. He might do a beautiful job for them. They do not affect us. They do not affect the way our elevations run and what we are discussing here tonight. It gives him a great credibility but that still does not directly address our problem. Edwin Koziol, 11790 Jarvis: I know this petition was around the neighborhood. Jarvis is south of this area and most of the people on Jarvis signed this petition. I don't know, Mr. Nagy, if you have any Jarvis residents on that petition but we were also involved in the last meeting here that was cancelled. Now let's go back to the basics. The basics of this petition are to rezone the property not to a 10459 two-story height, but to a three-story or multiple dwelling zoning classification and that is what is proposed. The people want single family residential in this area. I also want single family residential, maybe because I am the property owner on Jarvis who ,os. also is fighting a developer for a multiple dwelling. I have to go for the single family residential housing. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-1-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was #12-230-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-10-1-31, as amended, by Allan N. Mendelssohn, M.D. to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-9 and R-9I, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-10-1-31 to January 10, 1989. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-11-1-34 by Livonia Little Tots Day Nursery requesting to rezone property located east of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Munger Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 from R-3B to P.S. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. '1410r Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Kenneth Charnowski: I am an architect with Architectural Resource Associates, 21999 Farmington Road, Farmington Hills, representing my client, the petitioners Judy and Jack Preston. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is my understanding you would like to put in a Little Tots Day Care Center. Mr. Charnowski: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are presently in Clay Elementary School? Mr. Charnowski: Yes. Our client has been in Clay Elementary for several years now. I think it is going on nearly six years now. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many pupils? Mr. Charnowski: She now has 130 pupils. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are they all from the surrounding area? Mr. Charnowski: Most of them are from the surrounding area and the others are from Nair the Livonia area. 10460 Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you been in Clay Elementary? Mr. Charnowski: Four years. `, Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the reason you are leaving Clay? Mr. Charnowski: Our client has received a notice from the Livonia School System to vacate the premises by, I believe, May of this coming year. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there a possibility of Clay School reopening? Mr. Charnowski: Yes, possibility of reopening the school. Mrs. Sobolewski: Can I ask you Mr. Charnowski why this particular area was selected? Why you decided to stay here instead of some other area that would have been zoned properly for your facility? Explain this just a little bit why you decided to do this. Mr. Charnowski: Primarily because in the preschool she will be operating a day care program also that is for people after school, latch key program and things of that nature. She supports a large population out of this area and they are already familiar with the surroundings and she has been a compatible user of this school and the playground facilities in the area. When she approached the church she did it primarily because of familiarity with the zone and area she is already located at. Mrs. Sobolewski: Then that piece of property would be owned by the petitioner? Mr. Charnowski: Yes, it would be. The agreement with the church right now is to study the options on the property. If rezoning were to be approved, it would be an outright purchase of the property. I should say something about preschool usage. This particular building and use of the property is only limited to about an acre of land. Preschools are kind of unusual from the standpoint that if you look at most of the P.S. service districts in the City of Livonia right now, sometimes the acreage exceeds well over two to three acres and that type of acreage would not be beneficial to this particular building type. It will be a relatively small building. The building will range in the area of 8,000 to 9,000 square feet in size and the balance of the site would be all playground area. Mr. Morrow: This parcel seems to be dropped in the middle of three different parcels and I guess my question is where would you take access to a public street? Mr. Charnowski: St. Timothy has agreed to grant us easement rights to utilize their driveway that is already there. That would be the primary access to our building. Mr. Morrow: It would be off Newburgh Road? Mr. Charnowski: Where it is now. It is primarily a daytime usage and limited to weekdays not weekends so there is not a conflicting use with St. Timothy Church. 10461 Mr. LaPine: St. Timothy is selling this property. Have they indicated to you any desire to sell any other portion of this land? Mr. Charnowski: No, not to us. Several years ago they knew there was a proposal Sow to extend the P.S. service district all the way around the parish and that there was neighborhood rejection on that plan or they got input back from the neighborhood that it was negative. So they are not intending to, so far as I know, develop professional service district and they felt as long as it was adjacent to and in back of the parish, it would probably be okay. Mr. LaPine: The problem I have, as it appears to me St. Timothys has one large parcel and now we are taking one little chunk out of it and rezoning it. If the whole property was being rezoned, I might have a different viewpoint. I have not really made up my mind if P.S. is good there. If the church is thinking of selling and relocating, I would rather see that land revert back to residential and build homes there. My biggest objection is taking a parcel of this size and taking one chunk out of it and saying let's make it P.S. recognizing that it abuts some P.S. zoning to the north. Mr. Charnowski: I should mention that when we started to study the parcel we ran into some difficulty with the zoning status of the City of Livonia. We started to study it in depth and originally the R-3B for St. Timothy's parish, if the parish were to establish a preschool on its property, it would be permitted under the present zoning. Preschools and day schools have a difficulty fitting into any zoning in the City of Livonia. After discussion with the City Planning Department we determined that out of all those zones probably the professional service would be the most precise. So that is how we 4100, really developed the zoning on the property. Mr. Tent: I have a two part question. Number one, is there anyone here from St. Timothy's Church to answer questions? This being a church in a residential area, a church can be located anywhere within a residential area without any difficulty, which means that a precedent would be established now if other churches decided to liquidate some of their property. That means that we would have commercial property or P.S. property in residential neighborhoods. My big concern, at this point, would be if we do approve the change in this location, would we be establishing a precedent for other churches to do the same thing in residential neighborhoods to establish P.S. districts and commercial uses? Mr. Vyhnalek: As one Commissioner, I don't feel it would be a precedent. Mr. Morrow: Just to respond to Mr. Tent. As one Commissioner, I don't feel we would be establishing a precedent. I think every zoning request should be considered on its own merit. As I look at the map we have professional service, public land and the church being quasi-public, it is really not abutting residential, per se because the church is in there through a waiver use as a quasi-public use. But to answer your question, as one Commissioner, I am not troubled with setting a precedent because like I say it should be considered on its own merit. 10462 Mr. Tent: I have no concern here in this area because the church has frontage on Newburgh Road, but there are other places throughout the City where they are located deep into residential areas and my concern is could this be a precedent to establish in other districts? I ,taw completely agree this is an area that might support something like this. Mr. McCann: I don't think this is the proper time for a discussion on precedents. I think that is usually afterwards but I would have to agree with Mr. Morrow on what he had to say. I do have a question to the petitioner regarding the property. Would that be a completely enclosed area by a fence? It would not be adjoining the playground with the school kids? Mr. Charnowski: No. It would be separate. Kenneth Aire, an Elder at the Church: This is Robin Mallard, a member of the Board of Deacons and together we sit on the Planning and Finance Committee. We were approached on the property. We have excess property. It is far beyond what we will need as a church even if hopefully they expand a great deal. It does not in any way, that we can see, impinge on the residential side. It appears to be property we have no need for and when we were approached, it seemed to make good sense and we think it is a good idea and it is a good location for the Livonia Little Tots and as such we were glad to get an appraisal and enter into an agreement with them. Mr. Tent: You weren't liquidating the property? You weren't going to sell everything and move out? Mr. Aire: We have had a lot of people ask us to sell. We are not looking for anything else. Mr. Tent: As far as expansion, do you have future plans for expanding your church? Mr. Aire: Well if we would grow we would put up a bigger church. Mr. Tent: The reason I am ask this question, you are probably familiar with Wards Presbyterian Church up at Six Mile. They did the same thing. They just had a site up there and they just kept building and building and they got so big they couldn't use it any more so they had to move to a different area and they would have liked to stay there. So I am asking you do you ever envision that? Mr. Aire: No. I think our sights are not so high as we would ever be another Wards. Mr. LaPine: You have no plans in the future of selling any other land? Mr. Aire: I don't think our neighbors would want us to. We have no interest in becoming bad neighbors. Mr. LaPine: I am saying if a developer comes along and the price is right you might be persuaded to sell the property and relocate on another `"" piece of property? 10463 Mr. Aire: As a church relocate? No we are a Livonia church. Mr. LaPine: Is this property being sold to Little Tots outright? It is not a lease agreement? Mr. Aire: No it is an outright sale, with an easement as far as the driveway is concerned. Mr. Kluver: Obviously both the church and the petitioner have two well intended projects in front of them. The fact is that the church obviously has been a long standing resident in the City and does have excess land, and there is the fact that the petitioner has developed a business which is needed in the City and has established himself in the City. However, there is a slight dilemma here. One in particular is the fact that this zoning change would impinge upon the fact of spot zoning, which it indeed would be. Secondly, it is not really supported by the Future Land Use Plan but again by the same token there is a viable need for this type of service that is here and obviously this type of zoning would support that type of service. I look upon this project, as one individual, one Commissioner, and feel it potentially could be supported in this area and would not have an adverse affect to the general conditions that have been established within the church,the area, the fact that it is not really a spot zoning situation. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy if this petitioner is in full compliance with all of the zoning ordinance requirements relative to play area, parking spaces, etc. Mr. Nagy: To the extent that we have examined the plan and recognize that this is a rezoning petition. But to the extent that we have looked at his illustrated plans submitted in connection with his rezoning petition, yes he is. Tom Miles, 37203 Munger: My concerns are just two really. Number one and the main one is access. It is the amount of traffic already in that area. There are two entrances and exits to Newburgh Plaza. There is an exit and entrance to the new professional building there and now there will be another one using the existing church driveway but more traffic during the busy times in the morning and the evening. To pull out of my subdivision in the morning or the evening onto Newburgh Road is a disaster. You can't do it. Mr. Vyhnalek: You can only go right. Mr. Miles: Even then you wait. Now we have people coming from the west side of Newburgh and we are coming at each other. We have people turning left. It is backed up from the commercial buildings north of us. Also, not shown here, on the west side of Newburgh directly across from the professional building is another professional building that was just put up, which has a lot of vacancies so it probably doesn't have as much traffic as it will in the future. We look it as a very congested area and that is my main concern. I have lived there twelve years and Newburgh, when I first moved there, was two lanes and soon after that it was expanded to four. Many times I go the r., other way on purpose. I go to Levan and go around just to go to Newburgh Plaza just because of the traffic congestion. I think the 10464 City has a very serious problem there and has to face it. Plus the additional things we are going to do further north. The other concern I have is the future use of this piece of property should the day care center choose to move or close for any reason, once the :,` zoning is changed, that will be a further reason to make the rest of it commercial and continue to loop around the church. These are the two concerns I have and I thank you for your time. Asa Harris, 37333 Munger: I have lived in the area about 11 years now and I have watched a lot of development and a lot of growth and I guess it is about the time for us to stop and really take a look at what we have got. As Tom described it from our street Munger to Six Mile you have six cuts onto Newburgh on each side of the road because you have two at the bank also. You have two cuts for the shopping center, one for the professional buildings, one for the church, one for Munger. Go over on the opposite side of Newburgh, you have two for the bank, one for the professional building and two for the subdivisions coming down to Munger. That is ten cuts on a five-lane highway. I pull in and out of that street every day and I take my life into my hands. We say we are not going to put an additional cut in but we are going to deliver 135 kids and pick up 135 kids somehow and I don't think it is by helicopter. Tom raised another important issue and that is what if something happens to this center. I understand they run a good operation in Clay School and I understand that there is probably a need for that kind of an operation. However, if you look at the single family housing around that area, I think very few of those students come from that area. This is a maturing area. Most of our kids are in high school and are gone. If, in fact, Clay School reopens and I think that is what the entire community wants, then all of a sudden we are not only going to have the school traffic to contend with, we will have a day low care center traffic added on top of that. This traffic issue is a big one and if you don't think it is, come out and live in our shoes for a few days. We have a bottleneck at Newburgh Lake that is going to be fixed, which means Newburgh will become a major artery even further south than it runs today. You have a shopping center at Jacobsons that is nowhere near complete and when it is completed it is going to bring a lot more people and traffic to the area. You have the Victor project that is just getting started. Now granted that is up at Seven Mile but there is going to be some north, south traffic on Newburgh. You have projects that are proposed for Schoolcraft College at Haggerty Road and again it effects the total area and this is an area that the citizens are living in and living with day by day. I think we have got to stop. I think we have gone as far as we can go. The City Council and I guess this Commission fought long and hard to try to do the right thing in the zoning north of Six Mile, between Six and Seven Mile. This is the same kind of issue. It is whether we do professional development or whether we do houses. The people that surround this property have always said build single family residences. That is what it is zoned for. That is what everybody's understanding was and that is what it should be. The church has been a good neighbor. They have kept a piece of property that looked good. It is a green span and it is a good neighbor but I think if we change it, then we change the whole area 10465 and I don't think it is right. I think we have infringed upon the residential area enough. Many of the people from the community are part of the Civic Association. I don't think any of us are here tonight to represent the Civic Association per se because we haven't raised it as an issue. Most of us are citizens on Munger but if this Commission decides to let this petition go forward, we will ask our Civic Association to join us in our feelings. Mrs. Fandrei: A comment to Mr. Miles and Mr. Harris. The 130 children that will be relocating from the Clay School to the proposed petitioned area will be coming out of your subdivision. They now have access and egress through the subdivision. All of this traffic will now be removed from your subdivison. Munger will get less traffic than it has right now if this is approved. Mr. Harris: If we keep congesting Newburgh, we will all be forced to use Munger back to Levan just to get out. Mrs. Fandrei: I live right off Newburgh also. I know what you are referring to but we are using the same number of children, the same number of cars that are already using these roads. Mr. Harris: I think there is another major issue here and that is the availability of facilities around the City. We have a vacant Farmer Jacks grocery store at Five Mile. We don't need to build more buildings. We have to use what we have. Robin Mallard: I am no longer a resident of Livonia but I live in Westland and if you can put a price freeze on the housing costs, maybe I will make it back in. As far as having grown up in the area, our family, my wife's family, have probably got 80 years in this City total. Both of my parents are schoolteachers here in the City of Livonia. They see schools open and close. My dad worked at Whitman from the date it opened to the day it closed. I probably wasn't of an age to argue zoning or density but when we set our trap line and trapped fox and woodchucks and different things like that, there wasn't any consideration given to us. We hunted for pheasant and we saw houses go up all the way up to Seven Mile. Maybe it is not a good argument but there is a need because of the maturity of this area. Many of those people, true their children have graduated. My sister, my brother, my wife, her brother, her sisters have all been through the Livonia public schools. We have small children. When my wife finishes her education I expect we will have two working adults and we will have a need like this. Whether we come back into Livonia I don't know. Little Tots has been located in Livonia for many years. They have another facility next to the Board of Education but we think it is very feasible not only for the fact that it is going to reduce traffic but we would like to have a few more children and we see it a possible growth for our church. We are a maturing church. In the last few years we have seen all of our children graduate and the few of us who have been at St. Timothys for a number of years were, I can't say we are repopulating it but we are coming back where we have been and we have been in Livonia for years. We think it is a reasonable use of the excess property we have and we think it would enhance the area because of the need with working families `- and also reduce the traffic through the subdivision. 4 10466 Jack Gawthrop, 37280 Munger: I butt up right to the back of the property. I didn't realize now they are going to put a fence around it, it is even going to look worse. If you could come over by my place at the 5:00 traffic hour, as Tom and Asa have told you, the traffic is `, terrible. It is really bad and nobody in our neighborhood cares about the Tiny Tot school. We would welcome them except for what is going to happen. Mr. Tent made a great point. Every church in town, as they do in every case in court, they have to set a precedent and that is what this one will do. Every church will use this as an example. If St. Timothy can do it, why can't we? Livonia was built with residency not commercial and not industrial. Our tranquil city, we were just rated #5. We have enough industrial. We have enough commercial and there are too many empty buildings now that they could redesign and make a Tiny Tots school. Mr. Morrow: Are nursery schools permitted use in a church? Mr. Nagy: Yes they are. Mr. Morrow: So every time we put a church on a piece of property, we tantamount to say they can have a nursery school? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Gawthrop: If St. Timothy wants to build a Tiny Tot school, let them do it. Mr. Tent: The other concern that was brought up was the opening of Clay School. I think that is very important because when they do open that up we are talking traffic generation, etc. , which will multiply the traffic concern in the area. What the three gentlemen have lor espoused on I agree completely. The fact is we do have traffic problems out in that area. We want to keep our neighborhoods residential. We have a lot of vacant areas in the City that could be used for this particular purpose and we have a lot of vacant buildings and I certainly, rather than have a piece of property infringe on a residential neighborhood, I would like to see this type of enterprise located in an area that would be more conducive to this type of operation. Judy Preston: My husband and I own Livonia Little Tots. I would like to address the problem of space in Livonia and to assure everyone that is in this room tonight that we have looked for space in Livonia. We are trying very hard to stay here. We have lived here for a long time. This is our community and we would like to stay. We have called the people at Farmer Jacks. That didn't work. We have looked into the piece of property that is P.S. on the top of our map. That wouldn't work. I believe that we have looked in the City of Livonia for an acre of land that we could build Livonia Little Tots on and have not found it. Now when you ask why is this piece of property so good for us because it is behind the church. It is surrounded. It is away from the traffic for the children. I understand that corner of Livonia is growing and along with that growth there are jobs and many other things and many children are going to need a quality place to stay. If we cannot find a place in Livonia, then we will have to move out and I hate to do that. In my mind I do believe 10467 that this parcel is the best spot in the City of Livonia that we can . find at this time. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you know what percent of the 135 children come from the surrounding mile or two miles? Mrs. Preston: It is difficult to say that because we have children that live in the area and we have parents who work in the area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you talked to any neighbors on Munger, Mallory or Fitzgerald? Mrs. Preston: Yes. I had a meeting at the end of May or June and I sent out a letter to all of the neighbors and they came over and talked to me at that time and I felt at that time the general concensus was that if I would only go for rezoning that part of it, the neighbors at that time really felt very strongly that they did not want the whole area rezoned, and I assured them at that time that when I did fill out the petition it would be just for the area that we want to put the center on. Mrs. Sobolewski: There just seems so many good reasons why this should be here. It is located in a nice area, however we will be doing something which we have avoided doing and that is spot zoning and further it doesn't even comply with our future land use in the area. We need this service, I know, but the people who are here, particularly the neighbors, and they are effected and not one neighbor here has spoken for it. They have to live there all the time. The church has spoke for it but they are selling the property. You spoke for it, of course. I have trouble doing this in this area. I worry about the spot zoning and the effect on the neighbors. So I would `r really like to give my support to it but I just can't. Mr. McCann: I looked at this at two meetings now and tried to listen to everyone fairly. What I see in this area is that they have tried to take the north corner of the property there adjacent to the public school. This to me is a good spot. If the land were to be developed as zoned, it would not make a good subdivision. The area that they have there is not conducive to a subdivision because you have parking for the church on one side, you have P.S. on the other side and you have public school on the other side. There is no subdivision there, it wouldn't make sense to make that into homes in that particular spot. The traffic conditions, I sympathize with you. However, this isn't a case where we are bringing more people to the area. We are not. Yes we are moving more onto Newburgh but I don't know how much come in on Munger off of Newburgh now to go to the Clay Elementary School access or how many come off of Levan, but we are just shifting it not even one hundred yards from where it is. As the petitioner stated it is mostly for the local residents. The area is rejuvenating and there are a lot of young couples out there that are buying the older homes in Livonia and they both have to have incomes which means that they have to have day care. We do need it badly and it is difficult to find proper, suitable places in Livonia. We have had other petitioners before us that fought very 10468 hard for similar uses. They wanted to put one in at Five Mile and Levan that was in a commercial setting. Just converting a property into a day care center is not so easy because you need enough play area, suitable play area, compared to building size. That makes it `, difficult to find a proper building. We have had to deny them. With regard to setting a pattern, I don't believe that is an issue here. I don't see we are bringing effectively that much new traffic to Newburgh to deny it based on that. Mr. LaPine: As Mrs. Sobolewski pointed out and I pointed out earlier, to me this is a great example of spot zoning. We have a parcel here that is all R-3B and we are taking a little portion of it and we are rezoning it. I think every time we rezone a piece of a parcel to a C-1 or P.S. zoning classification we have another potential commercial building. My big worry is, I don't know what is going to happen to the Little Tots here five years down the line. What is going to happen if they move out and we have a zoning of P.S.? A doctor can move in, a dentist, professional service, or the worse that could happen they could come back and say I can't rent it out now as P.S. or sell it for a doctor, I want general office and then we have a general office building in here. I agree with the gentleman who spoke from the subdivision. We have lots of P.S. property around the City that is available, that is empty, and I can't believe that we can't find a parcel that will accommodate you. We are not here to put you out of business. We are not here to have you move out of the City. I owe an obligation, I think, to what I believe is to protect the people who live in the area now. I am not for encroaching any more P.S. or C-1 or that type of zoning in this particular area. I think the property should stay R-3B or if the church some day wants to sell the whole parcel for a residential development then that's the way it should go but to spot zone one little parcel here of a large parcel to a P.S. I think is doing a disservice to the master plan of this City and to the residents of the area. Mr. Engebretson: I too would like to speak in opposition to the petition not because I am not sensitive to the need for this kind of service in the area but I am very much concerned with the spot zoning issue and I am more concerned about what it might do in terms of the future growth of that P. S. zone into the residential community. We have seen time and time again, as recently as yesterday, that kind of action happening in our City. I think we do need to have that kind of service that you are offering and I would hope that our professional staff can work with you to help you locate suitable facilities but I just don't think this is a suitable location for your facility and so I am speaking in opposition to the petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-11-1-34 closed. On a motion made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-1-34 by Livonia Little Tots Day Nursery requesting to rezone property located east of Newburgh Road between Six r.. 10469 Mile Road and Munger Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 from R-3B to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-11-1-34 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the further encroachment of non-residential zoning into a residential area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning would encourage similar requests for changes of zoning further to the south. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends low density residential land use for the subject area. 4) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to good planning principles in that the subject site is not directly served by a major thoroughfare but, instead, its location requires indirect vehicular access across adjacent church property. 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, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine NAYS: Kluver, McCann, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei ABSENT: None *ft` Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #12-231-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-1-34 by Livonia Little Tots Day Nursery requesting to rezone property located east of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Munger Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17 from R-3B to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-11-1-34 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a much needed service to the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning amounts to a relatively small extension of an existing P.S. zoning district in the area. 3) That the subject property proposed to be rezoned is not directly adjacent to developed residential lands in the area. 4) That the P.S. zoning district is compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent residential 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 ‘*011.' #543, as amended. 10470 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, McCann, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Tent, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine ABSENT: None Vr. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-11-1-35 by Charles G. Tangora requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 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 a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road: I represent petitioner who happens to be Weatherford Walker. Weatherford Walker is a commercial developer and I think you probably recall that he is also the developer of the Builders Square parcel on Plymouth Road just west of Middlebelt. They are one of the biggest commercial developers in the midwest. The particular parcel, I am sure you are well aware of, is on the corner of Plymouth and Farmington Road. I think you recognize it as being the location of the Mai Kai, which is now a closed theater, and the rest of the particular piece of property is vacant. It has been vacant for a number of years. The south half of the property Now has been zoned C-2 for a number of years. The north half has been zoned M-1. The petitioner seeks to ask for rezoning of the north half from M-1 zoning classification to a C-2 so that the entire parcel would be a C-2 district to enable him to develop the parcel in a commercial manner. Mr. Tent: You are proposing that the land be rezoned for commercial purposes. What was the intent of the developer? What type of commercial? Is this just speculative zoning or do you have a client in mind that would utilize the property? Mr. Tangora: I think I shared with you last week that Weatherford Walker does have a user. It is a single user for the entire parcel. It is a division of the K-Mart stores so it is not speculation by any means. They do have one user for the entire parcel. Mr. Tent: Is there a name of the user? Mr. Tangora: Yes. It is a K-Mart division. It is called Macral. Mr. Tent: Where are they located now? Mr. Tangora: The nearest one that I know of is in Cleveland, Ohio. Mr. Tent: Is that kind of like a warehouse club? Mr. Tangora: It is a warehouse store. 10471 Mr. Tent: How many square feet would that be? Mr. Tangora: It is in excess of 100,000 square feet. I think you can relate it to the type of store that just recently was approved and is going in at Wonderland, which is a Target Store. Similar in size to a Target 'r" Store. Similar in layout. Mr. Tent: This will be a K-Mart enterprise, a K-mart operation. Mr. Tangora: Yes sir. Mr. Tent: In other words K-Mart will own all the property from the Builders Square all the way up to Farmington so we will call that the K-Mart mile. Mr. Tangora: They are a very aggressive corporation. Mr. Tent: As far as the Mai Kai Theater is concerned, any specifics on that? Mr. Tangora: We don't plan to use that building at all. The original plans were to demolish the theater. Our plans were to utilize the entire parcel. Mr. LaPine: Are you saying Mr. Tangora that now you are going to demolish the Mai Kai Theater? Mr. Tangora: Our original plan was to utilize the entire parcel. We have been approched to determine whether the developer, Weatherford Walker, would be interested in leaving the theater as is. `r. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding as you mentioned at one of our study sessions, you have been negotiating with the City. Has the City taken over the theater? Is that correct? Mr. Tangora: No. If you understood that, that is misleading. We haven't negotiated with the City at all. Mr. LaPine: If I remember right I think you said the developer would like to give the theater to the City. Is that what you said? Mr. Tangora: The developer wanted to use the entire parcel. The people in the City have approached the developer through me to determine whether there was any possibility to leave the theater intact. Mr. LaPine: Would the developer operate the theater? Mr. Tangora: No. Absolutely not. Mr. LaPine: Are you telling me the City is or is not going to take over the theater? Mr. Tangora: If the City wanted the theater, the developer would talk to them and see if there is some way they can make it available to them. Mr. LaPine: They would make it available to the City but they would still own it? 10472 Mr. Tangora: They would still own the property. They would make it available on some kind of a lease. It is so far down the line I am very hesitant to discuss it. '410. Mr. LaPine: I went out to that property Saturday and I looked at it from every conceivable way I could look at it and to me for the Planning Commission to allow any more C-2 in that area, we are really sticking our necks way out. I don't think we need any more C-2 zoning along Plymouth Road and Farmington at that location. I think it was Mr. Kluver that brought up at one of our meetings that if this were developed as a commercial establishment, across the street the Shelden Center would almost die. I don't see how it could survive. I don't think we need any more large scale developments along Plymouth Road. I think Plymouth Road has been built to its maximum. To me we, as a commission, have to look at this property for some other zoning than C-2. Mr. Vyhnalek: You say you wanted to use the whole property. I thought at the prehearing review you indicated you just wanted to use half of that property. Mr. Tangora: Oh no. The front portion is already C-2 so our petition is only for the north half of the parcel to make it one entire C-2 parcel. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are planning on using as much as possible. Mr. Tangora: The original plans were to use the entire parcel as C-2. Mr. LaPine: The building you are proposing is approximately 100,000 square feet. \r. If you got the rezoning, that would be the only building on this location. Mr. Tangora: We do not plan a shopping center. We plan on a one user building. Mr. LaPine: Assuming that in the future, as the building on Seven Mile and Middlebelt, a one time furniture warehouse, if that K-Mart development did not go, that building could then be converted into a number of stores and end up someday being a shopping center per se. Mr. Tangora: I am sure that is possible. Mr. Tent: The 100,000 square feet that we were talking about for that building. How does that compare with Builders Square? Mr. Tangora: Again, don't take the 100,000 as gospel. Mr. Tent: What is the size of Builders Square? Mr. Tangora: I don't recall but I assume that it is not quite 100,000 square feet but I am not very sure of that. Mr. Tent: At the prestudy meeting we did discuss the Mai Kai Theater. Did you go back to your clients and talk to them about it? Did your client say definitely not, that there would be no consideration to donating the building to the City? Mr. Tangora: I didn't say that. 10473 Mr. Tent: I do remember, as is the case with Mr. LaPine, we discussed this at the prehearing about what would that be a trade off or something in consideration for the rezoning. Noir Mr. Tangora: I did go back to our clients and our clients talked to K-Mart. K-Mart and their clients have indicated that they are willing to discuss the theater with the City. Mr. Tent: Now let's say the theater would continue to exist and some kind of arrangements were made, would the size of this building have to be reduced considerably? Mr. Tangora: No. Mr. Kluver: Basically looking at that site for this development, it is proposed to be a general type of all encompassing warehouse purchasing facility. Is that correct? It would be like an Ace Warehouse. This type of thing? Mr. Tangora: Yes. I think that is correct. I have viewed the Macral Store down in Cleveland and I think there is no comparison. I think the Macral is far superior. Mr. Kluver: It is an all under one roof type of operation. Mr. Tangora: Exactly. Mr. Kluver: I mention that because obviously that is the intended use. A decade ago we had an Uncle in the furniture business, at which time we made `,, an adjustment in the industrial zone to put that facility in and then it failed. That particular building today is a very successful industrial building. I look at this site again and it is in the M-1 zone. Fifty percent of it is zoned M-l. It certainly would make sense that the C-2 should marry up and look at an industrial type of development, which brings in the same type of things you are looking for from a commercial development. It brings in a good tax base. It brings in employment. It brings in dollars to the City but it also reduces the amount of congestion in an already heavily congested area. I have trouble with this type of development and I have to share with my colleague Mr. LaPine that obviously the City's first and oldest shopping center would obviously be on the throes of bankruptcy with an operation like this. I have a problem with that type of an operation because it is a huge volume operation which would generate tremendous amounts of traffic and I think would have a tremendous impact on the retail operations not only on Farmington Road and Plymouth but the entire Plymouth Road area beginning with Middlebelt and ending at Levan Road. Mrs. Fandrei: I also have difficulty with the concept that is being proposed and if I remember correctly at our prehearing review it was indicated that someone might be interested in the present theater for the arts. I have a problem with keeping that theater. It is obsolete. We have two lovely auditoriums in this City. Clarenceville, which seats over 1,000, and Churchill, which seats almost 1,000. These schools would have facilities for any of the arts, more than '411111/ adequate and more than this building. I just have to express that I 10474 am very unhappy with the thought of keeping that building, but more so, more unhappy with the thought of the concept of 100,000 square feet of commercial in this area. I would rather see it go into the R.E. zoning classification that we had proposed earlier. Mrs. Sobolewski: The City does not need another shopping center especially at this corner in this high traffic area. For years we have had Shelden Center there and we have watched it slowly draining away. I really don't have any reason to support this rezoning for that area. I would urge everyone to object to this. Any other kind of zoning I would like to sit down and examine. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, even though we are all well aware that we are here tonight to talk about zoning and the specifics of what may go up there aren't necessarily appropriate for a detailed discussion here tonight, I think that the theater is a real central point as to how that land is used in the future and while I am not going to put you on the spot, I do believe that the disposition of that theater, whether it is going to be demolished or whether it is going to stay, really needs to be dealt with. I think it is a central point and I think it is a matter that does have a lot to do with the zoning. I would simply cite for example that if the entire parcel was originally planned for a single use and that single use was for a 100,000 or 110,000 square foot building, if the position then is altered to possibly leave that theater building with sufficient parking to make the theater building useful for some purpose, then it would seem to me that either the property wasn't being developed fully initially with a single building there or we would be cramped for parking to accommodate both the theater and the shopping %N, facility. I am not saying I am in favor of the shopping center concept even though it is a single user but I am saying that I think that the issue of that theater really does need to be dealt with before we can deal with resolving this petition. Again, I have no interest in putting you on the spot here tonight but I would hope that we could get to that matter in the future if this issue isn't either approved or denied tonight. If there is anything you could share with us on that subject I would certainly be glad to give you an opportunity to speak to that. Mr. Tangora: I think the offer is on the table and has to be dealt with by the appropriate people and whoever that is I don't know. I can't tell you whether the theater is a viable economic venture that the City could undertake or some other entity in town but certain people do want to explore it and I think it should be explored. Mr. Engebretson: I certainly think that every possibility should be explored but I will tell you what stimulates my concern. This theater proposal is similar in some respects to Tiger Stadium where the City of Detroit obtained Tiger Stadium for one dollar, if I recall correctly the City of Detroit thereafter proceeded to pour millions of dollars into it for renovation and now it is under consideration for demolition. It is not exactly the same situation but I think that it deserves consideration because it does bear some similarity to that. 10475 Dennis Sukoda, 32971 Capitol: I don't have an objection to the rezoning proposal but I have more of an inquiry in regards to the zoning and usage of this property. At sometime back approximately a year ago I had a „sr blanket purchase offer delivered to my office for the purchasing of the back portion of the parcel I own. It was undisclosed. It was for a nominal amount. It was an option offer and after dealing with the subject and talking to the realtor who presented that offer, he informed me he wanted the property because he wanted to move wetlands back into the area that I own so that in turn the purchaser could totally use this property. I guess there is a question is there wetlands back in there or is there not? The other question I would like to ask as a long time resident on that street, I own another building directly across the street from the building I occupy. That is 32952 Capitol. When we had a new tenant move into our neighborhood, General Dynamics, and they built a lovely office building on an adjoining street, we had the City come through and ask all of the manufacturing residents to upgrade their facades to partake in the high tech imaginery of what was moving into the neighborhood. I agree that Livonia deserves the best appearance of any community. However, my question would be also if I have a new neighbor moving in that follows the C-2 zoning, how would that effect my own property in regards to it being adjoining to mine which is industrual? Am I going to require a beautification program? Am I going to be able to maintain it as an industrial area? If you could enlighten me a little bit I would appreciate it. Mr. Vyhnalek: Your first question was wetlands. On the MacDonald's site plan, when they tried to come in approximately a year ago, there was `, wetlands in that area. The DNR was involved. So I will go to Mr. Nagy, but I assume there is a wetland in that area. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: Yes. There is a vegetation that is growing on that property that is indigenous to a wetland soil condition and it was brought to our attention at the time of the MacDonalds waiver use petition. To what extent, I don't believe it has been accurately mapped or delineated on a map but yes there are wetlands on the property. Mr. Sukoda: I just bring that up in regards to the fact that if the Mai Kai Theater is left on property, in addition to a wetland, is there still available space to maintain the type of project that they are asking for? Mr. Vyhnalek: To answer your second question on C-2 vs. M-1 on beautification. They have to come back with the site plan if they are successful in changing the zoning and it is up to us and the Council to see that it is done right to be compatible with the area. If you are located on Capitol Avenue and have improved your street and your buildings, anything that goes in there will also be planned to be compatible to your property. Mr. Morrow: I have one comment. The matter to me is simply zoning. I think we are well served by C-2 along Plymouth Road, particularly in that area. But maybe more importantly is that one of the things that makes Livonia more unique is its manufacturing belt that runs for several miles between Plymouth and Schoolcraft and as one commissioner, I want to jealously guard that classification wherever 10476 possible and this particular site would fall into that particular area. I would not like to see it diminished. I want to retain that manufacturing type of development which is the tax base that has made Livonia an outstanding community. rr. Mr. McCann: I would just like to agree with Mr. Morrow. I think the first and most important consideration is whether the zoning is proper for the area and I don't believe it is at this time. I think it would be better served as light industrial. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-11-1-35 closed. On a motion made by Sue Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-1-35 by Charles G. Tangora requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-11-1-35 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for industrial use. 2) that the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are already in abundance in this area of the City. 3) That the proposed change of zoning would eliminate the opportunity to add to the City's industrial tax base. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage development which will substantially add to the traffic congestion of the area. 5) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to provide for the proper arrangement of zoning districts so as to encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses which will limit location of various services to those areas of most need. 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: I would like to move to table and I would like to qualify why I am asking for a tabling resolution. The qualification is the fact that as Mr. Morrow indicated how we want to cherish our industrial area and the fact that the continued development of the industrial belt and the development of new industries and businesses, whether they be engineering research and/or additional industrial facilities and that this be coupled with an impact study which would embellish upon the industrial area and also the commercial area which would run from Middlebelt west to Newburgh and will encompass the Plymouth Road corridor so we can therefore, indicate the conditions of 10477 traffic and commercial enterprises that are presently there. We can • earmark the type of industrial which we have the potential of attracting and moving into this area. `, On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was #I12-232-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-1-35 by Charles G. Tangora requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-11-1-35 to February 7, 1989. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-11-1-36 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Farmington Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 to RE. 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 they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We also have in our file a letter from Joseph Kotlinski stating as the current owners of the property in question and in view of the fact that a `, purchase agreement has not been completed with Amoco Oil Company for transfer of this land, we respectfully request that this rezoning proposal be tabled until the sale is closed and the transfer is final. This is scheduled to be completed in February 1989. Any proposed rezoning petitions then will be addressed to Amoco Oil Company for their review. Mr. Vyhnalek: The Commission is the petitioner and we were just doing some housecleaning since Amoco Gas Station site was approved but this is new insight and it is very understandable that the land owners have not signed the contract yet. Mr. Morrow: When we studied the particular site did they not declare that land surplus as far as their needs. Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct but if they don't sign the original contract, then it reverts back to C-2 and they can resell it again. Mr. Nagy: In view of the letter I did call Mr. Kotlinski and I explained to him that the matter is being initiated by the Planning Commission pursuant to a council resolution and that the Planning Commission role is one of conducting the hearing, preparing the petition and forwarding a recommendation on to the City Council and the Council in turn will also have to schedule this matter for hearing. The Council hearing will not occur until some time well into February. For instance, last night at the Council regular meeting they were `"� scheduling their hearings for the first week in February. 10478 Mr. Vyhnalek: What you are trying to say is we can go ahead and do our thing and • by the time it catches up they will have signed the contract. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Now ' There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-11-1-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #12-233-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-1-36 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Farmington Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 to RE, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-11-1-36 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan. 3) That the subject site is located within the City's industrial belt. 4) That the subject site is not conducive to development in the existing C-2 zoning district. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-11-2-49 by Roger M. Ajluni, M.D. for waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Curtis in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have not received any correspondence on this petition. Denise Reese: I work for Dr. Ajluni at 17940 Farmington Road. I would just like to say the prospective tenant came to us. He is an insurance man. He has been in the business for over 35 years. At the time that he came and went into the lease agreement with us we felt that he would fall under the P.S. status and later found out that he did not. Therefore we are asking that he is granted permission to come into our building as an insurance agent. `. 10479 Mr. Vyhnalek: This is strictly an insurance agent where they sell life, auto, homeowners? Ms. Reese: They are underwriters. Mr. Engebretson: If I understand correctly, you are looking to rezone a 37,000 square foot building in order to accommodate a tenant that is going to occupy 1300 square feet. Ms. Reese: No. We are looking only to get waiver use approval for the 1300 square feet, which would be on the southeast corner of the second floor. Mr. Engebretson: If I may Mr. Chairman, is that what this petition says Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: The legal description that was furnished in connection with the petition describes the entire one and six-tenths acre parcel. The legal notice that we were furnished included the entire property, therefore all of the building, is being petitioned for the waiver use approval. It is not a change of zoning. What it would do is waive the prohibition that limits it strictly to professional, the doctors, the lawyers, the engineers, and would allow general office occupancy for any portion of the building. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you understand that Ms. Reese? Ms. Reese: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: You say you understand that but apparently you are getting something that is greatly in excess of what you are seeking. You will have a 37,000 square building with a waiver use applying to the whole building. The stated reason for seeking the waiver use is to accommodate this one tenant who is going to occupy something less than 3% of the total space of the building? If this particular potential tenant who is going to occupy some 2% to 3% of that building weren't a prospective tenant, would you still feel that this waiver use would be appropriate? Ms. Reese: Yes. At this point the Doctor feels it would be nice to open it up and allow much more of a general office building usage as opposed to just the P.S. status. Mr. Engebretson: The only other comment that I have Mr. Chairman is that I don't have any particular problem with this except it is another example of starting low and then moving the sights higher as the buildings don't fill up. This illustrates the concerns that we have of putting a commercial building on every corner. I think this is a valid concern because here we go again with expanding building usage. Mr. LaPine: How much of this space is empty in this building: Ms. Reese: At this point there is approximately 3,000 square feet empty, including this 1300 square feet. Mr. McCann: At this point you only have 3,000 square feet that you are worried about. Is that correct? 10480 Ms. Reese: That is correct. Mr. McCann: At this point, your only real concern if I understand you correctly, is just to get the insurance salesman, would you be satisfied if ,— that was what you got tonight? Ms. Reese: Yes. Mr. McCann: My second question is to Mr. Nagy. Is there any way we can amend the petition at this point to just include that particular office? Mr. Nagy: You would have to condition it on adherence to the specific floor plan that was submitted. In a multi-level building where one floor overlaps the other, we couldn't legally describe the site area to limit the legal notice to one particular suite. The only way we could try to relate to it would be through the floor plan. We would have to identify the suite within the total floor area and reference it in the petition. Mr. McCann: My consideration is they have already leased most of the space and we are talking about such a small space that I would hate to change the zoning for the entire building because they only need this one office. I am wondering if we could go ahead and approve it based on the floor plan tonight. I would hate to change the zoning for the whole building. Mr. Vyhnalek: On the other hand Mr. McCann, why stop at 1300 square feet? Why not just get the whole 3,000 square feet because if they can't rent this 1300 square feet out, they are going to come back for the 1700 if they get another tenant. Nur Mr. LaPine: Is this tenant going to require any signage? Ms. Reese: No it will not. Mr. Morrow: The point I wanted to make is I am not so sure they submitted a floor plan for the balance of the square footage to condition it on. Mr. Nagy: They didn't but again I think if that is the wishes of the Planning Commission I am sure they could furnish us with one and before you approve the minutes or you release or sign the resolution, we will see that a proper floor plan is made a part of your resolution. Mr. Engebretson: The young lady has asked for the 1300 square feet and she has submitted proper documentation to describe that area. To offer to take whatever is vacant in that building and include it, I think would be a mistake. I can support the granting of the waiver use for that tenant and if they have the need to come back on another occasion to get a similar waiver use for another tenant, then we could give similar consideration at that time. I agree with Mr. McCann's position. Mr. Kluver: I have a question I would refer to Mr. Nagy. As we incrementally go and pick this particular petition apart and try to do it on a square footage basis, it certainly becomes apparent that there are some Nur ,. weaknesses within our own zoning ordinance. Particularly when we 10481 look at the P.S. zoning classification. If we are going to have a P.S. facility, we should stand behind it. If we are going to have a general office facility, we should stand behind that. We should come out with a general office ordinance that supports both in a ,` very logical manner. I can relate to this simply because of the fact I have an office building in Livonia which I am a tenant of, which is general office, and which I am surounded by doctors, which are professionals, so there is a great deal of inconsistencies. It would be more logical that we come up with a standard general office ordinance. Robert Morrison, 2080 Myron Drive: I am the tenant proposing to occupy this space. I have been an insurance agent for 35 years and I am a CLU. I am also a licensed insurance counsellor. I know there is a distinction as you mentioned about classifications. I feel I am a professional although I don't have a doctors or any degree and I feel our office space that we would occupy would be an enhancement to the building. I believe what was left in that building has already been leased to an attorney. So I don't think there would be a problem with having this one business or multiple businesses approved. Mr. Morrow: What type of traffic does your agency generate? Are you more inclined to have walk in trade or is your trade coming in by telephone or by mail? Mr. Morrison: That is why I am going where I am going because we do not have any walk in traffic. Most of our business is transacted by phone or by letter. Mr. Morrow: How many employees do you have? Mr. Morrison: I will have two. My wife is the president of the corporation. I am an agent and my son will be an agent and I will have two office girls. Mr. LaPine: Are you located in Livonia at present time? Mr. Morrison: No I am in Farmington Hills. I am in an agency up at Northwestern Highway. I had been an agent with Michigan Mutual for 32 years and when they disbanded their sales force I was a Livonia resident and a agent with Michigan Mutual for about ten years on Schoolcraft Road. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-11-2-49 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-2-49 by Roger M. Ajluni, M.D. for waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Curtis Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, the City Planning Commission 10482 does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-11-2-49 be approved, subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for the subject site, for the following reasons: Nor 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 ##543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3 That the granting of this petition will provide for a greater variety of office services to be located on the subject property. 4) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I can't support the motion for the full building. I can support a motion for 1300 square feet but I am not in favor of rezoning the whole building. Mr. Kluver: Then let's change the ordinance. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Sobolewski, Fandrei NAYS: Tent, McCann, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. '0401. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #12-234-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-2-49 by Roger M. Ajluni, M.D. for waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Curtis in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-11-2-49 be approved incorporating the floor plan submitted to the Planning Department and confining the approval to the 1300 square feet planned to be occupied by the insurance agency, subject to the adherence to the previously approved site plan for the subject site, 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 #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the granting of this petition will provide for a greater variety of office services to be located on the subject property. 04004-' 10483 4) 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 *ft. 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, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kluver, Fandrei ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-11-2-50 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. for waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within an existing shopping center located on the north side of Seven Mile Road west of Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. 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 they have no objections to the waiver use proposal. Linda Barone: I work for Schostak Brothers, 26913 Northwestern Hwy. , Southfield. `` Mr. Vyhnalek: You propose a restaurant of 2000 square feet? Ms. Barone: That is correct. Mr. Vyhnalek: What type of restaurant? Ms. Barone: Chinese oriental. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this a change or is this a new venture? Ms. Barone: A new venture. Mr. Kluver: Regarding the mechanical equipment which would be on the roof if there is any required, would it fit into the structure of the building? Ms. Barone: Yes. (Ms. Barone showed plan and where exhaust would be). Mr. Kluver: Do we also have detailed plan for entry way? Ms. Barone: Yes. (Ms. Barone showed copies of drawing). Mr. Kluver: The existing area, is there presently a restaurant there? Ms. Barone: Yes, it used to be Sanders. 'vim. 10484 Mrs. Fandrei: Ms. Barone, do you know if the restaurant was planning on putting Ansul system in? Ms. Barone: An Ansul system is in their plans? They would have to have fire supression. Whether that would be dry Ansul or wet Ansul I can't answer. Generally speaking for fire regulations, someone can correct me if I am wrong, there is both a dry and a wet Ansul system that is allowable over fire areas. Mrs. Fandrei: This is part of your plan? Ms. Barone: That would be done when they go to get final approval. They should have the hood area mapped out on the plan. Mr. Vyhnalek: Doesn't Wayne County take care of that? Ms. Barone: Yes. Wayne County Health Department takes care of that. Mr. LaPine: I guess I have a little problem with the location. When this shopping center was built many, many years ago, one of the Councilmen who sat on the Council at the time, Mr. Bennett, was very emphatic about how that shopping center was going to be built. It was a new concept as far as K-Mart was concerned. When the stores came up along the west side there, one of the main objectives he wanted, and the Council as a whole insisted upon, is that there be high class stores. When the center first opened, that is what you had. You had real high class stores there. Now we have a body building place in there. We have a pet shop. We have a couple of computer places. Now we are going to have three restaurants. The vr..+ Bonanza, Clock Jr. and this one plus there is a snack bar within K-Mart, whatever you want to call it. We not only have that but we have four fast-food restaurants within 150 feet of this. I don't see what the need is. Why can't he just go out and get some good commercial in there? Somebody can make an argument well we are only replacing a restaurant with another restaurant. Sanders was not a restaurant. I grant you they did serve food there but primarily it was a bakery and candy store, plus ice cream. To me to put another restaurant in there, in my estimation, it is very poor planning and I don't know how the staff can recommend it going in there. I understand Schostak wants to get rentals in there, but he has to get better rentals that are high class. He doesn't have to come in with another restaurant. We don't need another restaurant in that area. Mrs. Fandrei: I am looking at a 1987 Restaurant Study. I have counted within about two blocks nine restaurants. Six of them sit-down. I also support what Mr. LaPine is saying that I feel six sit-down and three carry-out restaurants in the area and one chinese within a mile is a little more than I feel comfortable in supporting at this point. Mr. Kluver: Basically, I think both Mr. LaPine and Mrs. Fandrei brought up some very valid points. Like them, I also am concerned with the fact • 10485 that if this waiver use were to be approved and the restaurant were to fail, the waiver use runs with the land and it is there for the life of the structure and I have a concern with that. 4410r-- Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, does the Clock, Jr. and Bonanza Restaurants, do they have waiver uses in there? Mr. Nagy: I would think they do. Ms. Barone: I have a question. If this did get a use waiver, because when we first petitioned we thought it had a waiver use on it due to Sanders usage, don't you have to reapply to have that applied to any other restaurant use you would want to put in there? Mr. Nagy: Waiver use runs with the land. They would have to come in and get an occupancy permit only. On a motion duly by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #12-235-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-11-2-50 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. for waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within an existing shopping center located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 88-11-2-50 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 as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That 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 oversaturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. 3) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the adjoining uses of the area. 4) The area is already well served by similar type uses in that there are nine (9) restaurants in the immediate area and one chinese restaurant in the area. 5) That the saturation point in any given area of Livonia is really unknown; however, an educated guess would be that the southern half of the City and the northeast quadrant are very close to it. If the oversaturation prevails, a very unstable climate might compel many more restaurants to close as has been demonstrated here. The future decisions regarding restaurants must be made with great vigilance. 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. 10486 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-10-3-8 by Gillette Associates, Inc. requesting to vacate a portion of the alley located north of Plymouth Road between Inkster and Arcola in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating due to existing sanitary sewer and Detroit Edison facilities within the existing alley, it is recommended that a full width easement for public utilities be retained over the alley to be vacated. We also have a letter in our file from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities in the area, therefore, they have no objections. Also in our file is a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed vacation provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing alleys to protect their existing equipment. If the reservation of an easement is not desired, they request that the vacation of the subject alley be postponed until the Detroit Edison Company has had the opportunity to arrange for relocation expenses with the property owner. Mr. Vyhnalek: You say we have a problem there? Mr. Nagy: No. Detroit Edison just wants to protect their equipment by reserving an easement. They are satisfied if an easement is established, they would have no objection. If the property owner wants to relocate their equipment, then they will have to pay Edison to relocate. From our analysis we do not see a problem. Glen Valentine: I am the attorney for Vedune Brothers, who owns the property. Petition was filed by Gillett Associates, who is architect working with the contractor in renovating this gas station. I don't believe Mr. Gillett is here tonight so I thought I would try to speak to the Commission. Basically, this was the first I heard about the easement situation with Edison but primarily what we are trying to do is merely extend the vacation of that alley to the east. Basically it will be used for parking purposes and will facilitate the use of the station. Mr. Vyhnalek: Edison will have access? Mr. Valentine: I don't believe we will have any problems with that. The only thing I didn't follow was the removing of equipment. Mr. Nagy: They are saying Edison lines are there and if you don't want the utility there in an easement, you would have to pay to have the equipment moved. Mr. Valentine: They are just asking us to reserve an easement? Alex Fedrigo: I am one of the partners. We don't have any problems to let them v.41.1. have the pole or the line over there because we are not going to use the alley for heavy traffic. 10487 •' Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to use it for what you are using it now? Mr. Fedrigo: Yes for parking and sometimes deliveries. Mr. Vyhnalek: Will it be closed off to west at all? Mr. Fedrigo: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to do any fencing of your parcel? Mr. Fedrigo: No. We are replacing existing fence on south. Mr. LaPine: I want to make sure that in case of storm or something happens back in there in the middle of the night and your station is not open Edison can get back in there to work on their lines. Mr. Fedrigo: We will be open 24 hours. Mr. Morrow: In site checking the location it looked to me like it is all pretty well implemented. I guess my question is to the staff is without the vacation could that site support the use? Mr. Nagy: Yes it could. They would just use it as a public alley and it would simply function as a driveway. Mr. Morrow: With or without the vacation the current use could be supported and all we are doing is giving up the alley that no longer serves the public. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is correct. ter,, There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-3-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was #12-236-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 20, 1988 on Petition 88-10-3-8 by Gillette Associates, Inc. requesting to vacate a portion of the alley located north of Plymouth Road between Inkster and Arcola in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-10-3-8 be approved, subject to retention of a full width easement to protect existing public utilities, for the following reasons: 1) That the subject alley is no longer needed for public access purposes. 2) That the subject alley right-of-way area can be more advantageously used for private development purposes. 3) That vacating of the subject alley will place the land area 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. 10488 ` 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 Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #12-237-88 RESOLVED, that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Revised Site Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ronald Parz for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 to February 21, 1989 so we can objectively look at the site plan and possibly determine how the 139 feet located to the north that is still vacant how best it could be utilized within the site and also utilized in conformity with the zoning ordinance of Livonia to meet the standards as opposed to having a site plan that is marked with many deficiencies. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #12-238-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 569th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on November 22, 1988 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: - AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #12-239-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 570th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on December 6, 1988 are approved. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 571st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on December 20, 1988 was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION �J� J es C. McCann, Secretary ``.., ATTEST: V D. ald Vyhna /1 , Chairman jg