Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1986-10-21 9772 MINUTES OF THE 526th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 21, 1986, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 526th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. C. Russ Smith, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Herman Kluver Donald Vyhnalek Donna J. Naidow Sue Sobolewski Michael Soranno R. Lee Morrow Jeanne Hildebrandt 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. Smith informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request or a subdivision, 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; 0110 otherwise the petition is terminated. The Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after tonight. Mr. Smith announced that a letter had been received from John R. Carney, Attorney representing the petitioner on Item #i8 of the agenda, Petition 86-9-2-32 by Dominic Soave, requesting that this item be tabled until further notice and that when the item is again placed on an agenda, all those who received notice of this public hearing would receive notice of the new public hearing date. He stated that these requests are usually honored by the Commission. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #10-269-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated 10/17/86 from John R. Carney, Attorney, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 86-9-2-32 by Dominic Soave requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD and SDM Licnese within a carry-out pizza facility proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland in Section 6, until further notice. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 86-8-1-36 by Jarvis Jones, Greenwood Gardens Nursery, Inc. , to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Oxbow and Hartel in Section 36 from C-1 & RUF to C-2. . 9773 Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems in connection with 4 this proposal. ` Jarvis Jones, 13983 W. Nine Mile, Warren: We want to put in a garden center in the rear of the property which is RUF now. We are 80% acquarium and our store is selling a lot of ponds. Also, unusual landscaping. Mr. Smith: How long have you been in business? Mr. Jarvis: Thirty years in Warren. We have been nestled in a residential area for thirty years. It actually looks like a park. No noise. No piles of dirt. No composte. A very quiet, attractive business. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you need that deep a lot for your back part? Mr. Jarvis: We have the biggest acquarium system in the midwest. We need a ten thousand square foot building. We landscape and garden. This is just about the size we are looking for. Mr. Vyhnalek: The problem is that you are going into a residential zoning there. There is a lot of C-2 along there; a large parcel very near. Mr. Jarvis: That has been sold. Mr. Vyhnalek; C-2 in an RUF is not in keeping with the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Soranno: What would be your hours of operation? Mr. Jarvis: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. There would be no outside music. No noise at all. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is this more of a nursery or an acquarium line? Mr. Jarvis: Eighty to eighty-five percent acquarium business. _ Mrs. Sobolewski: Year-round sales? Mr. Jarvis: That is the idea. Mrs. Sobolewski: Outside sales year-round? Mr. Jarvis: No. We might have some things at Christmas time. Mrs. Sobolewski: Will it look like the Warren store? Mr. Jarivs: It will be set back further than the Warren store. Maxine Tannehil, 28850 Joy: Why did he pick this particular location? And, what about parking? We live next store to an empty lot. If there is an overflow of parking, what happens if they park in that empty lot? I can't understand why he wants to put this in a heavy residential area. There will be an increase in traffic in the area. 9774 Mr. Smith: Parking in the empty lot would not be permitted. t Mr. Jarvis: This is the second biggest hobby there is. We picked this area because it ideal. I don't think parking will be a problem. There will be approximately fifty-five parking spaces and that is one of the reasons why we picked a lot big enough to accommodate it now and in the future. Mr. Jarvis showed pictures of his Warren store to the Commission. Mr. Morrow: I have no reason to be believe he will not come back to petition for a waiver use for the C-2. I see C-2 as a very intense com- mercial use in a residential area. I cannot vote for this based on zoning. Mr. Soranno: How long has this property been for sale. Mr. Nagy: We don't know that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-8-1-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-8-1-36 by Jarvis Jones, Greenwood Gardens Nursery, Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Oxbow and Hartel in Section 36 from C-1 and RUF to C-2, the City li: Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-8-1-36 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning perpetuates the strip commercial zoning occurring all along Joy Road between Inkster Road and Middlebelt Road. (2) There is already an abundance of C-2, general commercial, zoning in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan adopted by the Planning Commission which recommends medium density residential land use for the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning represents a further intrusion of commercial zoning into an established residential neighborhood. (5) The proposed change of zoning will cause an increase in traffic congestion in the area as well as additional curb cuts as is the nature of strip commercial zoning. 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: • 9775 • AYES: Morrow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kluver, Hildebrandt. Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Smith ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is not adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #10-270-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-8-1-36 by Jarvis Jones, Greenwood Gardens Nursery to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Oxbow and Hartel in Section 36 from C-1 and RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-8-1-36 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide a uniform zoning classification over the entire parcel in question. (2) The proposed change of zoning will aid in the development of a vacant parcel which is currently split zoned. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for an increase in the City's tax base. 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. tA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-8-1-37 by Joseph H. Amico to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft between Yale and Ellen in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from Robert M. and Patricia L. Santer stating their opposition to this petition, and a letter from Peter J. Morgan in opposition to the rezoning. Joseph H. Amico, 14513 Riverside, Livonia: I have been in the neighborhood and have obtained names of some folks who have no objection to this. I have visited the area and have knocked on many doors. Mr. Smith: Do you have a tenant for this building? Mr. Amico: No tenants at this point in time. During construction, we anti- cipate starting to look for tenants. Mr. Smith: Do you own the property? 110 Mr. Amico: We have an option to purchase. • 9776 Evelyn Shuput, 35280 Scone: I agree with the letters that were written. Will this be a medical building or legal? What kind of a building will it be? 1: Mr. Smith: Architects, engineers, etc. , if it is a professional building. Mr. Nagy: It would permit all those uses but it would not permit an insur- ance office without a waiver of use approval. Mrs. Shuput: I received a plan, however, if this were rezoned, that would not necessarily be the building. It could possibly be a two-story building? Mr. Smith: We are talking this evening only about zoning and we cannot con- dition zoning. Mrs. Shuput: There must be some specifications. Could it possibly be a two- story building? Mr. Nagy: Yes, the zoning would permit a two-story building but a site plan would first have to be approved. Mrs. Shuput: I feel this is a residential area and I moved into a residential neighborhood and I would like it to remain that way. Peter Morgan, 35240 Scone: I am against the rezoning because it will hurt our property values. Bob Santer, 35132 Scone: I would like to add my voice to the opposition to the petition for the reasons stated in the letters. That would not be a partic- ular good site for office because of the parking and I see no reason to change it to the P.S. classification. Edward Preece, 14050 Barbara: I am deeply disappointed to see this rezoning come up because of the property values. I moved here in 1964. it was wide open country then. I expected it to stay that way. With this constant encroachment, I think the houses will be gone one day. This will bring more traffic and more noise. Too many things that this will bring on. I don't like the idea of the constant building of commercial in the middle of this residential. Mrs. Shuput is effected a lot by this; she is my neighbor. Mr. Vyhnalek: Who lives in the yellow house? Mr. Preece: I don't know. I knew the other owners but they moved away. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you approach the owner of that house? Mr. Amico: No, I didn't. I was informed that that particular individual is looking for rezoning. Mr. Nagy: Nothing has come into the Department as yet. Mr. Vyhnalek; I can't see going that far into RUF. Some day it may go in the same depth as the other lots but as it stands now, it is just too deep into the residential. 9777 Donald Percha, 35220 Scone: This gentleman did come to my house. I am against the rezoning. Michael Kastelic, 35148 Scone: I would like to add my opposition to any zoning other than residential. There was an eyesore on that P.S. and that parcel of property was for sale for quite some time. The property under consideration today has a very nice, modest brick home. There is residential immediately to the east, north and west of this property. I do not believe it should be rezoned to anything other than residential. I-96 is a large thoroughfare, but the School- craft Service Drive is very much a residential street. There are many commercial and office buildings going up along Schoolcraft with no tenants and I believe there is no need for this. Charles Tyler, 14074 Barbara: I am opposed to this. It would necessitate taking out trees and it butts into residential area. Mr. Morrow: I am govered by the same criteria as the last petition - encroach- ment of professional zoning into a residential area. Mr. Soranno: Can you tell us which people were not opposed to this petition? Mr. Amico: They would not officially sign the petition that I had drawn up but they admitted that they didn't have anything against it. I knocked on every door along Scone. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, 11 Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-8-1-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #10-271-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-8-1-37 by Joseph H. Amico to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft between Yale and Ellen in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to P.S. be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends retention of the single family land use for the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would constitute a spot zone since it is not contiguous to a similar zoning district. (3) The proposed change of zoning would encourage similar requests for changes of zoning to the west in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • 9778 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-9-1-38 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located noth of Seven Mile 1,4 Road between Levan and Wayne Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 5 from RUF to P.L. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file relating to this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-9-1-38 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was 4110-272-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-9-1-38 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road between Levan and Wayne Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 5 from RUF to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-9-1-38 be approved for the following reasons: (1) In accordance with the Planning Commission's policy, the proposed change of zoning will provide a zoning classification which will reflect the public ownership and intended use of the subject property. (2) The proposed change of zoning represents a minor extention of an existing zoning district adjacent thereto. 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-9-1-39 by Westin Development company to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Bainbridge in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUF to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this proposal. There is also a letter from Kathleen and David Reichenback, Sharon and John Ware, and Betty and Robert Kelava in opposition to this rezoning and attached to the letter is a petition signed by objectors who reside on Bain- bridge. Michael Boggio, 255 S. Woodward, Birmingham: We are not addressing the issue of buildings, their designs or sizes tonight. This is not site plan approval but this is to make it clear in our minds whether this is the proper zoning for that area. All site plan, building and land- scape plans will have to come back if the rezoning is approved. Presently, the site in total is 11.06 acres. Of that, it is broken down into 2.5 acres on the corner presently zoned C-2. 5.2 acres with existing Spanich Court which is M-1, and 3.09 acres presently zoned RUF. It is part of our proposal to unify the zoning and we propose to relocate Spanich Court 150' to the east of this project. It would be the main access for loading of this commercial site. 9779 • In addition, as a product of our last Planning Commission study meeting, the developer of the site has gained control of the parcel on the southwest corner of the site. I have a letter stating that from him. (Mr. Boggio submitted the letter to the Commission). If we have favorable consideration of our zoning, we would work with this piece in terms of developing it to respect the residential areas behind it. The residential lots are very deep and the development of any further residential is very unlikely. Our ultimate plan would be to come back with another request for the development of that area. We intend to unify the entire site with C-2 zoning. It is our thought that the C-2 zoning would take a very large portion of the site and make it a less intense use than the industrial that is there now. It could also reoganize the traffic in the area. Also, by cleaning up the industrial uses that are on Five Mile, the proposed building would act as a screen for any industrial uses to the south. Our plan is to develop a single- story retail center with a 25' minimum greenbelt along Five Mile and Bainbridge. Mr. Soranno: Is it your intent to development the southwest portion at all? Mr. Boggio; After some thought regarding that, what we though as a good use is that rather than try to development a single family home would be possibly to leave forty to fifty feet along Bainbridge zoned residential forever, then come in with the remainder of the land and zone it to something like parking so the land could be used. Mr. Soranno: Spanich Court would be the main entry? 140 Mr. Boggio: We have no drive on Bainbridge. The main truck traffic would be on the relocated Spanich Court. We intend to give it a 60' right-of- way and dedicate it to the City. Mrs. Hildebrandt: Did you meet with the residents of the area to show them your plans. Mr. Boggio: No. Ed Khoury, 15308 Bainbridge: These lots are 640' deep. My mother lives in this area. This would run the valuation of her property down and all the land in the back would be no good any more. James Hosey, 14954 Flamingo: I have lived in the City for 34 years. I did not get a notice on this project. You will notice that we all have lots of two acres or more. We have continually been up here fighting the leniency on that land along Five Mile which we bought years ago because it was quiet and to enjoy our lives. We were fortunate to get a couple developments knocked down. We were not fortunate in knocking down the A&P and believe it or not we can hear the traffic from there. We have all that noise to contend with and now you are bringing more noise into a residential area. We are talking about Bainbridge. Rats and whatever else will be brought into that neighborhood. They said they want to move Spanich Court to the east. Nobody said anything about the residents to the east. They will have to put up with the truck traffic. There were two children killed there a few years ago. I know that what is there is not good but I think it's about time we put a stop to this. 9780 Robert Kelava, 15141 Bainbridge: I am against this rezoning and request a denial of the rezoning from RUF to general business. I own a half acre lot and ti respect my privacy. I place a big value on a little bit of space and privacy. I feel the area will be hurt significantly and I am not talking about selling the property, I am talking about living there. I feel this is cutting away too far into the residential area. Mrs. Borovski, 15007 Flamingo: I am against this change. We have too many shopping centers in the area. I am not pleased with the existing situation because I border the trucks and have to contend with the noise. If they move Spanich Court in my backyard, it would be a lot worse. I think it would be terrible to have this heavy traffic if you move that road. Mr. Smith: How long have you lived there? Mrs. Borovski: Just a year and I don't want to move. John Ware, 15127 Bainbridge: I will be directly across the street from this and I am totally opposed to the rezoning of any of this property on Bain- bridge. I don't want to look at a gray brick wall. I always assumed that the business district was up to the north. I know the City is trying to clean this up but I don't want to see a gray brick wall in front of my house just to line somebody else's pockets. If you give them this now, somebody will want all the lots around me. Me and my neighbors have put a lot of money into our homes. 14, Phillip Rathbunn, 15186 Bainbridge: I am for approving the proposal. I live on 47A1. I can understand the concern of these people. When I found out about this, I asked the developer to be included in this project because I found out I would be totally isolated. I think these people are trying very hard to save the integrity of the RUF zoning. The developer has promised to have a 250' greenbelt in the area just south of Lot 47A1. I can understand my neighbors concerns but I also ask the Planning Commission to respect mine. Patricia Manville, 14933 Flamingo: For years we have contended with the noise from the trucks on Spanich Court. If they are going to change it, there will be all the more noise we will have to contend with. I am against this petition. Betty Kelava, 15141 Bainbridge: We have noise from the trucks but I feel the shopping center would be worse. Shopping centers generally operate on Sun- days. Not the gas station and factories in the area. Now we have at least our Sundays and evenings without noise and without parking lights. The west end of the development is to be the loading zone. That spells to me noise and lights. We realize this area will have to change but we do feel this area should stay rural and commercial development should stay in the area presently zoned for that. 4 Mr. Smith:110 Do you have trucks presently running now at night? Mrs. Kelava: Where I live, I do not see them at this time of the year. In the summer time, I do. 9781 Mrs. Sobolewski: You are unhappy with the way things are? Mrs. Kelava: I am 100% happy with things the way they are. They have not bothered me. I have lived here for fifteen years. I feel things will change but I don't feel this is the proper change. Mrs. Sobolewski: What would your suggestion be? Mrs. Kelava: Some type of an office situation that would be closed on Sundays. Something more along that line. A little more compatible with the residential area. Something without the truck traffic. Mr. Morrow: Does the petitioner own the property? Mr. Boggio: The property is under option. Mr. Morrow: Could this be approved only in part? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it could be approved in part. Mr. Gregg, 14895 Bainbridge: I have lived here since 1955. This has been a nice, older neighborhood. I would say that Best Block should have gone a long time ago but Best Block is going anyway. I would hate to see any- thing on Bainbridge disturbed. I am opposed 100%. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Petition 86-9-1-39 closed. 4 1 On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was 4 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-9-1-39 by Westin Development Company to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Bainbridge in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUF to C-2 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will aid in the removal of undesirable uses from the neighborhood. (2) The proposed change of zoning will help to eliminate and prevent blighting influences on the neighborhood. 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. Soranno: I am surprised that there has been this outpouring of objections. When the Commission drove by there, it seemed like this would be good for the area. Would it be appropriate to ask the petitioner about doing something less intense or to use less of the property? Mr. Boggio: I don't have the authority to say that the developer can cut back. The building is on property that is presently zoned C-2. Some 1[4, residents were concerned about a buffer. In conjunction with the plan, you can see that the houses are near the Bainbridge • 9782 frontage. On the property behind the houses are some very large trees which will not be touched by our construction because Bainbridge will not be used for building. I Mr. Smith: If this petition is approved tonight, all those things of site plan will be brought out at the time of site plan approval. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Morrow, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Sobolewski, Soranno, Naidow ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the resolution is not adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #10-273-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-9-1-39 by Westin Development Company to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Bainbridge in the North- west 1/4 of Section 23 from M-1 and RUF to C-2 the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 86-9-1-39 until the Planning Commis- sion Study Meeting to be conducted on October 28, 1986. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: I: AYES: Kluver, Soranno, Hildebrandt, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-9-1-40 by Mary Omar to rezone property located on the north side of School- craft Road between Newburgh Road and Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the site. Mary Omar, 37478 Schoolcraft: I am interested in selling or leasing the property. Two people have shown interest in it. Joanne Turshnuik, 14000 Richfield: I own the north half of Lot 27 and 28 and I have no objection to the rezoning but whoever develops that land should retain the trees. There are about six large evergreens. Mr. Vyhnalek: Who owns the other half of Lot 27 and 28? Mrs. Turshnuik: Mrs. Mullins. Mr. Vyhnalek: Does she have any interest in selling? 1[4, Mrs. Turshnuik: Yes, she does. 9783 Mr. Vyhnalek: I would feel more confortable if all three pieces were to be rezoned and putting a stop to it right there. J There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-9-1-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #10-274-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-9-1-40 by Mary Omar to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Newburgh Road and Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 86-9-1-40 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on October 28, 1986. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Naidow, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-9-1-41 by Jack M. Jreij to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11 from R-3 to C-1. 1[44,, Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there are no storm sewer facilities available to service this site. Fred Armour, 27251 Joy Road, Dearborn Heights: The apartment in there are new and the C-1 has been there for some time. On the southwest corner, the property has been used for C-1 for years. The house that is there is an eyesore to the neighborhood. It will never get any better. I think this would be an asset. Owner of a business at 19211 Merriman Road: This is an extremely dangerous corner. I have witnessed two accidents in this location. I feel if this retail mall is developed, it will only further aggravate the sit- uation. Michael Spahn, 18823 Shrewsbury: I am President of the Hidden Pines Civic Association. In this area, Merriman, both north and south of Seven Mile is a single lane. There are several shops on the northwest corner which have increased the traffic in the area tremendously. There are apartment units being built and will add to the traffic problem. I have seen accidents on the corner as well. I am concerned for the safety of all the families in the area. I request that you deny the petition or if that is not done, I would request that a traffic study be done before granting the petition. William Taylor, 19031 Merriman: I don't know where the eyesore comes from. That is a residential building. It is brick and air conditioned. The 9784 property is residential now, has been residential and all the property in the neighborhood is residential. Across the street the C-1 has been developed and has increased the traffic on this corner At one time, this was one of the most dangerous corners in Livonia. t It still is dangerous. Across the street in RUF there is a a business. I don't know how the business got there. It was brought up at that time that this is rural urban farms. It was decided then that the man could sell what he grows on his property but he sells Christmas trees and a lot of other things that he doesn't grow. The entire area is residential; why would we want C-1? Traffic is already a problem here and we have a problem getting out of our driveway now. C-1 will certainly increase the problem. I don't see any advantage to a strip shopping center there. Mr. Vyhnalek: Who owns that corner property? Mr. Taylor: The owner is gone. He hasn't lived there for many years. Mr. Vyhnalek: The property is deteriorating. Mr. Taylor: The owner wants to keep it that way because he wants to sell it. Don Reynolds, 18958 Canterbury: I an opposed to the shopping center. I have lived here for fourteen years. There have been many accidents on that corner. The nursery helps it. He sells everything he grows and everything he can buy. When the apartments get occupied, there will be more traffic. I am opposed to commercial. 1[4: Donald Clinton, 19020 Merriman: I am opposed to the rezoning mainly because I don't want any more businesses any closer. Joseph Trudeau, 18913 Canterbury: I am opposed. The traffic is a prblem and many of us have children under the age of ten. Joe Lobodocky, 19060 Merriman: I am opposed to the rezoning. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the pubic hearing on Petition 86-9-1-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #I10-275-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 86-9-1-41 by Jack M. Jreij to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11 from R-3 to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-9-1-41 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends low density residential land use for the subject area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be incompatible with the 3 9785 surrounding residential uses in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses which would cause added traffic congestion in the area. (4) There is no need for additional commercial facilities in the general area because of the existing shopping center located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Merriman Road and Seven Mile Road. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #1543, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-9-1-42 by Duke Associates & Schoolcraft College to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and the I-275 Freeway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.L. to C-2 and C-4II. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that since the rezoning petition contemplates office buildings, a restaurant, and a possible eight-story hotel, it is imperative that their office receive information relative to the projected sanitary sewer flows from such a development. The design .of the recently completed Seven Mile Sanitary Trunk Sewer was based on the subject area remaining public land. The letter states that the Engineering Division recommends that the above information be submitted to that office for review prior to approval of this petition and should the site develop into the uses as proposed, it appears that it will be necessary to detail storm water runoff based on the limited outlet capacities of the downstream storm sewer systems. Charles Tangora, Attorney representing the petitioner: We have a representative of Schoolcraft College and Duke Associates here tonight. Duke will be the management company. They have made an agreement with School- craft College and hired the architect and engineer. Mr. Neuman, Architect: The client is interested in building a facility for hotel, office and restaurant use. We believe this zoning appropriate because of the proximity to American Community Insurance and CBS Fox. Because of a meeting with Gary Clark, Assistant City Engineer, we now believe there is adequate sewer and we have made plans for additional water runoff, if necesary. Representative of American Community Insurance: We are not in opposition to this pro- ject. We do have some concerns about the sewer. Our building is about 100,000 to 107,000 square feet. We employ more than 400 people and we plan an expansion. If this development goes forward with very limited sewer facilities, we are concerned that there would be a lack of sewer facilities for our expansion. Mr. Nagy: This has been pursued with Mr. Clark, Assistant City Engineer and all feel there is sufficient sewer capacity. • 9786 Mr. Smith: Where does that leave us regarding approval or denial of this development? Mr. Nagy: Those things would be taken up at the time of site plan approval. Mr. Kluwer: How do you ascertain that an additional new hotel would be viable in this area? A site plan was submitted for the Commission review and discussion was held by the Com- mission and developers regarding it. Mr. Smith, Chairman, turned the gavel over to Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman. Mr. Smith; I have some concerns about the project being presented by School- craft College. My personal opinion is that an educational insti- tution should not be in any other business. If the project fails, the site would become the property of Schoolcraft College and our officials elected to educate our students now become businessmen operating a commercial venture. As far as the hotel goes, I am very much against that because of the many different hotel chains that have expressed interest. If I was a businessman and considered building a hotel along the I-275 corridor, I would consider holding back because the education institution is going to be my competitor. Schoolcraft College says there is a private corporation to run the business. I would hate to see Mr. Johnson withdraw his hotel because a hotel is going here. As far as zoning goes, I am in favor of it but I am very nervous about approving a hotel on this 1[410 site and the College going into this venture. Mr. Soranno: I echo Mr. Smith's feelings. I count ten hotels in two square miles. I am getting a little concerned about these kinds of major complexes being concentrated in this area. I am also concerned about Schoolcraft College being the landlord of hotel property. Mrs. Hildebrandt: If supply is greater than demand, the lender will sell, lease or do whatever he can with that building. Mr. Lintner, President of Schoolcraft College: This is a typical arrangement. It has been done before by institutions who are fortunate enough to have a prime piece of property like this. We have set up a private corporation licensed under the State of Michigan which means we can operate an enterprise and get the return from the land. The Board of Trustees is isolated so that the liability does not flow back to them. We will be partners with Duke Associates. George Murphy, 30572 Elmira: Schoolcraft is a learning area. I don't want to start dishing out to bale something out on Schoolcraft College property. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-9-1-42 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #10-276-86 RESOLVED that, purusant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-9-1-42 by Duke Associates & Schoolcraft College 9797 to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and the I-275 Freeway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.L. to C-2 and C-4II, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-9-1-24 1[0 be approved for the following reasons: I (1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with similar changes which have taken place along the Freeway corridor. (2) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the spirit of the Future Land Use Plan as it relates to the Freeway corridor and vicinity. (4) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which will have a positive effect on the City's tax base. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Soranno ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 Mr. Vyhnalek returned the gavel to Mr. Smith, Chairman. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-9-2-33 by Joseph Bruhn requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be located within the Wonder- land Shopping Center at Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in Section 35. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Divison indicates they have no objection to this petition. Joseph Bruhn, 33427 Plymouth Road: We have been in business there for nine years and have had no problems. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-9-2-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #10-277-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 21, 1986 on Petition 86-9-2-33 by Joseph Bruhn requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be located within the Wonderland Shopping Center at Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-9-2-33 be approved for the following reasons: 9788 (1) The subject Class C License is an existing License proposed to be relocated along with the restaurant within which it is to be utilized as opposed to a request for a new license. IL (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use complies in every respect with the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #1543. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance ##543. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-8-7-7 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School & Park Plan, by deleting property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Carl Sickles, 9350 Stonehouse I am the only resident on that street. If they take that park, they take my whole farm. I have worked that ground for seven years. I have $50,000 worth of equipment at my place. We sell to Farmer's Market in Livonia and to Livonia people. We sell at Ford Field from June through October. 1100 Mr. Nagy: The proposed amendment is to make less acreage. The City has one 4 parcel. The overall area was designated in 1970. Today only one parcel has been acquired. Because of some new development plans emerging in the area, the Planning Commission evaluated the need for the larger park area and has determined to consolidate the area by deleting the area outlined in red and pursue the portion remain- in green. This would permit Stonehouse to be extended to West Chicago and the area opened up for single family purposes. Mr. Smith: Do you own the land? Mr. Sickles: Yes. Mr. Smith: You don't have to sell it and nobody is going to take it. Delphine Donovan, 37910 Minton: At one time the City was going to buy my property until they found out the value of it. I am totally opposed to any park in that area. I can't tell you how many times we have called the police. When I bought twenty-two years ago, this was beautiful, virgin land. They built a school, the turned it into a career center. That really brought it down. William Donovan: The park on the west side of Stonehouse -- was that originally in 10 Mr. Nagy: the Park Plan? Yes, it was. • 9789 Mr. Donovan: The other portion where Mr. Sickles resides -- is that the part you want to remove? ILMr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Donovan: It looks like a subdivision. Mr. Nagy: We want to provide for the extension of stonehouse. The land is already subdivided. Mr. Donovan: Is there any way the City can condemn his land to make him sell it? Mr. Nagy: That is always a possibility. Mr. Donovan: Condemn it and then sell it to somebody else? Mr. Nagy: No. there has to be a demonstrated public need for the land. Short of that, the City is powerless to condemn the property. Dennis Theut, 9317 Newburgh: I agree with what you are doing. I got my property back. But now these people here have a cloud on their title. Mr. Reinke can't take care of the parks he's got now. Nobody wants a park there. Mr. Smith: If it is taken off the Park Plan, it goes on the open market and then what happens? Mr. Theut: Somebody buys it. Can't the City keep things under its ownership? Charles Bussey, 9309 Newburgh: My mother has owned this property for thirty years. We have approximately an acre. I don't really want a park there. The IL piece the City owns was bought from people who owned our house. We would be willing to buy the piece behind our property if it is taken off the Plan. Mrs. Sickles: If we decide we want to sell, do we have to give the City first option on this property? Mr. Smith: No. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-8-7-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-278-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on October 21, 1986 for the purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School & Park Plan, the same is hereby amended by deleting property located south of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Newburgh Road in Section 31 for the follow- ing reasons: (1) Deletion of the subject land from the Master School & Park Plan will not adversely effect the development of a viable and usable park site in the area. 9790 • (2) The proposed amendment to the Master School & Park Plan meets with the approval of the Parks & Recreation Commission. 1[0 (3) The proposed amendment to the Master School & Park Plan will maintain the concept of providing sufficient parks and open space for all sections of the community. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School & Park Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resoluton of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #10-279-86 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 525th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 7, 1986 are approved. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously 1iadopted, it was #10-280-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Pub' ' Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend s 25.07 and 26.07 of Zoning Ordinance #543 by incorporating regarding the regulation of walls for high-rise buildings. notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with ` 91))/ , )) ions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 1 � IC declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously _ was ,r10-281-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-8-8-51 by Yops & Wilkie requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Newburgh Roads in Section 28, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Landscape Plan 4286, Sheet L-1, dated 9/26/86, prepared by Yops & Wilkie, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and 9791 (2) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter permanently main- tained in a healthy condition. 1 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9 On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, IL' it was #10-282-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-3-8-13 by Robert Roland Bryce requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 and 29.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct multi-family dwellings & housing for the elderly on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Revised Site Plan 85-241, Sheet 1, dated 10/2/86, prepared by Robert Roland Bryce, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Revised Landscape Plan 82386A, Sheets LS-1 and LS-2, dated 8/4/86, prepared by Calvin Hall & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that Revised plans supersede Conditions 1 and 3 only of Planning Commission Resolution #3-17-86; all other conditions shall remain in full force and effect. 110 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #10-283-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-7-8-39 by Jude T. Fusco Associates, Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an elderly retirement residence on the west side of Middlebelt between Bentley and Schoolcraft in Section 23, subject to the following conditions: (1) that American House Development Plan, Sheet 1, dated 10/13/86, prepared by Jude T. Fusco Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that American House Exterior Elevation Plan, Sheet 4, dated 10/13/86, prepared by Jude T. Fusco Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that American House Site Landscape Plan, Sheets SD-1.01, SD-1.02 and SD-1.03, dated 10/13/86, prepared by Jude T. Fusco Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a I; healthy condition. 9792 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #10-284-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Spectrum Satellite, Inc. , requesting approval to install I . a satellite dish antenna on property located at 29514 Seven Mile Road, subject to the following condition: i (1) that the Permit Application by Spectrum Satellite, Inc. , for a six-foot diameter disc antenna at Livonia Mall Shopping Center, 29514 Seven Mile Road, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Soranno, Kluver, Morrow, Sobolewski, Naidow, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Hildebrandt ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, ' the 526th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings was adjourned at 10:4 p.m. —77 4-1--1)- Donna J. NaidolY, Secretary Ili, ATTEST: eL 'i;i11\Ad ' C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac