Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1984-08-28 9215 MINUTES OF THE 482nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY 161: PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 28, 1984, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 482nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 pm, with approxi- mately sixty interested persons in the audience. Members present: Herman Kluver Donna Naidow Jeanne Hildebrandt Joseph J. Falk Jerome Zimmer Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski R. Lee Morrow Members absent: * C. Russ Smith Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, and Gary Clark, Assistant City Engineer were also present. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, then 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 LI has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary announced the first item on the Agenda as Petition 84-7-1-19 by Noel A. Gage & James T. Mather requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Alois Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to P.S. , R-8 and R-8II. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, do you have any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering/Inspection Division referring to the above petition. It appears that an off-site storm sewer southerly through the Edward Hines Park area to Newburgh Lake would be required in connection with this develop- ment. Other than that, there are no other engineering problems connected with this proposal. We have no other correspondence on this petition. Mr. Morrow: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Is the. petitioner with us here tonite? Kenneth Hale, Atty. : My name is Kenneth Hale, and I am here representing Mr. Gage and Mr. Mather. I want to point out that there are a couple of important points that should be brought up at this time. My client has owned this property for many years, and at this time there are no definite plans for developing in the near future. The purpose of this petition is to merely make the property zoned compatible with the way it is expected to be developed in the future. But there are no immediate plans for development. As you all know, any future Site Plan would have to be approved by this Planning Commission. We are simply looking for rezoning at this time. 9216 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Hale, can you tell us how far down the road before any development starts to take place? IL Mr. Hale: I would say it will probably be at least five years before any development takes place. In its present RUF zoning classification, this property is worthless to my client. We are all aware that there is a great deal of work to be done before any kind of development begins. Mr. Shane: But of course, the first step is the rezoning. Mr. Vyhnalek: What bothers me here in the R-8II zoning. If we are talking about eight stories high - that's pretty high Mr. Hale: As far as any building being eight stories high, this property is adjacent to Newburgh Lake. We feel that this would be the best location for a high rise building. But, of course, just because the property is zoned R-8II, that doesn't mean that the building would necessarily be that high. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is planned for the bottom portion of property? Mr. Shane: Four stories high. Mr. Vyhnalek: Nobody likes buildings eight stories high. Mr.Falk: I would like to know where the clients live. th, Mr. Hale: West Bloomfield. Mr. Falk: And this property was purchased as an investment? Mr. Hale: Yes. Mr. Falk: I feel that this rezoning would not be compatible with the neighborhood. We should hear from them. Before we rezone any property, we should have something definite as to what your client plans to do with the property. If we were to rezone this property now, it is possible that before any development takes place in the future, they could sell it and then what would happen? This rezoning at this time is not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Morrow: Yes, Mr. Falk, you are correct in that it would not be fair to the neighborhood to rezone this property until we have something more definite as to how it will be developed. Mr. Hale: You will note that the Master Plan does provide for this type of zoning on this property. Mr. Morrow: Yes, the Master Plan does indicate multiple family dwellings for this property. The type of building is what is at stake 110 here. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to comment on this petition? 9217 Ed Koziol, Thank you, Mr. Ken Hale for saying that your client wants. to 11790 Jarvis:10 get this land changed from residential to four story or eight story high rise apartments. We don't need this. This land has been a part of our overall neighborhood for many years, and we would like to see it continue to stay that way. This property is a nice piece of land going down Plymouth Road, and any four story high or eight story high building would certainly change the area a whole lot. There would be traffic congestion and whatever else for those of us who live there. Would like to see it stay the way it is now. Lynn Mills, I really feel that the gentleman who is representing these people 38415 Plymouth: who want this property rezoned should have a better game plan. We live on the far east side of this property; and we certainly don't want an eight-story high apartment building behind us. Nor do we want a Professional Service building right behind my house. Why doesn't Mr. Hale know what will happen in the future? His client knows, somebody knows what is being planned. I have no objection to single family homes in that area or even condominiums, but not high rise apartments. Also what would happen if they did put up an eight-story apartment building and there was a fire in one of these apartments - does the Fire Department have the proper equipment to put out a fire at the top? Mr. Morrow: Do I understand that you live on the east side of the property in question? liw Mrs. Mills: Yes, and they are talking about a Professional Office building right next to us. Mr. Shane: There is a somewhat rough site plan in the file which shows a diagram outlining where some of the buildings will be placed on this particular site. This was done for the purpose of trying to arrange the change in zoning in that area. We have tried to give them some assistance as to the location of the buildings and how many dwelling units could be built on 6.5 acres. But there is no definite Site Plan per se submitted as yet. D. Hansen, We are not against one family dwellings being built on this 11790 Alois: property, but we really don't want to see eight-story buildings or apartments. Ed Koziol: There are 12 people here from the Chaney & Bakewells subdivision, all of them property owners. Has the Engineering Department really studied the possibilities of an eight-story building. Let's face it, the footings for an eight-story building would have to be quite deep, and the water would then have to be pitcher-pumped. Mr. Morrow: This tonite is a zoning matter; your questions relate to engineering matters. Are there any more comments regarding the rezoning of this property? Douglas Mills, We live right next door to where they are talking about a I 38415 Plymouth: Professional Office building, and I want to say that I certainly would prefer one-family residences to that. This is a nice area. Don't want to see any high rise apartments any where around there. You know there will be more traffic and crime if they put in any apartments. All of the people who live on Jarvis and Alois are concerned about the apartments. 9218 1[00 , Mr. Vyhnalek: How do you feel about Senior Citizen housing in this area? Mrs. Mills: That wouldn't be too bad. Even condos would not be too bad. Mr. Mills: We just don't want to look out our windows and see high rise apartments. Mr. Vyhnalek: Well you know for sure that something will go in there some day. Mr. Mills: Crime is a big factor with me. I feel there will be more crime if they put apartments in there. Mr. Morrow: The current classification on the Master Plan, the Future Land Use plan, shows multiple family dwellings. You people do have some really nice acreage around you. But it could be developed for multiple family dwellings. Mr. Mills: Does that mean apartments? Mr. Morrow: Simply trying to point out that it does currently have a classification calling for multiple family dwellings. Dorothy Ritzier, I object to eight story high apartments. I don't care for that 38619 Plymouth: high of a building so close to where I live. I can see the owners' objections to leaving it vacant. They are probably paying very high taxes on this vacant land. And then there IL are the weeds on the property. They are 4 and 5 feet high. This is particularly troublesome to me because I have allergies. I would much rather see something else than the weeds, but not an eight-story high rise apartment building. I know that these people bought this land about twenty years ago and they are getting ready to finally do something with it. Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Hale, didn't you say that your client purchased this property five years ago? This lady says it was 20 years ago. Mr. Hale: Yes, it probably has been twenty years. Mr. Morrow: Any more questions or comments from the audience or commission? Since there was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this petition, Mr. Morrow declared the public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #8-177-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-19 by Noel A. Gage & James T. Mather requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Alois Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to P.S. , R-8 and R-8II, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-7-1-19 until the Study Meeting scheduled for October 2, 1984. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. AYES: Kiuver, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Sobolewski, Morrow NAYS: Zimmer ABSENT: Smith 9219 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 84-7-1-20 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #473-84 to rezone pro- perty located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. 11, Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering/Inspection indicating that there are no engineering problems connected with this petition. Mr. Morrow: This is a public hearing brought forth by the Planning Commission on its own motion. Is there anyone wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Shane, is the owner of this property aware of all of this going on? Mr. Shane: Yes, the property owner is opposed to this rezoning. Mr. Zimmer: Has he been made aware of this meeting? Mr. Shane: Yes. Since there was no one wishing to be heard regarding this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, 1110 declared the public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #8-178-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-20 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #473-84 to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-7-1-20 be approved for the following reasons: (1) the proposed change in zoning would be compatible to and in harmony with the existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area; (2) there is no need for additional commercial uses in this general area as would be allowed by the existing C-2 General Commercial district regulations that currently exist on the subject property; and (3) the proposed zoning district will provide for office uses which are consistent with uses allowed by the zoning district proposed for the adjacent property. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. IL Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 84-7-1-21 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to P.S. 9220 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Shane:10 Yes, again we have a letter from the Engineering/Inspection Department indicating no problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Have we heard from the property owner - either officially or unofficially - as to whether or not this property has been sold, or when it will be sold? Mr. Shane: The City Council had a Regular Meeting a week ago Monday at which time they considered a rezoning request of 21 acres to the P. 0. classification plus changing the C-2 classifica- tion to P.O., which request had its hearing before this com- mission previously. At that meeting a representative of the owner of the property voiced an objection to this proposal for rezoning, but we have nothing at all official. At the Council Meeting, the representative indicated they have come to an agreement of the purchase of the property. Mr. Morrow: If we were to move forward on this petition, wouldn't that be out of sync with the proposed P.O. classification? Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this petition? Since there was no one else wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-21 closed. Mr. Morrow then suggested to the Commission that a withdrawing resolution be offered pending the outcome of the sale of the property. Mr. Shane then suggested that a tabling resolution would be more 110 in order since we do not have anything official to the effect that the property will be sold. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #8-179-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-21 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-7-1-21 pending the receipt of additional information concerning the sale of aforementioned property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 84-7-1-22 by Leo & Elsie Ligenza to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from C-1 to R-1. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Just a letter from Engineering/Inspection indicating no engineering problems connected with this proposal. 9221 1[0, Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner with us here tonight? Leo Ligenza, When I bought Lot #16, I also bought Lot #17 with half of that 11614 Stark being under an option to buy by L & H Associates. While L & H had a 4-year option to purchase this property, 7 years have now gone by and they have never approached me. I want it back to the residential classification - just half of the lot. The other half is a storm drain. Mr. Morrow; Are there any questions from the Commission regarding this petition? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Since there was no one else in the audience wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-180-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-22 by Leo & Elsie Ligenza requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from C-1 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-7-1-22 be approved for the following reasons: 1) The existing zoning divides a lot of record and it is the Planning Commission's policy to have zoning district lines 1110 coterminus with property lines; 2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for the entire lot to be zoned in a residential classification; and 3) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 84-7-1-23 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(b) to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between the I-275 Freeway and Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 from C4-1 and R3-B to C-2. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Just another letter from Engineering indicating no problems with this proposal. = Mr. Morrow: This is a petition brought forth by the Planning Commission on its own motion to reflect the current and proposed use of the property. Any comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this petition? 9222 1[-, Since there was no one present wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-23 closed. n On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #8-181-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-23 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(b) to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between the I-275 Freeway and Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18 from C4-1 and R3-B to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-7-1-23 be approved for the following reasons: 1) It is the Planning Commission's policy that the zoning of property should reflect the existing or proposed use so as to eliminate its non-conforming status; 2) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 3) The proposed zoning district will provide a zoning category that is compatible with the existing and proposed uses of the subject propoerty. FURTHER RESOLVED that notices of the above hearing were given in Iii accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 84-7-1-24 by John and Jacqueline Mathews to rezone property located on the south side of Dardanella between Middlebelt Road and Grimm Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-6. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Shane: Again, just a letter from Engineering/Inspection indicating no problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Is the petitioner present? John Nathews, Yes, I have owned this property for the last three months and 6505 Napier: I am interested in building two two-family units in order to separate this area from the commercial area to the west. I understand that this does conform with the Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, is this true? Mr. Shane: Yes, this particular area does fall within a medium-density classi- fication on the Future Land Use Plan, and two-family units would be valid in this particular area. 16;Mr. Morrow: Any comments or questions from the Commission: 9223 Mr. Falk: Mr. Shane, does the staff support this petition? 10, Mr. Shane: Yes, the staff does support this petition. Mr. Falk: We haven't had any building of two-family units here in Livonia for the last ten years, have we? Mr. Shane: Currently, there are only two areas presently zoned R-6 here in Livonia, one south of Plymouth just east of Farmington, and the other on the west side of Middlebelt behind Wonderland. We have had several requests for two-family units to be built, but they never came to fruition. There was one request on Stark Road, just north of Plymouth, but that was never rezoned. Jacqueline Mathews: I checked with several neighbors in the area to get their feelings toward putting up these buildings, especially those that would look directly on the property. On the north side of Dardanella is a young couple that would like to see a singly family home there, but are agreeable to what we are proposing to do. They live right next door to Arby's and probably will be looking for another house in the future. I understand this area calls for medium density housing and we feel this proposal fits in with that plan. Mr. Shane: At one time, there was a ring road proposed to go around this area, around the whole Livonia Mall area all the way down to Clarita. Medium density housing was proposed to It: be included in this area and this particular proposal does not in any way conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. The proposed ring road has of course been removed for quite some time, but we do not oppose this particular request for rezoning. Mr. Falk: Mr. Mathews, you have already purchased this property? Mr. Mathews: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: I agree with the Planning Staff. I feel this propoerty can be and should be developed if the neighbors don't object. But I'm not sure that a single-family dwelling would be the answer. Two-family units would probably be the better use for this property. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Mathews, is this what we mean by a duplex? Mr. Mathews: Yes, it is. Mrs. Sobolewski: So you are talking about building one now, and then another one later? Mr. Mathews: Yes, that it what we would like to do. * Russ Smith entered the meeting at 9:00 pm. 9224 Mrs. Sobolewski: And these units would be facing north? It: Mr. Mathews: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Mathews, do you plan on living in one of these units and renting out the other? Mr. Mathews: No, we plan to rent out all units. Since there was no one else wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-24 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #8-182-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-24 by John & Jacqueline Mathews requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Dardanella between Middlebelt Road and Grimm Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from RUF to R-6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-7-1-24 be approved for the following reasons: 1) the proposed change of zoning would not adversely affect the surrounding uses of the area; 2) the proposed zoning would be compatible to the apartment developnebt on the north and act as a buffer between the commercial development on the west and the single family I: homes on the east; and 3) the proposed change of zoning would offer an alternative housing accommodation needed in the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 84-4-1-14 by the Livonia Community Credit Union to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Roycroft in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 from C-4 and R-1 to C-2. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Shane: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Morrow: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Is the petitioner present? William Austin, We anticipate a 4500 sq. ft. expansion to our current Credit General Manager, Union property to accommodate for more parking, as well as 1605 West Maple, I an expansion of our present Credit Union building. Walled Lake: Mr. Morrow: You are talking about expanding to the north? Mr. Austin: We are talking about expanding to south and east and north. 9225 Mr. Kluver: Are you owner of the building? Mr. Austin: Actually, the Credit Union membership owns the building. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you own the vacant corner? Mr. Austin: Yes, as of April of this year. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you intend to leave that vacant corner as is? Mr. Austin: Yes, as far as we know. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are the homes in this area in good shape? Mr. Shane: Yes, these are older homes and they are in decent condition. Mr. Morrow: Do you own any property in the residential classification? Mr. Austin: Yes, that was purchased just last month - July. Mr. Zimmer: What people include your membership? Mr. Austin: Any one who lives or works in the city of Livonia can join our Credit Union. At one time, it was only open to public employees, but we now include those who live in the City as well. We have expanded our services considerably. Mr. Morrow: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this petition? Since there was no one present wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared public hearing on Petition 84-4-1-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-183-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-4-1-14 by the Livonia Community Credit Union requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Roycroft in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 from C-4 and R-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-4-1-14 be appm ved for the following reasons: 1) the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the long range development plans of the area; 2) the proposed change of zoning will provide for two-story commercial and/or office development that would be more compatible to the sur- rounding and existing development of the area; and 3) the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are com- patible to the surrounding and existing land uses of the area. 9226 FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of above hearing was given in accordance with provisions of Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. I: Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Secretary, announced the last item on the Agenda as a Rehearing of Petition 84-1-1-12 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone pro- perty located north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9 from P.L. to R-4B. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Shane, any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have three different letters from the Engineering Division regarding this particular piece of property and its relation to this petition. (He then commenced to read the letters) . As you can see, it is highly doubtful that any subdivision would be developed until such time as a new sewer line is established in this area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Isn't that parcel of land considered to be in a flood plain? Mr. Shane: No. the flood plain is north and west of the proposed sub- division. The flood plain as such is not included in this petition. Pat Flannery,IL I really feel that there isn't much more that could be said 18000 Wayne: about rezoning this property until a larger sewer starts coming down Six Mile Road. Last year we all got a letter asking us to remove our drains from the foundation. If they are talking about putting in a new subdivision, that would certainly be the straw to break the camels' back. Wm. Albinger, What about that subdivision that started there a couple of 18221 Laurel: years ago? Mr. Morrow: That subdivision is still under development. There are 2 fairly large homes there. Mr. Albinger: Are those homes on the sewer system, Or what and how much public land does the city of Livonia still have left? I really feel we need more open space, not more subdivisions. Mr. Morrow: The Parks and Recreation Department have gone on record to indicate that we do not need that land to be zoned as Public Land. Mr. Shane: Yes, Parks and Recreation have advised that there are two large parks within one mile from this area, and more open space is not needed here. Mr. Gary Clark, Those of us in the Engineering Division are not concerned too 1[0, Engrg./Inspectn: much with the storm sewage conditions here as we are with the sanitary sewer problems. We are interested in the layout of the site northerly to Curtis. We do now insist on sump pumps in some of our newer developments. 9227 Gerald Wilson, I am just wondering that since this land was purchased with 35030 Six Mile: federal monies if it is legal to rezone it? Mr. Shane:lit: This property was bought in the late 60's, but not with federal funds. Mr. Wilson: I would like to see this area remain park land. It is directly behind my house and I don't want any more houses back there. Mr. McLeod, What I want to know is why Parks & Recreation doesn't want 18550 Laurel: this land. It seems to me that the city of Livonia is running out of this type of open space. I would like to know what they are trading this off for. When they come to you and say they don;t want this land any more, are you in a position to determine why this is no longer necessary for our use? This is a beautiful section of the city. Not too much of that left in Livonia. Also, the sewer problem should be looked into more closely. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you like to see this area developed as Bicentennial park was developed? Mr. McLeod: No, we don't really want it developed as a park. We just want it to be left alone. Or nature trails could be built and then used as such. Rich Cochran, That piece of property is already being used all the time 18201 Laurel: by the people who live near by. I can't understand why you bought it originally for park land then turn around and sell it to a developer. Why can't you just leave it as it is? 1: Mr. Morrow: It could be a long time before this land were to be developed in view of the sewer problem in the area. Mr. Flannery: Do we have any assurances from you as to how long that would be? Mr. Morrow: If we were to recommend to the City Council that this area be changed to R4B they would then automatically hold their own Public Hearing. Resident, I feel the city does knot need any more subdivisions. We have 35178 Fargo: got enough subdivisions already. Since there was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared public hearing on Petition 84-1-1-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and adopted, it was #8- 184-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a rehearing having been held on August 28, 1984 on Petition 84-1-1-2 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9 from P.L. to R-4B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-1-1-2 be approved for the following reasons: i 1) the subject land area is no longer needed for public recreation purposes since the neighboring area is already adequately served with open space land; 9228 2) the proposed change of zoning will provide for residential development of the subject land area in harmony with surrounding residential development of the area; 3) the proposed zoning district, R-4B, is consistent with the established and surrounding zonings of the area; and 4) the Parks and Recreation Commission and Department support this proposed change of zoning. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Sobolewski, Smith, Morrow NAYS: Zimmer ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow. Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #8-185-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 21, 1984 on Petition 84-7-2-26 by Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-7-2-26 pending receipt of all necessary plan details. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. 1: Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #8-186-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 21, 1984 on Petition 84-7-2-27 by Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-7-2-27 until such time as Petition 84-7-2-26 is resolved. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #8-187-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 21, 1984 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Bicentennial Estates Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located on the west side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Bicentennial Estates Subdivisio. No. 2 be approved for the following reaspns: 9229 1) the Preliminary Plat is in full compliance with all applicable City Ordinances, the Zoning Ordinance and Plat Ordinance, and the Subdivision Rules & Regulations; and 2) the Plat provides for a logical and compatible extension of Bicentennial Estates Subdivision No. 1 located to the south and continuity of development with respect to the lands located to the north. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #8-188-84 RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 84-8-8-33P by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Inc., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct two office buildings on the west side of Middlebelt Road and Wentworth and Five Mile Road in Section 14, subject to the following conditions: 1) that Site Plan #81-11, Sheet A-1, dated 3/25/82, prepared by Kamp-DiComo, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) that the Building Elevations as shown on Plan #81-11, Sheet A-5, dated 3/25/82, prepared by Kamp-DiComo, Architects, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) that the landscaping as shown and listed on Plan #81-11, Sheet A-1, dated 3/25/82, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to with the added condition that any existing live tress within the 40-foot setback lines adjacent to Wentworth Avenue and Middlebelt Road shall be preserved intact; 4) that the outdoor lights shall be as shown on Plan #81-11, Sheet E-1, dated 3/25/82, prepared by Kamp-DiComo, Architects; and 5) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site before any building is occupied and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was 9230 #8-189-84 RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-8-8-32 by Jerry J. Rozema requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing real estate office located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Brookfield and Mayfield Avenues in Section 15 until the Planning Commission Special Meeting scheduled to be held on September 11, 1984. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 482nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 28, 1984 was adjourned at 11:30 pm. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sue'Sobolewski, Secretary ATTEST: lilt • Ilk . ` lklo R. Lee 1,rrow, Ch. 'rman pds