Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-01-15 11451 MINUTES OF THE 615th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA `r On Tuesday, January 15, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 615th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver Brenda Lee Fandrei William LaPine Raymond W. Tent Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek 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. Engebretson 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 vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been 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. Engebretson: I would like to inform you that the first item on the agenda, a rezoning matter by John DelSignore, has been withdrawn. It will be taken up at a future date. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 90-11-1-33 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road west of Levan in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20 from PO-I to RUF. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating no overhead or underground facilities are in the general area and they have no objection to this petition. Mr. Engebretson: This particular item is a petition filed by the City Planning Commission and it was initiated by Mrs. Fandrei. We will ask her to give us a brief statement as to what we are trying to accomplish here. 11452 Mrs. Fandrei: The purpose of this request for rezoning is to keep the property that is under petition compatible to the property directly west, which is RUF. In other words, the two would be rural urban farm zoning and would not be able to be built on for office as it is right now. As it stands, it could be developed for office and we would prefer that if there were to be anything developed, it would No.. have to come before us for rezoning to something other than rural urban farm. Arthur Fick, 15308 Williams: Who owns this property? Mr. Engebretson: It is owned by the Felician Sisters. Mr. Fick: Do they propose to build houses there? Mr. Engebretson: No they don't. As Mrs. Fandrei said, the area just to the rear of that was rezoned to an office zoning and there is some construction going on for a convalescent home, etc. and the purpose of this was, when that rezoning came up, to get some security that there wouldn't be any temptation to build offices immediatedly across the street from those residences but there is no plan that we are aware of. We initiated this petition to protect those residences immediately across the street. Mr. Fick: If this goes through, there could be residential homes built there? Mr. Engebretson: It could happen. Mr. Gniewek: For the benefit of the gentleman out there, at this point the Felician Sisters are not planning on doing anything with that property at all. With the RUF zoning, the only thing that could be developed there would be something of a residential nature, no office services or any kind of high rise convalescent home or any other type of development at that location. Right now it looks as if it is going to stay vacant. There are no plans for any development at this point. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Gniewek put it very nicely. That is what I was going to say. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-11-1-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-3-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-11-1-33 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road west of Levan in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20 from PO-I to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-11-1-33 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed zoning district is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent lands to the west. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 11453 3) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent any further development of the property for office purposes which would be inconsistent with the developing character of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-12-1-34 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1100-90, proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison Avenue, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from R-9I and OS to R-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from Jeanne Kehn of 15730 Harrison stating she is in complete accord with the resolution to rezone this property to R-2 single family units since it is in keeping with the surrounding area from Inkster Road to Middlebelt and Five Mile to Terrence Drive. She states she objects to the developers plans of a 100 plus units of high rise or R-C. Mr. Engebrtetson: Mr. Nagy, could you bring us up to date on the status of the law suit that was filed by the owner of the property relative to that last proposal that was to go in there? `„_„ Mr. Nagy: The owner of the property did bring suit against the City of Livonia trying to compel the Court to rezone the property in the manner he had petitioned for and that was either one of the last two proposed zoning changes, either the rezoning of all of the OS and a portion of the R-9I to an R-1 zoning classification and an RC classification or the alternative would be to have the Court approve the rezoning of the OS to R-1, leaving the R-9I intact. He further asked to have the Court enjoin the City of Livonia from proceeding with the Council Resolution that we are entertaining tonight, that is to rezone the entire property from the existing classification of R-9I and OS to R-2. There will be a hearing tomorrow morning before the assigned Judge with reference to whether or not the City is to be enjoined from proceeding with this petition by Council Resolution. Mr. Engebretson: Has the City attorney given any direction as to the position that puts us in this evening in terms of coming to any kind of a conclusion with a resolution in the face of that hearing scheduled for tomorrow? Mr. Nagy: In meeting with and asking our City attorney to comment on that, he advised us that we are entitled to proceed with this Council Resolution until the Court acts and enjoins us. Until that time we are free to proceed with this action. 11454 Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, just for public knowledge, the R-9 classification designates what? Mr. Nagy: It is a housing for the elderly classification and the Roman numeral I indicates the building height could be up to four stories high. Mr. Engebretson: Again, the City Planning Commission, at the direction of the City Council, is the petitioner on this item so we will move immediately to the audience for comments in favor of or in opposition to this item. Michael Downes: I am the architect for Southwood Construction Company who is the developer in this particular piece of property. What I have to say basically is very simple. We, at this point as the developer, object to the rezoning based on conclusions which you have reached before. We had presented several proposals to the Planning Commission and, as you well know, the Planning Commission had approved two of them, which the City Council had denied. At this point we feel that any one of the proposals we have submitted would be a proper use of the land in relation to the building site that is there and the building that is already on it and we feel we can only object to the proposed rezoning as set forth by the Planning Commission. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Downes, when you came before us what did your client indicate he was going to do on that R-9I? Mr. Downes: He was going to build R-9. If you will recall, we presented two proposals the last time. Mr. Morrow: But specifically did you give us any insight into the type of building or how many stories or anything in that nature? Mr. Downes: At the time we discussed this, we presented a site plan showing approximately 128-one and two-story elderly housing units. Mr. Morrow: So the intent at that time was for one or two stories but not to get up to the maximum height of four? Mr. Downes: That is right. That was the intent. Colleen Cosgrow, 28682 Broadmoor: I am for rezoning it as one package in keeping with the surrounding area to keep it nice and rural. I am a four-year veteran here in Livonia and I hope to stay. Also, the biggest deal is the access. It is only out to Harrison. I am for the R-2. Gary Garland, 15809 Harrison: The existing R-9I zoning and OS zoning were based on senior citizen housing and care combined as a whole with University Convalescent Home. It was based on access to Five Mile. There was never to be any access onto Harrison. The only access onto Harrison was to be through a breakaway entrance for fire reasons only. The property that immediately abutted Harrison, the narrow area that sticks out, is too narrow to build on if it is R-9I so that area would have been left as a green area so it would not have 11455 encroached quite as much on the residents on Harrison and all the traffic and commotion would have gone onto Five Mile. I believe that the City and the residents of the City gave in to a zoning that was not appropriate based on the fact that there was access to Five Mile and it was for senior citizens so the Council, the Planning Commission and the residents all had a softer feeling. The developer that is looking at this property, when he bought the '41111. property, knew exactly how the City felt. There is a contract entered into with the original zoning that the maximum height is three stories. There was a contract entered into in 1984 between the City and the original owner that it could never go to four stories. It appears to me that when the developer recommended that the OS area be changed to R-1, that he recognized himself that to be reasonable he had better at least suggest that part of that area be zoned single family residential or he didn't stand a chance. The surrounding area is above an R-1 zoning. The only area that is basically R-1 is either the Rayburn or Roycroft area and on Five Mile is commercial, but in this City the mile roads have commercial businesses, commercial property, multiple dwellings. We accept that. We expect it but we don't expect it in the middle of a residential area. To go to an R-2 zoning for the entire area would be a slight upgrade for the Rayburn-Roycroft area from the R-2. It is a downgrade in zoning from every other surrounding side, other than Five Mile, which is commercial. I believe it is a compromise zoning and an appropriate zoning. The tentative site plan that the developer showed when he showed the OS area being zoned as R-1, that tentative site plan had a layout that fit into R-2. The builder's architect, at the time, had a meeting with many area residents and said he would sign a contract with the City that 70 and 80 foot lots were okay. If he shows a proposed site plan that would fit an R-2 zoning, I don't understand why he objects to an `fr. R-2 zoning for that part of the property. Obviously, R-2 zoning would put additional traffic into all the surrounding streets. It is, however, probably the most reasonable amount of additional traffic with still utilizing the property and the property obviously has to be utilized. There is no other property, that I know of, in the whole section of the City that is multiple dwelling or commercial that does not have access onto a mile road. Harrison, Roycroft, Rayburn are side streets not mile roads. I am in favor of R-2 zoning for the entire area. Lillian Edney, 15405 Harrison: We have been through this many, many times. When this was originally voted for the senior citizens, I have the minutes here, and it was a home for the aged not individual housing. There are no existing three-story buildings in our area. At the time that it was zoned as it is, Mr. Spiro stated they would put up some kind of a breakable barrier and that Harrison would only be for emergency use and that he would do anything to be in the good favor of the neighbors. Apparently he has changed his mind. We know something is going to be built on the property. We just think that whoever does develop it should take into consideration that the repair of Harrison is their bill not ours. Harrison is a dead end street. From Five Mile to the Madison School entrance there are 15 homes and 6 of those residents are still living there that were there when we moved in 1958. So that tells you we are a pretty safe neighborhood. I noticed in the 'rr.. 11456 Livonia paper, our attorney had put in the paper yesterday, apparently Mr. Gottlieb had petitioned that the Council just arbitrarily made this ruling and that they had nothing valid to make this decision on. I have six pages of petitions that the neighbors signed. I have about 12 letters that were written to the City Council. Would you like to read them to the Planning Commission? Not one is for what he is asking for. Also, I just wonder who is a senior citizen? Is it 55? Is it 60? How could you police such an arrangement on a private home? No way. There is no way you can build senior citizen condos without government money and policing. I don't want to call him a cry baby bleeding heart but every time they get up they say well you know there is asbestos in the building. So what! He knew it when he made the arrangement. They want us to feel sorry for them but no one does. If they knew they were going to have that, they should have considered it in the price when they decided to buy. Did you say you would like to read these petitions? Mr. Nagy: We would already have those in our files. Mr. Engebretson: The petitions are in the file. I don't want to diminish the importance of those letters but I think we got the gist of what they had to say from your presentation. Dick Massingill, 15905 Harrison: I support the resolution for R-2. The whole area is RUF or R-l. To bring in some commercial unit for condos or whatever, does not seem appropriate. The R-9I done by the City Council in 1984 was done without any stipulation of how it would be monitored or taken care of. Senior citizen housing is fine where you have state people and city people monitoring it like you do with the ones the City has purchased. I will be brief because Mrs. Edney did a wonderful job of covering so many things which are true and so did Mr. Garland. I support the resolution. I think that is the way it should go. I can't see piecemealing the thing as it has been now. Todd Tillman, 28543 Broadmoor: I would like to say that I support the resolution for all R-2 zoning or any single family zoning. Michelle Behrmann, 28515 Broadmoor: I basically just want to say I also support the R-2. I am one of the rural urban farms that is going to have those condos in my backyard. I would just as soon see single family homes where people at least have the choice of how they are going to decorate their homes instead of seeing a number of units that all look the same. Dorothy Bruce, 29218 Broadmoor: I am the past President of the Madison Civic Association, which is dormant at the present time, which took in the full area of Section 13, which is one mile square. I am writing this as a resident of that area and most of the people have supported this idea. Gentlemen: At the last meeting of the Livonia City Council where voices were heard relating to the property described in Petition 90-12-1-34 located in Section 13, City of Livonia the residents living in and 11457 around that property requested the City Planner and the Council to take protective action on this parcel and to rezone it as R-2 so that it would more conform to the existing neighborhood as well as rescind the present zoning which was given per a site plan presented by the former owner in conjunction with plans for developing an addition to his convalescent facility and which would have been a good use for the existing school building with the addition of a walkway connecting the two buildings. No other plan was presented. The playground area was planned for some medical facilities in conjunction with the nursing home and additional parking was planned. The plan fell through. The owner sold the land and when he did the plan fell through. Prior to this the building was used for a State Police Crime Lab which was a good use because the parcel was very confined from passing view and some surveillance vehicles were used out of this facility. They were forced to move when Shapiro's plan was presented and he purchased the property. It was a great loss to the neighborhood, both from a protective standpoint as well as a non-nuisance facility. Now that Mr. Shapiro's plan is no longer feasible, a new owner wants to take advantage of the zoning that was placed on that parcel in order to incorporate that plan. His new plan includes not one presently available building, but 120 dwellings as well as an additional 27 homes adjacent to them. Our area is presently over saturated with drain water problems due to a lack of adequate storm sewers. As a result of this sanitary sewers are catching much of the drainage and is causing an additional problem. Developments of this type would most certainly create problems for adjacent property owners as this parcel is already very marshy and with quick sand in the area (2 deaths already as a result of it within a block each) it is felt that no large housing or business projects should be allowed on this parcel. Most of the adjoining land is still in very large lots, zoned RUF - rural urban farms - as is the largest percentage of all of Section 13, and most lots are 300 feet in depth and originally were 150 feet in frontage, being one or more acre parcels. The best use for this land would be housing under an R-2 zoning which would conform to the surrounding area and hopefully not overload the present storm system. Additionally, city services must be considered here versus the parcel size. 120 units of condos require fire protection, police, garbage pickup, etc. We will be adding to our City's burden in every way, plus add to traffic congestion as well as create a flooding situation at all times along Harrison, Broadmoor, & Garden. We are also over saturated with Elderly Housing in and near this parcel and too much could eventually be a problem of cheap rentals which could depreciate our property values. We have the Franklin Apartments and the University Convalescent facility adjacent to this parcel with nearby Harrison School site planned for more elderly plus 3 retirement homes. Please re-zone this to R-2. ti.. 11458 Ralph Moore, 28409 Broadmoor: I really don't have anything new to add. I have lived there over 15 years. I have raised my family there. We have gone from a dirt road to a paved road. I have seen the traffic increase at the Middlebelt-Five Mile Road intersection and I know that whatever we add there if we only bring it out to Harrison, the traffic will be terrible. That is my big concern. `" Charlotte Eickhoff, 28900 Rayburn: I agree with everybody else. The zoning should be something compatible with the surrounding area and the R-9I and the OS was strictly for Mr. Shapiro's purposes with the Five Mile access, which doesn't exist. The R-2 seems like the most appropriate zoning at this time developed somehow to share and distribute the traffic evenly between Rayburn and Roycroft and Harrison, maybe on a cul-de-sac type development, where neither one gets all the traffic at one point or another simply because of all the children in the area with nowhere to play. There are currently, on Rayburn alone, 9 children that get on the school bus every morning. Next year that will be 11 including two others that will get on half days for kindergarten, which makes it 13. That is an enormous number of children just on Rayburn alone. We would like to see this developed in such a way that it not only works for the surrounding area but also for the kids that are in the area, keeping in mind there are families there and that should be considered when it comes to the traffic situation that will come up there. Mr. Tent: I would like to make a comment at this time. After hearing the neighbors voice their opinions, and of course I listen to them very closely and they have a lot of valid points. There is some concern with the use of the property, but at this junction we have gone ahead now and we are in the middle of a law suit. I would suggest, `r. from my standpoint here, this thing is going before the Court tomorrow and for us to go ahead and take action on this petition now and rezone the property to the R-2 category, I don't think it would be in any of our interest at this point until we hear the outcome of the Court action and at that time we can come back and do our zoning change. To go ahead now and do this prior to the Court case, I think we are just muddying up the water. For us to act today on this petition, I don't think it would be right. It wouldn't be fair to the people out there and it wouldn't be fair to us. I would suggest that we table this until we hear the outcome of the Court action and then proceed from there because then we would be in a position, whichever way it goes, to do things that would be compatible to the neighborhood and we could still make some adjustments. Mr. Engebretson: A half an hour ago Ray I probably would have agreed with you. I was very interested in hearing the position of our City attorney. Taking all these things into consideration, it is my impression that the City attorney has encouraged us to move forward with this. Is that a fair characterization John? Mr. Nagy: I don't think he has either encouraged us or discouraged us. He was aware that we had already advertised it. He was aware that we had already responded to the Council Resolution scheduling the matter and he just simply said we are free to proceed. 11459 Mr. Engebretson: I guess what is fair Ray to the citizens and to the City at large, taking into consideration that our actions don't become official for 7 days, we can always rescind it. I think we can make a case to move forward on this petition. If we should approve this and it turns out that the Court rules another way, then this doesn't have any meaning. On the other hand if the Court does take `m. a stand that the City is free to do this, then it is done. I guess we could make a case either way. I tend to agree with you but there is unanimous citizen support for this and the Council has made their position very clear. I guess the Court is going to decide this one. Mr. Vyhnalek: I feel the same way. We have had this two or three times and we approved a couple of petitions and Council turned us down and I think we should make a decision tonight. I think we should go forward and I agree that we have 7 days to rescind it. I think we should make a decision tonight and let the people know where we stand. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-12-1-34 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #1-4-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-12-1-34 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1100-90, proposing to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison Avenue, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from R-9I and OS to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-12-1-34 Slow until such time as the Court may make a determination. 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, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei NAYS: McCann, Vyhnalek, Engebretson ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: This item has been tabled until the Court rules on this matter and I presume it is Mr. LaPine's intent that if the Court takes an action that leaves this in our hands, that we would take this up then at the first opportunity, which would probably be three weeks from tonight. Mr. McCann: I don't think it will be three weeks from tonight because I think what they are going to hear tomorrow morning is the motion as to whether to stay any proceedings with regard to us but I don't think you are going to find a final outcome of the Court case within three weeks. 11460 Mr. Engebretson: Is there anything more you can add to that? What is likely to happen in Court tomorrow? Mr. McCann: It is my understanding there is a motion to put a stay on what we are doing in this hearing tonight as far as rezoning the property and that the City would not be able to further change the zoning on this property until such time as the Court had a chance to hear arguments on behalf of both sides. At this time I assume they are during a discovery period and there would be a final settlement conference and then they would hold a hearing as to actual arguments and evidence presented so that could be anywhere from two months to nine months. Mrs. Edney: Assuming it goes to Court, what is our option? What do we do next? Mr. McCann: You are being represented at this point by the City. The City is going to be arguing basically in favor of you. We could go forward, if that is the intent of the Planning Commission, if the Judge does not stay our proceedings and stay what we are doing here, we could go forward and rezone the property. However, the Court's final determination could change whatever we do anyways. Mr. Morrow: Is it safe to assume then that the deciding factor will be the Judge. In other words, the Judge will ultimately decide the zoning of this property? Mr. McCann: I assume so. Mr. Morrow: They are taking it out of our hands. Mr. Tent: I would like to make one comment. If the Court would rule in favor la*law of the petitioner, then he would have to come back before this body with a site plan and then we would be in a position to go ahead and review the site plan and make our recommendations to make it compatible. Is that correct? Mr. Engebretson: I don't know. I think based on past experiences, the Court may go a lot further than just settle the zoning issue. I don't know if we should try and anticipate what the Court is going to do and what the next step is. We are in a limbo situation. Mrs. Bruce: It would have been nice to have gotten your support in writing. We don't want the existing zoning and just to have you say yes it is a good idea to rezone this to the R-2, that would be a big help and it might help the Judge to make a decision. I wish you would just take a general count as to who is for this and who isn't. I really would like to know how you stand on this. Mr. Engebretson: I understand your point and I understand your feelings but I am not an attorney. I think, however, that I do understand well enough to know that however we feel about this, whatever the political feeling happens to be, even if we are all in favor of it, I don't think it is going to have any bearing at all tomorrow or as this case evolves. I think the Judge is going to make his decision based on the facts as they exist and I am asking Mr. McCann to give me a little support on this, not to say I am right but to clarify the point. 11461 Mr. McCann: Basically you go at the time the suit was filed based on the allegations in the suit and in this case they are going to look at surrounding circumstances as well. As to what we decide to do now I don't think this will become an important issue in the Court. However, no Judge is immune to public policy. He reads the newspapers, etc. I can't say that will or will not have an affect on it. However, in this situation I believe it has already been tabled. All we are looking at is what date to table it to. Mr. Engebretson: We can't afford to continue this. While I understand your concerns, we really are sensitive to your feelings, but there is a limit to how far we can go with this and I think we are starting to repeat a lot of things and it really is out of our hands at this point. I do have enough confidence in our City attorney to know that if it is appropriate to introduce the minutes of tonight's meeting and all the supporting documentation, if that is an appropriate thing to do, I am sure he will do that whether we have voted on it or not. Lady in Audience: Why did we have this tonight then. Why didn't you postpone it. Mr. Engebretson: The public hearing has been scheduled for several weeks. It has been advertised and certainly we have a legal obligation to conduct this meeting here tonight. Your input is no less important than if we had made a decision tonight. The fact of the matter is, this law suit that we have referred to repeatedly has been filed in the interim period of this meeting being scheduled and the meeting taking place. Mr. Morrow: If the Judge is interested in our recommendation, he won't enjoin us from proceeding. He will allow us to go forward. If he does Now. not enjoin us tomorrow, we will proceed with the petition at the earliest practical moment. So we will wait and see what he says and if he says go ahead, we will certainly go ahead. Mr. Garland: I think that to have the hearing and for you not to vote was morally wrong. I don't feel you fulfilled your obligations. Mr. Tent: What we have done, we have held a public hearing. It is over with. Now we can act on this petition at any time. We won't have to go through the process of a waiting period. We can schedule a special meeting and vote on this petition. We won't have to go through the process of all the paper work. We did really start the ball rolling by having this public hearing. If we never had this public hearing, we would have to go through that process at a later date. It is in limbo just for a short while so we don't muddy up the water but we are still concerned. Lady in Audience: It was my understanding that Southwood Construction was tentative on purchasing this property from Shapiro. When I checked the records at City Hall for this piece of property, it was listed to Shapiro living in Farmington Hills with a mailing address of Toledo, Ohio. It didn't show Southwood Construction or anything like that connected with it. Who owns this property and is the petitioner, who is going to Court tomorrow, the owner or is he still looking to buy it? `or. 11462 Mr. Nagy: The records will show at the last official public hearing of the City Council when those two petitions were heard, it was represented by Mr. Alan Gottlieb that he thought he was under the impression that he had an offer to purchase only. The following day he came into the Mayor's office indicating to the Mayor that he had misspoken, that he had met that morning with his attorney and `w. his attorney had advised him that he had exercised his right to purchase and in fact had purchased the property. That was one of the matters our Law Department wanted to verify in filing suit, if in fact, Southwood Construction had standing to bring suit against the City. The City's Law Department is satisfied that Mr. Gottlieb, in fact, owns the property. So yes, Mr. Gottlieb, Southwood Construction, owns the property. Mr. Engebretson: We are very sorry we disappointed you by not taking any action tonight but we did accomplish a great deal in spite of what some may think. We will decide this matter as soon as we can. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-12-2-34 by Raymond Praedel requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and therefore they have no objections to the proposal. We also have in our file a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to the proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Division of Police stating they are concerned that the aisleway leading from the west side to the rear parking lot is rather restricted and the sight line is also limited when a truck is making deliveries. They recommend that the aisleway be widened by cutting back the landscaped area and eliminating the first two parking spaces to the rear of the store. They also recommend the posting of a sign "Watch for trucks backing", installed on the building for southbound drivers. It should be high enough so as not to interfere with the truck driver's vision. They also called our attention to the fact that at both drives to Spanich Ct. , pine trees have been planted. They restrict the view of drivers exiting the plaza. Also, the main entrance sign seriously obstructs the view of the cross drive traffic from the east. They state the berms, plantings, and signings make a better City; however, extreme care is necessary in planning and approving the designs to assure safe vehicle and pedestrian movements. Raymond Praedel, 33480 Seven Mile: My wife and I own the Clock Jr. Restaurant at Seven Mile and Farmington. What we would like to do is relocate our restaurant to this location. I heard what Mr. Nagy said about 11463 the parking problems. Basically, the parking area in the rear will not be used. There is an enormous amount of parking in the front and along the side. I have not even considered the parking in the rear. That would only be used for employee parking. As far as trucks going back there, I know there are trucks that go back there now to unload and they have no problems. We have been in Livonia Nom. for five years. The restaurant has been there for ten years. We need to expand and our lease is expiring and the landlords do not wish to renew our lease in that spot. Basically, we would like to get in as soon as possible, hopefully by summer. If you have any questions about the restaurant, I would be happy to answer them. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Praedel, would your deliveries be made through the rear? Mr. Praedel: They would have to be. Mrs. Fandrei: I think that is what the letter from the Traffic Officer was referring to. Mr. Praedel: All the deliveries are made at the rear. Mrs. Fandrei: But the rear of your store is right near the edge of that berm and that was his concern that as they were unloading for your store, nobody could pass. They would be totally blocking any entrance or exit to that whole area. Mr. Praedel: I have a pickup truck and I have pulled it back there and I haven't seen any problems with it at all. I am not an expert but I don't see any problems. Mrs. Fandrei: Our officer is an expert and that is his concern. `ft. Mr. Praedel: Maybe if the trucks parked a little further back and walk a little further if they had to. Mrs. Fandrei: What he was referring to was that rather than cause a problem with congestion and/or whatever else, to eliminate part of the berm area to make it efficient. Mr. Praedel: That would be up to the landlord. Mrs. Fandrei: That is right. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many deliveries do you have a day? Mr. Praedel: Currently I get three deliveries a week. Mr. Vyhnalek: What time? Mr. Praedel: Usually in the morning from 8:00 a.m. until around noon. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is your busiest time? Mr. Praedel: It runs from 11:30 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. 11464 Mr. Kluver: Mr. Praedel, you have been in that restaurant for five years at your current location. Could you tell this Commission and myself for what particular reason your landlord does not want to renew your lease? Mr. Praedel: I am not sure if you are familiar with the Seven Mile-Farmington shopping center right now. It is 75% vacant. It looks like a boarded up ghost town right now. For some reason the landlord wants it vacant. They want us to move from our corner location to the old Bonanza location, which is totally out of the question. It can't be seen from either Seven Mile or Farmington Road. Bonanza couldn't make a go of it. They want to increase my rent by 100%. I can't see staying in the plaza. The landlord here made us a good offer. It is a beautiful location. It is close to where we are now. It is just a perfect spot for us. Mr. Kluver: In order for you to activate and have a viable business here, this would require a waiver use to own a restaurant in this particular zoning classification. I have been in your restaurant and I think you run a very fine operation. One of the things I am really troubled with is the fact that there is an impact that we see that in 1980 when the original waiver was granted for a restaurant in your current location, by the landlord forcing you out of that shopping center, obviously you can't operate there; however, that waiver use will still be in effect and in force for that particular location. So, in essence, that landlord at any period in time can put another restaurant in there. Am I correct John? Mr. Nagy: If this restaurant operator goes out and there is a clear intent to convert that space to some other use, we would determine that was an abandonment of that use and if it incurs for twelve months or '44111O' longer, then that would have been abandonment. Mr. Kluver: What if they left in less than a two or three month period? Mr. Nagy: It is a judgment call. Generally where there is a clear intent not to reinstitute the use on the property and there is an overt and clear demonstrable effort on the part of the property owner to use that space for something other than restaurant purposes, we would constitute that as an abandonment of use. Mr. Praedel: I would like to comment on that. I talked to Mr. Schostak himself and he informed me they are not going to put a restaurant in that corner. They want that corner location for a main tenant. Where all those stores are empty right now they want to put a big draw tenant in there to take up a large area of retail space. They are definitely not going to put a restaurant in that corner otherwise they would have let us stay there. Mr. Engebretson: In theory John, relative to Mr. Kluver's question, if they did want to put another restaurant in there, there have been attempts to put additional restaurants in that strip, if that happened after some remodeling occurred, then the waiver would stay in place wouldn't it? 11465 Mr. Nagy: Yes, absolutely. Mr. LaPine: What is the seating capacity at your location now? Mr. Praedel: Sixty-eight. Mr. LaPine: So you are almost doubling the seating capacity. Do you have any New semi's that make any deliveries there? Mr. Praedel: Yes that will be the three main deliveries a week. Mr. LaPine: What is delivered by semi's? Mr. Praedel: My food products basically. Mr. LaPine: Do you sell pop? You don't sell beer or wine do you? Mr. Pradel: There is a pepsi truck that comes also. Mr. LaPine: So there are semi's back there. Then I can see a problem. The Chairman and I were out there Saturday and looked at the location. It is not your problem in reality. If the owner of the property wants you to lease the building, then he would have to fix that corner because when you swing in there and back up to the back door, a car coming around or making a turn is not going to see that vehicle until they are almost on top of it. I have no objection to your going in there. I have been in your restaurant and you run a good operation. I am glad Mr. Kluver asked the question he asked because I was concerned if Mr. Schostak was trying to get you out to get a larger restaurant in there or a big name restaurant. I can understand his thinking. Because of being on the corner he Now is trying to get a draw to try to make that more viable than it is now. I have no objection as long as the owner fixes up that property and apparently we have that information. Mr. Tent: What are your hours of operation? Mr. Praedel: We open at 7:00 a.m. and we close at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Tent: Are you proposing any type of signage on the building? Mr. Praedel: Yes we are. On the front would be a standard sign which would coincide with the standard signs in the whole mall. It would have to be the same as everybody elses. Mr. Tent: I noticed the back entrance, the parking area. There is a lot of parking back there but I can't see how anyone could ever use it. I was wondering if it was feasible or not to have a rear entrance to the restaurant also so they could park in the back because there is a parking concern up front. I was wondering was there any possibility of having a rear entrance so they could park in the back? 11466 Mr. Praedel: Yes sir I have considered that. The only thing is I have been by that site at least 25 to 30 times in the last month and the whole side and front is always vacant. There are at least 50 parking spaces that are never used. I don't think we need to use the back. Mr. Tent: There are a lot of vacant stores there. When they are all leased, I think we will probably accomodate the parking. Mr. Praedel: There is one small unit next to ours which is not leased and everything else next to that is leased all the way to the center of the mall. Mr. Tent: My question was about the back door, I couldn't see why it wasn't utilized at the beginning when they did develop the shopping center because I for one can't see that big parking area where it is because no one is going to park back there if they have to walk all the way around to the front to get into the building. Mr. Praedel: I walked that myself and my customers walk further now to come to my restaurant. Where we are located now they have to park way far away. I think they would use it if they had to and we could have a rear entrance if it was necessary. Mr. Tent: It was just a question if you had ever considered it. Mr. Praedel: Oh yes. The only drawback I would have against a rear entrance would be for security reasons. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Praedel, I don't know if you are aware of the fact that the Planning staff has contacted the owner of the shopping center relative to the concerns about the safety of trucks parking in this '44ur area as well as this issue of the dumpsters, which has nothing to do with your waiver use petition. Are you aware of that? Mr. Praedel: They did call me for his phone number. Mr. Engebretson: Well they have talked to him, they have transmitted material to him, and he has expressed a desire to cooperate with the Planning Conmiission and has indicated he would be willing to meet with the staff after he has had a chance to digest the Traffic Bureau's letter regarding these two letters. It is an open question. However, I think it is important that you understand that the Planning Commission places a great deal of credibility in Lieutenant Thorne's opinions. As Brenda said, he is an expert in these areas so that dialogue is necessary. It is not really for you to deal with that but unfortunately you appear to be another victim of circumstance here where there are some issues that are outstanding, that are beyond your control and yet very pertinent to your case. Mr. Praedel: I can understand that. I will be honest with you. If I thought there would be somebody hurt in an accident around that corner, I wouldn't even want to go in there in the first place. Mr. LaPine: When is your lease up? When do you have to be out of your present location? 11467 Mr. Praedel: My lease is currently up at the end of January but we are going on a month-to-month basis. The landlord does not want us to leave right now. They want us to relocate to the old Bonanza location, which is down towards the end of the mall, which I am not even considering doing. Sew Mr. LaPine: The reason I am asking this question is if we decide to table this until we get some information back from the property owner, is this going to hinder you in any way? Mr. Praedel: Obviously I would like to get it accomplished as soon as I can but I understand there are certain things that have to be taken care of. Mr. LaPine: You have an agreement with Schostak to stay there on a month-to-month basis. Has he given you any indication when he is going to start renovating that mall? Mr. Praedel: They were supposed to start in the fall and they didn't. That is another reason I don't want to stay there. He says he does not have the money to do it right now. I don't have any idea when they plan to do it. Virginia Oswalt, 30544 Hoy: I live on the other side of Henry Ruff. I am against a restaurant going in there. There are so many boarded up buildings now in Livonia and he said that Seven Mile where he is at now is going to be boarded up. We have boarded up buildings at Five Mile and Middlebelt. It used to be a gas station and it has been boarded up for 6 to 7 years now. I also left Detroit because of rats and we know rats come where there are restaurants, where there is food. I have seen rats in my yard so this is another reason I would like to see it not go in. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to let you know we are also concerned about boarded up buildings but I would also like to let you know that in the strip where he presently has his store, we have an approved renovation plan for that place so this is a planned renovation. This is not going to be a boarded up building. Gene Szewski, 30443 Hoy: I am against the restaurant. I think we have enough restaurants in the area. It will bring us too much traffic in the area. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-12-2-34 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #1-5-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-12-2-34 by Raymond Praedel requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition �.. 90-12-2-34 until the study meeting to be held January 29, 1991. 11468 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-11-3-11 by Ronald R. Parz proposing to vacate that portion of South Drive lying east and west of Jarvis Avenue, south of Plymouth Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the vacating of South Drive. However, they do recommend that South Drive between Alois and Jarvis Avenue be retained as easement to accommodate maintenance of existing watermain and sanitary sewer lines. They further state it is their understanding that the south 274.17 feet of Lot 537 (b2) will be developed with Lot 538 so that it will not be land-locked. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities in the subject area and therefore they have no objections. Ronald Parz, 31153 Plymouth Road: At this time I wish to table the motion. I received a call this afternoon from a homeowner and they requested to talk to me and find out what I intend to do with the property and until I can be with my neighbors and discuss this with them, I wish the Planning Commission table this petition. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Parz we may well wish to do that but I guess it is important that we follow through on the public hearing since this was an advertised item and we really need to know why you are making this request. Could you enlighten us on that please. Mr. Parz: Not at this particular time. Wendy Parkins, 11636 Jarvis: We own Lot 25 and 1/2 of Lot 24. We bought up to Lot 537b2. I am the neighbor that has the most to gain and the most to lose at this point in time. In talking to different people in City Hall, I would have no restrictions on my land if I was to receive that land if it was vacated by the City. The people on Lots 26 and 69 would still have that easement for City usage. My question is why would Mr. Parz want to vacate this land? The only reason I can see, since he won't speak on this matter, is that Lot 537b2 would then be landlocked and being landlocked, it would be of no use to anybody unless it was rezoned with Lot 538. Being rezoned with Lot 538, from my understanding, from the letter that was on file with the petition, he wants to use that for a condominium complex. I don't know for sure what zoning R-7 is. Is that for condominiums? Mr. Engebretson: It is not condominiums. It is medium density residential. 11469 Ms. Parkins: It would have to be rezoned. Lot 537d2 is zoned R-l. I would like to see it continue to be zoned R-1. If it means leaving South Drive as South Drive, that would suit me fine. If I was to gain land by that property being vacated, it would be a gain but it would also be a loss. That means the condominiums would be that much closer to my home and I don't really want that. Carol Pankow, 11716 Jarvis: We own three lots on Jarvis and one of our lots is on 537. We need to talk to Ron Parz and we did try to contact him. We contacted him as a whole homeowner's association and spoke about things like greenbelt and things like that and, of course, we did not come up with any type of finalization on either of our part. I am under the understanding that Ron Parz does own Lot 538 at this point? Mr. Parz: I have it under contract. Ms. Pankow: I was just curious if Mr. Parz did own Lot 537b2 at this point and if he owned Lot 538. The last time we spoke with him it was on a contingency that he was able to obtain things that he needed for the condominium complex that he was proposing. I was just curious if he actually owns that land at this time. Mr. Engebretson: We will ask him to speak to that question. Ms. Pankow: Basically I just want to say our land buts up to that section. We need to speak to Mr. Parz about that. The three residents that it really pertains to are here tonight and we are very concerned about that because it is very close to our property. This property backs �.• up to the back of our garages. If he is talking about putting complexes in that small section, they are in our back yard. Mr. Engebretson: Which lot are you in relative to Lot 25? Ms. Pankow: I am Lots 20, 21 and 22. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the width of Lot 537b2? Lady in audience: Eighty-one feet by two hundred forty-seven. Mr. LaPine: Lot 537 is that the whole strip or just that one portion down below? Mr. Nagy: Lot 537b2 has been split and it attaches, with the exception of the south parcel, to the lots facing onto Jarvis. Mr. Engebretson: Now Mr. Parz if you would please answer the ladies question regarding ownership of those parcels. Mr. Parz: The ownership of Lot 537b2 and Lot 538 are still in the possession of McBell Management and I do have the site under option at this particular time. I will tell you this, I have met with the owners of the site. I have sent them letters and I have called them repeatedly and I have set up meetings at my place. I just received a call today and I could not respond to it because of all my commitments. 11470 Mr. Engebretson: Which call are you referring to Mr. Parz? Mr. Parz: I received a call from a homeowner requesting they would like to speak to me as to what will happen on South Drive. I would like to meet with the owners as a good neighbor policy to discuss that with fir. them. I will tell you this that the site is zoned apartments. It is zoned multi-family, 10 units to an acre. Mr. Nagy is that true? Mr. Nagy: Lot 538 is zoned multi-family. Mr. Tent: You realize this is a public hearing and this item has been advertised and we owe a service to the public and to the people in the area to voice this thing and to get your position. You filed this petition and you propose to vacate that portion of South Drive. We are here gathering the facts. In other words I am not satisfied until I find out what you intend to do. Then we can either table it for further discussion or I am going to make a motion to deny it if you can't come up with what your intended use is. This can't be a mystery just for those three people. There has to be an answer for us. Mr. Parz: At this particular time then I wish to withdraw the petition. Mr. Engebretson: Let me ask the neighbors. You have indicated an interest to speak to Mr. Parz about what he has in mind here. He has, for whatever reason, been unable to articulate his plans to you but he has also indicated an interest in having that dialogue with you. If this item were tabled, we would presume he would follow up on doing that. He certainly has the right to withdraw the petition. What would your wish be? He would wish to withdraw the petition but maybe your wishes would change his mind. Ladies in Audience: We need to get with Ron Parz and we have met with him once and we are planning to meet with him again but we are trying to come up with some type of camaraderie. We don't want to come in and say 3 of us feel this way and 12 of us feel this way. We know apartments or condominiums are going in. Our biggest concern is that small parcel. That is our biggest concern. That is why we are not meeting as a whole. It is for us three. Mr. Morrow: It is currently zoned R-1. I think if they were to develop that property in any way, they would have to change the zoning. Frankly I don't know why Mr. Parz brought this petition forward because he is vacating property that he has no interest in. Wendy, you called me today and I said we would find out together what his intent was because we had no insight into it. I don't have any problem. I don't suspect anything diabolical here, at least as far as this petition is concerned. To explore his reasons and give your input on the vacation, I think that can work its course. His readiness to withdraw indicates he doesn't really have any need for the vacation. It is kind of peculiar at best but I don't have any problem with continuing this so he can meet with you and get your input and then come back. I don't see any downside to that. 11471 Mr. Engebretson: I agree with that. I think it is time to close the public hearing and I think that both sides have indicated an interest in establishing a dialogue and certainly that is in our interest too, to sort out the facts. Mr. LaPine: John, do we have any problems in that area with storm sewers? Mr. Nagy: Yes we have a problem with storm sewers. Mr. LaPine: My question is about this little parcel. Is there a possibility that he could use that parcel for a holding pond for storm water? Mr. Nagy: It is theoretically possible. Mr. McCann: Would he need a zoning change so it would be compatible with the surrounding part. Let's say he is putting in apartments and he wants to use some of Lot 537b2 for a storm retention area. Would it be necessary for him to get a zoning change to use that property for the retention area to be used in compliance with his apartment or condominium complex or whatever he choses to build? Mr. Nagy: Strictly for utility purposes, like storm sewer, sanitary sewer, things of that nature, no he would not but if he needed Lot 537b in any way to meet density, to meet off-street parking, and to meet setback requirements he would have to get it rezoned but strictly for utility purposes, no he would not have to get it rezoned. Mr. McCann: I think we need to know what is happening in the R-7. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Noir Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-11-3-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #1-6-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-11-3-11 by Ronald R. Parz proposing to vacate that portion of South Drive lying east and west of Jarvis Avenue, south of Plymouth Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-11-3-11 until the study meeting of January 29, 1991. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: Tent ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 11472 Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-12-6-9 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to the control of signs. ,r,. Mr. Engebretson: This item is to deal with the adoption of a change to the Zoning Ordinance to implement a very comprehensive change to the Zoning Ordinance that will eliminate a lot of confusion that exists with the present ordinance and to address some more modern issues. This has been under way now for several years. It has had a lot of attention in study meetings and I think we are ready to deal with it. I would like to ask if there is anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against adopting this amendment. Lady in Audience: Does it have any control over political signs? Mr. Engebretson: Yes it does. It is a very comprehensive document and badly needed. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-12-6-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was ##1-7-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-12-6-9 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.50 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to the control of signs, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-12-6-9 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for a much more comprehensive and usable set of zoning regulations for the location and control of signs in the City of Livonia. 2) That the proposed language amendment will provide for a more uniform treatment of signage in the City. 3) That the proposed language amendment will provide for the elimination of non-conforming signs. 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: I just want to make one comment. We want to get this moving along because as you indicated earlier we have been looking at this thing for some time but one of the reasons we initiated this ordinance was to clear up some of the ambiguities that was in the sign ordinance. As one commissioner, I still feel as it relates to dealing with awnings there are, in my mind, some ambiguities. I 11473 would like the chair to consider that after this proposed ordinance works its way and we know what the final outcome will be, perhaps we can take a look at awnings specifically because, at least in my mind, there are some things that have to be cleared up as to when an awning is an awning and when it becomes a sign and all the other controls that we fight so hard as far as colors and earth tones. .• We seem to leave ourselves open to some of the things we have been trying to eliminate. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Morrow I appreciate your comments. I endorse everything you said. If you hadn't suggested it, I would have. I think as soon as Council has dealt with this issue we want to get on that matter right away. I think it is the only area, after considerable study, that we can say that there is some room for interpretation and some disagreement on it but the remaining sections of the ordinance are so badly needed and we can't hold it up for that. Mr. Gniewek: At this point I would like to make an official recognition of Bill Macdonald, who has gone through an extreme amount of work to develop this sign ordinance. I believe he spent many hours going through a lot of tears and probably various problems to finally come up with where we finally are and I think he deserves to be recognized Mr. Engebreetson: I think you are right and I don't know about tears but I know hundreds and hundreds of hours of work. I think that once we deal with this it would be appropriate to ask for a resolution to commend Mr. MacDonald by resolution for an outstanding job here. I will ask for that. Mr. Nagy I will ask you to prepare an appropriate resolution commending Mr. MacDonald for an outstanding fir.p, job in this particular effort. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, it was RESOLVED that, the City of Livonia Planning Commission takes this means to acknowledge the hours of work spent by Bill MacDonald on the new Sign Ordinance and further wish to commend Bill MacDonald on an outstanding job. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-12-6-10 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to add day care nursery facilities as a waiver use in the RUF district regulations. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McCann would you like to take this opportunity to explain to the public what this proposed ordinance change would accomplish? This proposed amendment was initiated at your request. Mr. McCann: Basically the cities over the last few years, Livonia in particularly, have had a history of having husbands and wives both in the work place. There is a tremendous need for day care centers in the City. As this growth has begun, we have had many petitions before the Planning Commission for new sites for day care centers for the children of our residents. In trying to address this we 11474 have been trying to find appropriate locations for day care centers that would fit the state requirements that day care centers need to meet. It is a difficult task. One of the problems was the type of zoning where day care centers would be permitted where we would have to change the zoning from a residential type zoning to possibly a office service type zoning. That created a problem because that would run with the land and if the day care center shut down, they could use it for other services which we didn't believe would be appropriate but where we did believe the child care type use would be appropriate. This new item makes provisions under special circumstances that they could do it in a residential setting with permission from Council. Mr. Engebretson: Would you please clarify what is meant by residential setting? There are some restrictions. They just can't be in any residential area. I think that is important to articulate. Mr. McCann: I will read the ordinance so they would get an idea. Day care nurseries if situated on a parcel of land at least one acre in area and provided that: (1) Such use shall have direct access to a public street having an existing or planned width of at least eighty-six feet or more as designated on the Master Thoroughfare Plan; (2) Such use shall provide and maintain an outdoor play space equal in area to at least one hundred fifty square feet per child; provided, however, that such play space shall have a total minimum area of not less than five thousand square feet. Where such outdoor play space directly abuts residential property it shall be screened by means of a greenbelt which shall be at least ten feet in width; (3) Appropriate fencing of at least five feet in height shall encompass the entire outdoor play space; (4) Any building(s) erected on the premises shall be designed so as to be compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent buildings in the area. (5) Approval of such use requires a two thirds vote of the City Council unless written consent of the owners of at least fifty-five percent of the property located within a four hundred foot radius of the property lines of the proposed day care nursery is first obtained and filed with the Planning Commission prior to or on the date of the public hearing. Mr. Morrow: Before you close the public hearing just to amplify what Mr. McCann said, this Commission has also turned down site plans for people that did not have to change the zoning but brought forth an office zoning with a site plan and this Commission did not feel it was appropriate for children to be in that particular area. I would also like to point out that day care is a permitted use with a church, which is quite frequently in a residential area, but it is not the principal use. It is more an accessory or secondary use. We are not plowing any new ground as far as being in a residential 11475 neighborhood and I think what we are trying to accomplish here is that children should be in some type of protected residential area rather than an office or commercial type setting. Mr. Tent: I have concerns about allowing these day care centers in residential neighborhoods. I think the zoning we have now provides us adequate relief. We just received a study here, a Child Day Care Providers Study. We have 56 child care centers within the City of Livonia. That covers 36 square miles. There are plenty of day care centers within the City of Livonia. Then we have home for child care providers. We have 43 homes that provide services of that type. I don't think we are lacking for facilities here within the City and for us to allow the homes to encroach into the residential neighborhoods, I can't fully agree with that even though we have safeguards, like it takes two-thirds vote of the Council, etc. I don't see why we have to allow the encroachment into residential neighborhoods of this type of school. Mr. McCann: First I would like to take Mr. Tent's argument. He discusses the 43 home child care providers. As you will note, I believe, every one of those 43 are in residential areas now in private homes. Even of the 56, most of them are in churches or schools. These are schools that are already existing in residential type areas, as well as churches that are mostly in residential areas. This ordinance does not change that. It just states that people don't have to go into industrial or office type areas to have a small thing. As far as the numbers, we have 100,000 residents. That is a lot of kids. As it is growing, there has been a demand. I had to wait six months to get my son into preschool because of the waiting list. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to eject a comment here for clarification. The Planning Department just concluded a comprehensive study on the child care providers in the City and there are 99 of them. There are two categories of facilities, one of them being defined as Child Care Centers, those are facilities that provide for day care for a large number of children. On the other hand there is a category called In-Home Child Care Providers, which have a small number of children and in the case of infants a maximum of two. What I am trying to do is to let people know what we are talking about here relative to this study. I would also like to suggest that we should find some way to get this document into the hands of the public. The value of this document goes way beyond making a decision relative to this particular ordinance change. I am sure there are many people, even as we speak, wondering what are they going to do to provide proper care for the children in those cases where both parents are working. I know that in previous cases that we have heard there have been difficulties for people to locate their children. I think this would be a very valuable document for the public. We need to get this document publicized and available to the public and I would commend the Planning staff for their work on this document. Mr. Nagy: It was our intent to make a presentation to you next Tuesday night and then if you are satisfied with the report, we would transmit it to Council and other City departments and the public. We gave it to you tonight for information purposes and then we will present it to you later and after your authorization, we will make it available to the public. 11476 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-12-6-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was '4o. #1-8-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-12-6-10 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to add day care nursery facilities as a waiver use in the RUF district regulations, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-12-6-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more flexibility in determining the location of day care facilities in the City. 2) That the proposed language amendment will provide for day care facilities to be located so as to be more available to and to better serve the residential areas of the City. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: I would also like to see this study go to the City Council with our recommendation. Mr. Engebretson, 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. McCann, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #1-9-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend the Future Land Use Plan so as to change the designation of certain described properties so as to have the Plan reflect recent rezoning actions of the City. AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 11477 On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #1-10-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 614th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 11, 1990 are `, approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Vyyhalek, it was #1-11-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 365th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on December 18, 1990 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engebretson, Gniewek, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was #1-12-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 366th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 8, 1991 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei, Engrebretson, Gniewek, McCann NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 615th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on January 15, 1991 was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • • / Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary /7 /r ATTEST: � b" n , Jack Engebr4kson, Chairman jg