Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1994-06-21 13486 MINUTES OF THE 686th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 21, 1994 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 686th 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 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jack Engebretson R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Raymond W. Tent William LaPine Members absent: Robert Alanskas Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner I, 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 preliminary plat and/or 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, Chairman, presented a ten year service recognition pin to Ray Tent in recognition for 12 years 11 months of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. McCann Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-1-11 by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill Road and Ellen Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to OS and R3-B. Mr. Miller 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 there are no sanitary sewer or storm sewer systems readily available to service the proposed zoning areas (current outlets are near Gill Road) . They stated further they had no objections to the rezoning proposal. We also have 13487 received a letter from Brian and Diane Ennis of 35168 Morlock stating they support the rezoning but do request that no construction is begun until the water pressure situation is resolved in their area. Also in our file is a letter from Iulio Tori stating as the property owner of Lot #6 of Fair Way Subdivision I want to be placed on record (in writing) that I object to this rezoning. The reason I object is because it would hinder the development of the whole strip by breaking up the residential and office service zoning. It would seem to be better to keep all office service and all residential together or zone the front 240' office service and the rear to R-3B. Mr. Engebretson: I think this would be an appropriate point to bring up another letter we have here from the State of Michigan addressed to Mr. Beckley, Director of Public Works, that has to do with the issue of the water tap moratorium that we discussed at the last meeting. For the benefit of the folks in the audience and others on the Commission, this letter advises us that we are going to be given authority to have an additional 740 single family home water taps over and above the 80 that are remaining in our account. Regarding the previous conservation plan, it all came about when the water pressure collapsed in 1988. While we were concerned about this particular proposal and also others, it may be problematical from the standpoint of the water tap moratorium. That issue apparently has been resolved. With that, would the petitioner please come forward and tell us your reason for making this request. `r.► Charles Tangora, 33300 Five Mile Road: I represent the petitioners, Mr. Forest and Mr. Ivezaj. Mr. Forest has been a builder in the Livonia area for a number of years. He has built primarily industrial buildings and commercial buildings. He has a business in the City. Mr. Ivezaj is a developer. You probably recall he developed Van Road south of Seven Mile Road about two years ago, which was a subdivision of approximately the same size as this one, 20 lots, which subdivision is completely filled up with the exception of maybe one or two vacant lots. Beautiful homes over there. This is the type of development they have planned for this particular piece of property. I am sure the Commission is well aware the petition fits within the Master Plan that has been adopted for the City for that particular area, and also the north side of Eight Mile Road in Farmington Hills has been mainly developed commercial and that type of a situation. I think we are all aware that Eight Mile Road in this particular stretch is probably the last remaining two lane stretch of Eight Mile Road all the way from I-275 to the east side. I am sure that is going to be on the drawing boards for expansion to a five-lane road very shortly. We have a drawing of what the subdivision and a little bit of the office usage is. I passed out a small print of that which shows that there are 22 lots which will be in this subdivision of approximately 80 foot frontage lots similar to the Van Road Development. The office building there is scheduled to be two 13488 units side by side that would be approximately 2400 square feet. It is a one-story type of building similar to the building that is at Eight Mile and Gill Road that was built about four or five years ago and is very successfully leased out. The petitioners feel there is a market in this area, especially on Eight Mile Road. We have people that I have talked to that were looking for an office type of development in that area. It is obviously a developing area. A lot of new residential has come in there in the last few years. It seems like an ideal place to build offices. Essentially that is all I have to say. I would be glad to answer any questions. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, do your clients currently own the property? Mr. Tangora: They own part of it, approximately half of it. They own two lots and the other lots are under option. Mr. Morrow: It will be their intention to develop the property themselves? Mr. Tangora: Yes. Mr. Morrow: If the rezoning were to be granted, what is the time frame we are looking at as far as development based on whatever input you have? Mr. Tangora: We pretty much lost 1994 because of the planning process. It is usually about six months. So we have to go through the zoning process and then come in with the engineering for the '411ft. planning process, which will take us well into the beginning of 1995. I think the developers are trying to get the planning process done by the end of the year or spring of 1995 so they can start building homes in 1995. Mr. Morrow: It will be developed as soon as you get through the process? It won't lay fallow for a year or so looking for buyers? Mr. Tangora: Again, both of them are builders and both of them are developers. I can't guarantee that they will build the homes there. Their method of developing is to develop it into lots with all the improvements and then sell off most of the lots to builders. Mr. Tent: What you are proposing is the office building would go up first before you went ahead with the residential? Mr. Tangora: Not necessarily. I think they would build the office when they get some tenants. They would obviously wait for the rezoning and then put it in the hands of a broker to see if there are tenants and then start to build the office building. 13489 Mr. Tent: Then you have no commitments here as far as the office is concerned?. You have feelers out? Mr. Tangora: I have feelers out. I have a few of my clients that are `'o' interested in relocating over on Eight Mile Road but obviously it is a long way away from that process. Mr. Tent: In ballpark figures, the cost of the homes in that project. Mr. Tangora: Probably over $200,000. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Tangora, have your clients tried to purchase any of the other vacant parcels along there? One of the letters we received mentioned they would like to see this developed as all one strip, which I agree with 100%. It seems to me someone should try to purchase all the land and have one good size subdivision. Have they made any concrete effort to purchase any of the other land? Mr. Tangora: There have been talks but I am not sure how far they proceeded. From what I understand some of the people that have lots there are looking for a higher price, something a commercial piece of property would attract. I think that is their idea to develop it commercial rather than residential and office type of development. Mr. LaPine: The only argument you can give those people is whatever happens on these lots is going to more or less set the precedent of what is going to happen on the balance of the lots. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, would it be your expectation that both of the office buildings would be developed concurrently? Mr. Tangora: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Regarding the Eight Mile Road widening, does your plan take that into account? Mr. Tangora: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this proposal. Charles Myron: I am the President of Deer Creek Homeowners Association. Deer Creek is the subdivision immediately to the south of this with an entrance at Eight Mile and Ellen. We are basically in favor of the proposal but we have two concerns we would like to express to the board. The first one has been addressed and that is that the office structures, in our opinion, should mirror at least in size and height the Gill Road office building. I believe that has been addressed. The second one 13490 is perhaps a more practical concern. We are concerned about the adverse affect this might have on our water pressure. The water pressure in our area right now, in our opinion, is woefully inadequate. That is the primary concern in the way N"" this proposal has been presented. If we add additional homes to the water supply we have right now, it is going to significantly reduce the water that is available to us. That is the primary concern if that is acceptable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to ask Mr. Nagy, even though this is a little out of his area, if you could shed any knowledge on the area regarding concern of the water pressure, the impact 20 or 30 additional homes would have on that. Mr. Nagy: You are right, it is not really my expertise. I do know that the final solution to the water pressure problem is the extension of the water transmission line coming through Oakland County from the Port Huron inlet. It is being constructed now. It is probably anywhere from 18 months to two years away from actually being constructed and on line, which would resolve all the pressure problems. So I think if this really takes a year, it is better to go through the process and by the time the actual homes are constructed we should be near the realization of that transmission line. I really think that is the best hope we can have. Your actual question as to what an additional 21 homes would have on that area, I think that is something we would better be advised when we actually get the preliminary plat. If the zoning r► should be successful, there will be a similar hearing on the actual design of the subdivision itself at which time we will have input from the various City departments, including Engineering and the Water Department, and maybe by that time we will have more qualified people to really address properly what impact that would have. We could say with certainly rather than just my opinion. Mr. Engebretson: Do you recall haw many homes were built in the Camborne Subdivision at the corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh? Mr. Nagy: Between the two subdivisions there are a little over 80 total lots, 40 something on each side in the first stage. When the whole area is built out, there will be in excess of 240 homes. Mr. Engebretson: The reason I asked that is that is just located a few blocks from my home and those homes were built during the last couple of years and we haven't noticed any impact, but your area may have less water pressure than we do. That seems to be the case. I know it has been woefully low in your area at times. Mr. Tent: I would like to address that too. This is just a zoning request now. They will be before us for site plan and at that 13491 particular time these problems that you are concerned with, with the pressure and the water system, would be resolved then, because if they don't have an adequate watering system at that particular time, then there would be no reason for going forward with this proposal. All we are doing now is the zoning. Mr. Engebretson: Not to dwell on the point but I know it is an important point to you, and this letter from the State of Michigan that I referred to earlier is going to grant these additional water taps subject to the City adopting ordinances that would restrict sprinkling to this odd and even plan that is in effect right now, and apparently that is going to happen. So while we are having this difficulty there are going to be some restrictions put in place on a more lasting basis. Then when this new service is completed that Mr. Nagy was talking about, I think we are home free. Resident living at 34750 Norfolk: Where is the street going to come in to the new lots? Mr. Engebretson: From Eight Mile Road. If you will look at the board, the lots on the bottom of the board are butting up to the residential lots just to the south, so the street that goes out to Eight Mile Road is going to come down and dead end behind that other subdivision. Resident: Haw far are the houses going to be placed from the property lines? Mr. Nagy: From the proposed street, where it turns and parallels Eight Mile Road, the depth of those lots are 120 feet. The setback from the sidewalk to the front of the house is 35 feet. The minimum rear yard requirement has to be 30 feet. It will likely be greater than that but those are the minimums. 35 foot front yard and 30 foot rear yards. In between that is where the houses will be constructed. Resident: Are they going to divide the yards with privacy fences? Mr. Engebretson: No, that is not required anywhere in the City. With residential abutting residential there is no requirement for any kind of screen. Resident: In Deer Creek on Norfolk you flooded everybody. It will happen again. Mr. Engebretson: I will take exception to your characterization of what happened so it is hard to respond. I know you have had some drainage problems and there have some attempts to mitigate those problems. 13492 Mr. McCann: I just wanted to say you can have this drawing. It shows how the subdivision lays out to your sub. You can take it back to your seat and review it. — KathyHubchik, 34700 Norfolk: I am also delivering ng a letter from one of our neighbors that couldn't be here tonight. Our concern is this new sub backing up to our property line and not really having the same synopsis that happened at Deer Creek when our lots were big and natural and then a sub comes in and it is a totally different scenario and there were a lot of problems. We want to avoid those problems. Mr. Engebretson: We certainly can appreciate those concerns. I believe it is fair to say that the development could occur right now without much of any improvements without any rezoning perhaps with a few less homes. The fact is that is zoned residential and it is certainly very likely that is going to be developed as residential either in the proposed manner or in its current zoning district. Ms. Hubchik: What about the existing residents that are already in that area when the property isn't graded properly? What is going to happen? We would like to avoid something happening. We would like to stop it before it happens. Mr. Engebretson: We understand that. I would like to just mention that part of this process that Mr. Tangora has referred to as taking six months or more, would include the Engineering Department becoming involved to guard against the kinds of concerns you '"w just addressed. So those are issues that are more properly addressed at that particular point. I want to give you some confidence that there is a very important step in this process that addresses that point of concern and yet this is not the forum. This is not where we have the expertise to deal with that. Ms. Hubchik: Well then where do we voice those concerns? It sounds like you can rezone and it doesn't really matter what we say but we want to be heard because even on Norfolk when the new houses went in, then the City came out and gave their approval and the driveways were too high and all the water is rushing in and flooding the neighbor's front yard. That was just two years ago when that happened. Who do we address this to? Who is going to guarantee that these situations are not going to occur? Mr. McCann: I don't want you to take what the Chairman said as being wrong but we have to look at today's zoning question. We are looking at this Future Land Use Plan which has this as office development. We are looking at this as office which also has a subdivision backing up so we figured this gives it a natural blend. The existing houses don't end up right next to offices. We put a sub in and the people that are going to be `r. 13493 buying in the sub backing up to the office know what they are getting into. In your situation you have very legitimate concerns. We deal with these concerns a lot. These people *Jaw Engineering have to come back for site plan approval. The Engineering Department will do a report when they do their site plan approval as to what the needs are. My suggestion to you would be that in the meantime contact the Building Department and ask them to contact you when the reviewing happens so you and your neighbors can get your concerns together, formalize them in a letter, take it to the Building Department and ask them to address those issues. Ms. Hubchik: I have one other statement as far as the office building going in. Have you driven down there recently? At Eight Mile and Gill they have signs up there all the time. They can't keep that fully occupied. Mr. McCann: I understand. Have you tried to rent office space in Livonia? We have the highest occupancy rate in the Wayne County area. Ms. Hubchik: But as you drive all over all you see are vacant buildings. All the way down Eight Mile Road. Mr. McCann: I have tried to rent them and the highest dollar rent is right here in Livonia. Ms. Hubchik: I see it every day and I live right there. All I have to do is go to Eight Mile and Farmington. There is a Krogers. Half of that place is vacant. There is a half structure never 'troy completed. There is just a steel structure sitting there. Across the street there is an office building completely vacant. Mr. McCann: I think the figures aren't agreeing with you as far as occupancy. I live in Livonia. We on the Planning Commission have been trying to deal with the situation with the Eight Mile shopping center there and the structure. The City is working on that. We are having a hard time trying to get a solution to that. I can't answer all of your questions with regard to why we need this. We have to look at the Future Land Use Plan, we have to look at the current land use, we have to see what type of zoning we feel best fits in here, and if you don't believe that office zoning belongs here, it is a legitimate concern. If you think residential abutting Eight Mile Road is more appropriate, that may be so. We are willing to listen to that. That is what we are here for tonight. Ms. Hubchik: In my opinion there is all kinds of office space already, especially on Eight Mile Road. As far as butting up to our property, we have to wait for the Engineering Department? 13494 Mr. Engebretson: Yes. Why don't you call the Engineering Department and express your concern relative to the past situation. We can't really address those issues in the same terms they can. If you are aware of specific problems, let them know. I am just **a"' trying to be helpful at this point. It is really not an issue as far as this particular petition is concerned but based on the fact that you issued a rather strong statement relative to your concerns of water drainage, which is going to come more from these residential lots being developed than the office, then why don't you help the Engineering Department so they are prepared to deal with these things when the time comes. Ms. Hubchik: Right. You also made the comment about the sprinkler systems, the odd and even days. Anyone on Norfolk can't even use their sprinkler systems now because they don't even have enough water pressure to run them. An odd/even day system won't help that area. Mr. Engebretson: I am going to go up to that neighborhood again tomorrow becau e I have seen some sprinklers running there and I am going to investigate that for myself. Mr. Morrow: As far as lease signs for office buildings, if my memory serves me correctly, there are 1,000 square feet at Gill and Eight Mile Road. It is an advertising ploy that companies use that if the building is chuck full, they put up a For Lease sign in hopes someone comes in and they will steer them in another direction. Buildings that are 85% occupied are considered fully leased. That is the only office building stew that I am aware of between Newburgh and even as far as Merriman, where it is mostly industrial. They will have to come back for site plan for the office. If the residential zoning is approved, they have to come back for preliminary plat approval. There will be a public hearing on that. All the issues that were raised tonight as far as engineering, water taps, will be addressed at that time. They will not be given permission to sell those lots, to build those lots until all your concerns are alleviated. As far as the Planning Commission guaranteeing that, we cannot guarantee that. That is not our prerogative. That is why we have an Engineering Department to address all those types of things. So just to reiterate here, it is not that we are not as concerned as you are. I live in the very same area and I am as concerned about water pressure as anyone in the audience tonight, but by the same token these issues will be addressed when those homes come back with plans. Mr. Engebretson: Can you water? Mr. Morrow: I can water but you have to pick your spots. I have not really seen the stringent odd/even. I think if the City puts teeth in the ordinance and make the people do odd/even, I `f.. 13495 think we will see a dramatic change. I don't think that is enforced right now, but right now we are on a voluntary basis but there is a water pressure problem. `"" Giovanni Agazzi, 34750 Norfolk: My question is I tried to split my lot which was 140'x400'. You said no I can't. Now every couple of years you guys change the schedule. Now you say you have 30 feet from my backyard to the building. This is a joke. Mr. Engebretson: Wait a minute. We didn't say that. We said 35 feet was the minimum from the home. That makes you just like everybody else in Livonia. Mr. Agazzi: Why don't you let me split mine? I know you are trying to get more tax. I understand that. If he needs more land, he can have my backyard. If the price is right, I can sell it. The engineer he can decide how he can blend it all. Norfolk is flooded all the time. Mr. rapine: Mr. Chairman, before a motion is made, I want to speak against the proposal. I have heard comments here tonight that there is no office space available. I disagree with that. The office space on Gill Road and Eight Mile Road, which I pass every single day going home, the signs up there, it was indicated they just put them up there as a ploy, as far as I am concerned they are breaking the ordinance. They shouldn't have a For Lease sign up there if they don't have space to fill. Secondly, we rezoned some property on Farmington Road just north of the Knights of Columbus hall for office over a soft. year ago and I don't see anybody wanting that office so bad that somebody has built a building on it. It doesn't make any sense to me to put any more office on Eight Mile Road. We should stop at Gill Road and develop all that parcel from there on west into residential. We don't need any more office service. There is all kinds of office service available. Until somebody can prove to me that there is a cry out there for all this office service, I don't see any reason to rezone this property to the west. I have no objection to the R-3B but I would like to see the developer buy more of the land to develop this as one big piece, but to rezone that property to OS, I don't think we need any more offices up in that area of the City. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #6-112-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21, 1994 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 94-4-1-11 by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill Road and 13496 Ellen Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to OS and R3-B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-1-11 be approved for the following reasons: *ft. 1) That the proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. 2) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning to the OS district will provide for a buffer or transition zone between Eight Mile Road and the residential uses to the south. FURTER 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, Morrow, McCann NAYS: LaPine, Engebretson ABSENT: Alanskas, Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition *ft. 94-3-3-3 by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to vacate a portion of Laurel Avenue south of Eight Mile Road between Ellen Drive and Gill Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Miller 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 their office has no objections to this vacating proposal. We have also received a letter from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities in the subject area; therefore, they have no objections. We have also received a letter from Raymond and Barbara Amin stating they live at 34970 Norfolk which is directly behind the property that such petitions are requesting to be rezoned and vacated. We would like the road not to be vacated because when we purchased our property we intended to do a lot split, however if it is to be vacated, we, like the rest of the neighbors, would agree as a whole to a mutual decision. We would like further correspondence as to the updates of this property, further meetings etc. to be sent to our home address. We apologize for not being here tonight as we are out of town. Thank you for taking the time to read our opinion of said matter. 13497 Mr. Morrow: Is that Lot 23A they were talking about? Mr. Nagy: They just give their address as 34970 Norfolk. Mr. Tangora: This is just a logical extension of the rezoning petition. This enables us to plan a subdivision and utilize all the lots. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-3-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #6-113-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-3-3-3 by Angelo Forest and Zef Ivezaj requesting to vacate a portion of Laurel Avenue south of Eight Mile Road between Ellen Drive and Gill Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-3-3-3 be approved subject to the retention of an easement over the west 18 feet of the subject area to protect an existing 8" water main for the following reasons: 1) That the subject street right-of-way is no longer needed for public access purposes. 2) That the subject street right-of-way can be more advantageously used in private ownership. 3) That the subject street right-of-way would be placed on the tax rolls of the City of Livonia. 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: Tent, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Alanskas, Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-5-2-14 by Jerald Gottlieb requesting waiver use approval to construct single family cluster homes to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 13498 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating a determination should be made at this time as to whether the proposed public street will be connected through properties to the north to the dead end of Brookview Drive '""' within the Sunset Park Estates Subdivision. In the alternative, a cul-de-sac should be built within the subject petition area. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has no objection to this proposal. However, this division has a number of questions regarding the following: a proper water main with hydrant placement for fire protection, the width of the road, and the dead end with no turnaround provided. It is anticipated that these concerns will be fully addressed with this office in the very near future. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Jerry Gottlieb, 30135 Summit, Farmington Hills: I thought this would not need a lot of explanation. It just seems to fit in so good in this neighborhood. It is bounded by office services to the east. It touches this R-7 to the north and the R-lA and it just seems to be a good continuation and improvement to the neighborhood. I am all for building new because I think it is an encouragement to people who live in the neighborhood to perhaps even improve their homes. On this property right now there is an older home built in 1947 or so and an old chicken coop. People to the west have told me they would like to see that taken out. I am here to answer any questions you might have. tir. Mr. Miller presented the site plan. Mr. Miller: They are proposing nine cluster single-family detached homes. There is a T on the road, which was required by the Fire Marshal. (He then presented the building elevations) . They will be brick frontage with T-111 siding. Mr. Gottlieb: These will all be customer selections. They will have their options and their choices. Driving around trying to get a feel for the market today, I see in a lot of new subdivisions this particular look is very popular. There will be a whole list of options that the customers will have should they decide to change anything. If they wanted more brick or if they wanted a different kind of material, I am going to leave that up to the customers. I have only chosen what I have seen driving through five or six different communities. Mr. Engebretson: Will each of these lots be owned by the individuals as contrasting with a condominium type of development? Mr. Gottlieb: Yes. I am planning on giving them a deed to a unit that will be the same as a residential lot. It will be 58' by 110'. 13499 Mr. Engebretson: The references we have to sodding and irrigation and the bermcd areas? Mr. Gottlieb: That will be my obligation. Mr. Engebretson: You do that but each individual homeowner would be responsible for landscaping his own property? Mr. Gottlieb: Right. In the front there is a 75 foot buffer for a setback from Six Mile Road. That would end up being what would be owned by the association, which would for their annual dues to maintain. It will be a landscaped area 75'x110'. Mr. Engebretson: That will all be developed by you as these homes are being built? Mr. Gottlieb: Right. Mr. Engebretson: The same as the landscaping on the eastern edge of the property? Mr. Gottlieb: On the eastern edge of the property we are going to put a screen fence the whole length of the property. I want a little buffer between the office services to the east. Mr. Tent: Mr. Gottlieb, will these homes have basements? Mr. Gottlieb: They will be full basements. They will be about 1750 to 1800 square feet with two and a half baths. Mr. Tent: Two and three bedrooms? Mr. Gottlieb: No they will all be three bedrooms. Mr. Tent: What will these homes sell for? Mr. Gottlieb: I would say they would be at least $160,000 plus. That is the base price that I am looking at at this point. They may end up going for more. Mr. Tent: Could you reduce the price a little more by getting rid of the splash block of brick at the side? We discussed that at one of the study meetings. From what I see there, you are going to raise it another foot. That is not what we are looking for. You have looked all around the City and you say this is what the customer wants. I would like to see some brick on that house. Mr. Gottlieb: I am not one to impose my views upon a customer. I would give them a lot of options. If they would like to have all brick, I would be happy to put it on for them. 13500 Mr. Tent: What you have here you haven't given us anything really because in your discussions with us all you are telling us is you will build what they want. In other words, what we are doing here is a waiver approval to construct some single family homes. We are trying to tie you down to your architecture. What you are saying is whatever they want we will build for them. If they want an all frame home, we will put an all frame home in there. If they want higher brick, you will put higher brick. Why can't we start out at the beginning and make it look attractive and throw some brick up along the side? Mr. Gottlieb: I have always found when it comes to attractive each individual has their own opinions to what is attractive. That is why there are a lot of different baseball teams, football teams. That is why there are a lot of different automobiles made in the world today. I want to start out with the premise that these homes will have the front as I selected, which like I say my marketing shows this is what the people are buying today. Mr. Tent: What City is that in? Mr. Gottlieb: I have gone through Canton. I have gone through Wixom. I have gone through Livonia and right in this community. Mr. Tent: You show me where they have homes with one raw of bricks along the side of the house and they call it a brick house. I couldn't support this project just based on that. I know we need some homes here but unless we can tie you down to specifics, I want a brick house. If you want to go half way up fine, but if you just want to put a few bricks there at the bottom, forget it. You are talking about the wood on the side, whether it will be aluminum or vinyl siding. You said you will probably put up T-111 or aluminum or whatever they might want. For that price, $160,000, and that type of building you are putting up, you could show some better pictures. Are you going to have sidewalks? Mr. Gottlieb: Yes. Let me ask you Mr. Tent, I developed a lovely subdivision right here in Livonia. It is called Sheffield No. 2. It is an extension of Curtis and it is just east of Wayne Road. I don't know if you are familiar with that subdivision. It is a beautiful subdivision. I maintained a high standard there in architectural control. I wouldn't let anything that was substandard go in there. I don't know if you are familiar with the office building that I built within the last five years on the corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman. It is on the southeast corner. It is a beautiful building and I still get calls today from people wanting to know where I bought the brick, etc. I would like to set your mind at ease, I am not in there to building something substandard or something 13501 that will not enhance the neighborhood. Anything I have ever done, Livonia has benefited by it. I tore down a house over here. I built four beautiful homes right across the street on Shadyside. Mr. Tent: All I am asking for is a little more brick. Mr. Gottlieb: I say let the customers make the selection. People want their choices and I want to give it to them. If they want the whole house in brick, I will be happy to do that. I am certainly not going to let them pick some shabby material because it wouldn't be in my best interest to develop a subdivision having something substandard. I am going to make sure that any selections are going to enhance the subdivision, the City and the neighborhood. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, considering this is a waiver use approval for single family cluster homes, is it appropriate to tie in conditions such as 50% of homes should be covered with brick? Mr. Nagy: It is appropriate. The purpose for the option is to deal with the various elements of the site plan to tie into the approving resolution. Mr. McCann: Mr. Gottlieb, I understand where you are coming fLom and I try not to interfere with business people as much as I can in the City. I want to encourage you business people. You have done a fine job in Livonia. I have been on the Planning Commission when you have been before us before and I have always been happy with your work. To be honest with you, you came in with family cluster homes in a very nice area in Livonia and it bothered me a little bit. I sat down with the Planning staff last week when we planned this and said what type of homes are these. They said he is doing a good job. The lots are going to be narrower. There are going to be a very few changes from the R-1, which is our minimum development in the City for single family residential. Basically what you are doing is you don't have enough width so you are going to single family cluster. I don't have a problem with that. I looked at the site plan. I think you have come up with a good solution. The staff agrccs. However, the lots are going to be a little narrow. When I looked at your drawings with two foot of brick, the tendency is that the vinyl will not last, especially when the homes are closer together. I really believe 50% height of brick would be appropriate in this manner since it is going to be smaller lots. The homes are going to be tighter together and it is under our single family cluster home waiver use. Would it be possible for you to agree to that in this instance? Mr. Gottlieb: I don't see a problem with that frankly, but what do I do when a customer says I was driving around and I saw a home in 13502 another subdivision and I liked that look. Mr. McCann: How many subdivisions do you go into, including your own Sheffield Estates, where they are all brick homes and that is part of the requirements of the subdivision development? Mr. Gottlieb: Those homes today would sell for $250,000 plus. Mr. McCann: I understand. That is why I am not saying they have to be all brick. Fifty percent is where I am looking. Up past the first window area. That is where it gets the roughest wear. That is where you are going to see the most deterioration. I see a lot of homes with 50% brick above the first window level that look very nice. They wear well. They look good and they last. That has pretty much been the standard throughout the City of Livonia for single family residential. I think that would be appropriate. That is my point of view. Mr. Gottlieb: Let me ask you this. If you look at my elevations, all three of them have brick in front. I see a lot of houses in Livonia and all over. Here we have brick the full two stories so it is not like we are trying to cut down on brick. What I am saying is it is not like I am trying to cut down on brick, it is just this is what I am saying the people like. Why can't I make that an option for people? Why can't that be an option to them? Mr. McCann: I am not here to argue. That is just my personal opinion. Because it is a cluster type of situation, the homes are going to be closer together. I am not trying to give you a hard time. I think the wear and tear, over the long term the City would benefit with at least 50% brick. That is my point of view. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Gottlieb, to be fair when you refer to having 100% brick on the front of that building, the implication is it is the full height of the whole front of the house, which is really about 25% of the front of the house. Mr. Gottlieb: If this is a major bone of contention with you, I would be flexible. If this would really satisfy you people, I will go along with it. Mr. Engebretson: The public hearing isn't over yet. The public hasn't had their chance yet but I think what you are hearing is that it has a lot better chance with 50% brick. Don't forget this is just the beginning. You will also appear before the City Council and they have a tendency to ask for the same thing. Mr. Morrow: Basically that is what I wanted to tell Mr. Gottlieb that this is a recommending body so whether we disapprove it and you appeal it and go before the City Council or we approve it and you go to the City Council, one way or other you will be 13503 before the City Council. I am not on the City Council but I have a very strong feeling that they will not approve this without 50% brick. That is the only statement I want to make. I have driven around this City for many, many years and, like Mr. Tent, I would sure like to drive through one of those recent subdivisions that have a two foot wall on three sides. I think, and it is only a thought on my part, that the City Council would probably be a little stronger than we are. Mr. Engebretson: We just try to pave the way for them and make their job easier. Mr. TaPine: John, these lots, as I understand, will be 58'x110'. Minimum size lots in Livonia are 60'x120'. Does he have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. TaPine: Why? Mr. Nagy: Because this is going to be a site condominium. People are buying not as a recorded lot in a subdivision. They will be taking a land interest in a site that will be conveyed to them through the condominium way of conveying property rather than a recorded lot. They are not really platting this. It is not going to be a subdivision plan per se recorded in the County of Wayne and State of Michigan. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding he is going to give each individual "14.. that buys one of these houses a deed to a piece of land and a house. Doesn't that constitute a subdivision? Mr. Nagy: He is giving them a limited property interest in a legally described portion of that overall area. There will not be a plat. We are not processing this under the plat ordinance or is it coming to us through the Michigan Plat Ordinances. It is a condominium plan. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Judy Plumley, 29509 Bobrich: I live in the Valleywood Condominiums. Valleywood is 50% brick. That development has been there since the 70s. I think this is part of the sustaining of the property values that have been back since 1974 in the Valleywood development and apparently decisions were made about brick at that time. My mother is here in the audience and my mother is a long time resident of Louise Street and that is the area I grew up in. This property backs up not quite to my mother's land. My parents have an acre and a quarter and they have one of the older homes that Mr. Gottlieb mentioned he would like to see maybe spruced up a little bit. However, my father has mowed 13504 that land. My father died last year but if you look out beyond his acres you see this strip of old land that looks like a golf course. They bought that land in 1939. They are part of the staying power. I just want to say I don't feel that wood is the quality of brick and I just want to say I r.. think he has a nice design and I like a lot of things about it but I am really glad to hear your input about the brick. I just want to get on the record that I am a resident of Valleywood and my mother is a resident of Louise and I would like to see that street go through. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Gottlieb, before I close the public hearing I want to ask you to give us an answer. I don't want you to feel any pressure. If you do think there is pressure, we can table this item so you would have some time to think about this. If you want to stand with your proposal, you certainly are free to do that. If you want to make a commitment to 50% brick, we could put that as part of our resolution. You wouldn't have to redraw your plans for our purposes but you probably would want to redraw them for the City Council. Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. We are seeing these plans for the first time. We didn't have the opportunity to really discuss it with you at our study session. Mr. Engebretson: Had you presented them sooner, we would have had more time to consider this point of view. You have the floor. Mr. Gottlieb: It sounds like it might be a good idea to make the first floor brick. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-5-2-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-114-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-5-2-14 by Jerald Gottlieb requesting waiver use approval to construct single family cluster homes to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-5-2-14 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 6-16-94, as revised, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated June 29, 1994 prepared by J. Gottlieb Builder, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. `ir 13505 3) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That the south 75 feet of the site as well as the greenbelt area along the Past property line shall be established as common area and kept in common ownership by means of a condominium association or other such method so as to insure its continuous maintenance. 5) That in total of all four elevations there shall be at least a 50% coverage by full face brick material. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-5-2-15 by Faig Sarhan requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SEI licenses in connection with a proposed party store to be located in an existing building on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Miller 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 letters from the Fire Marshal's office and the Traffic Bureau stating their departments have no objections to this proposal. Tartly, we have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no objection to this proposal. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? 13506 Fair Sarhan: There used to be a drug store there that went out of business, I believe in 1991, and I am trying to redo the vacant area and put in an SDD and SDM license as a party store. It is an existing shopping center that has three other vacancies and we are just trying to put in a business and get the lease sign out of there and liven up the center. It has easy access for the customer getting in and out of the store. They don't have to go to the big supermarkets in the area. Mr. Engebretson: Do you own the property? Mr. Sarhan: No I don't. I will be leasing it. Mr. Engehretson: I was interested in the comment that you were concerned about getting the For Lease signs out of the window. Mr. Sarhan: We have been driving back and forth and we always see it there. We inquired about it but we did not know there was a liquor license there until just recently. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have other experience in that kind of business? Mr. Sarhan: I currently have a business in the City of Dearborn Heights. The same kind of license. I have been there since 1993 and I have been in this business since 1980. Mr. Engebretson: What kind of contact have you had with the Dearborn Heights Police Department as far as violations? Mr. Sarhan: I don't have any violations at all on my record since I have been in this business. Mr. Tent: Along with the liquor license are you going to be serving sandwiches? Mr. Sarhan: Exactly. It will be a little deli also with sandwiches and lunch meat. Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of operation: Mr. Sarhan: It will be 9:30 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. , Monday through Thursday and 9:30 a.m. until twelve midnight on Friday and Saturday. We will be open 11:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. on Sunday. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, had this petitioner come forward with this proposal say seven months ago, within the one year time that that waiver use aunt the previous occupant of that building had been abandoned, would he have automatically had the right to utilize the SDD and SDM licenses there subject to his ability to acquire one? Mr. Nagy: That is true, particularly since it is my understanding it is the same license that was previously issued at that location. 13507 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-5-2-15 closed. r,,,.. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. rapine, it was #6-115-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-5-2-15 by Faig Sarhan requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in connection with a proposed party store to be located in an existing building on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-5-2-15 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Morrow, McCann, Engebretson NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Alanskas, Fandrei Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-6-2-17 by Don Summers requesting waiver use approval to construct single family cluster homes on property located on the south side of Norfolk Avenue between Farmington and Shadyside Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Miller 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 their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating that department has no objections to the site 13508 plan as submitted. Also in our file is a petition with 18 signatures stating they have reviewed the site plan and architectural renderings for the proposed Pinebrooke Condominiums and find no objection to the proposal as presented on this date. The plans as shown, would enhance the neighborhood and we support the approval of this complex. Mr. Engehretson: Is the petitioner present? Steven Summers, 20025 Shadyside: Basically what we are trying to do here is enhance the neighborhood. In the past year we put up three brand new single family homes on Norfolk at Shadyside and we would like to continue that look, which is contemporary new home construction. We feel it would enhance the neighborhood greatly. Mr. Engebretson: The difference being that these homes would be more dense than the other homes. Mr. Summers: Correct. These would be cluster homes. Mr. Miller presented the site plans. Mr. Miller: As you can see they will have two-car garages so with their driveways they will have parking for four cars at each unit. Mr. Summers: They will have three bedrooms with two bedrooms in the ranch models. Mr. Engebretson: Is that a private road? Mr. Miller: It is a private road because it doesn't meet the requirements of the width. Mr. Engebretson: The Fire Marshal does not find any problem? Mr. Nagy: It is such a limited depth. Mr. Tent: Will all the existing trecz be preserved? Mr. Miller: That is what the site plan says. Mr. Summers: Correct. We will save everything we can save around the setbacks. Mr. Summers presented the elevation plans. Mr. Tent: The side elevations will all be brick? Mr. Summers: Correct to gable height. Mr. Tent: Will there be sidewalks? 13509 Mr. Summers: Sidewalks will be provided for each individual condominium. We will provides walks where they are needed. Mr. Tent: What would these units sell for? Mr. Summers: We plan on starting these out around $130,000. Mr. Tent: Is that similar to Whispering Winds? Mr. Summers: Yes it is. It is very similar. The elevations are very similar. Mr. Morrow: Will there be basements? Mr. Summers: Full basements for each unit. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anything you want to add sir? Mr. Summers: We just feel it will enhance the area greatly. What is there now is an older home with a structure behind the older home and it is falling apart and this will be a great addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Engebretson: Do you own the property now? Mr. Summers: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Mable Rhone, 20080 Shadyside: I don't know if I am for or against the proposal but I am here to ask a few questions. I would like to know how many units he is going to have. Mr. Engebretson: There are three buildings, two of them have two units and one has three units for a total of seven. Ms. Rhone: Then my concerns would be with our infrastructure over there being the original, is the sewer system going to be adequate to accommodate the new buildings with as much as has been going on recently and also the water pressure system. Is the Planning Commission aware of the fact that I don't think there has been any improvement in the infrastructure over there through the years. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy handled that question last time. I am going to ask him to please do that again. Mr. Nagy: We had our Engineering Department review this petition showing the seven units and they came back with their report indicating there were no engineering problems, no water problems, etc. in connection with this proposal, therefore they had no objection to it. 13510 Ms. Rhone: In the past I know there have some homes with water in the basements and I was just wondering if the new addition would cause any problems in the area. Mr. Engebretson: It should not based upon our report from Engineering. Ms. Rhone: Okay, that was my main concern. Helen Romaine, 20205 Shadyside: I feel the same as Mrs. Rhone. Mr. Engebretson: Then I guess our answer is the same. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-6-2-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-116-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-6-2-17 by Don Summers requesting waiver use approval to construct single family cluster homes on property located on the south side of Norfolk Avenue between Farmington and Shadyside Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-6-2-17 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 6-11-94, as revised, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Landscape Plan dated 6-12-94 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and the landscape materials shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plans dated June 21, 1994 prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. 4) That all existing trees located outside of the construction areas having a caliper of at lust 3 inches shall be clearly designated for non-removal and shall be protected during the construction process by the use of snow fencing or other such means. 5) That there shall be brick up to gable height on all four elevations of each unit. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general 13511 waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in 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. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-3-5 by Augusto E. Tartaglia requesting to vacate a portion of Haldane Avenue located east of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present? Augusto Tartaglia, 19336 Fitzgerald: The reason why I am asking for that is we have been here for 20 years. I have 70 feet and 10 feet. Mr. Engebretson: You understand if this vacating is successful that half the property would be allocated to and attached to your property and half would be attached to the property to the north? Mr. Tartaglia: My neighbor. He is here right now. Mr. Engebretson: I just wanted to make sure you understand the process. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal? Ray Paquin, 19378 Fitzgerald: I live on Lot 54 and I own Lot 53. I would like one half of this. Mr. Nagy: I would like to add that in our letter from the Engineering Department stating since there are overhead electrical facilities crossing the subject street right-of-way, it is recommended that a full width easement for public utilities be retained over the street right-of-way to be vacated. They stated further the petitioner should be advised that in the opinion of their office 1/2 of the above street right-of-way would be attached to Lot 52 with the remaining portion of the right-of-way reverting to Lot 53. They end by saying they have no objections to this proposal. So while they have no objections to the vacating they do indicate that there are overhead electrical facilities in the subject street 13512 right-of-way and therefore they are recommending a full width easement be retained over the street right-of-way. I thought it would be important information for the petitioner and the abutting property owners to realize that while the City will vacate its interests in terms of road right-of-way purposes, `.. they are going to retain an easement to protect the public utility. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you for bringing that out Mr. Nagy. Do you understand that sir? Mr. Nagy: The only thing you won't be able to do is build a permanent structure such as a garage or an out building. You can certainly use it for garden purposes or landscape purposes or things of that nature. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-3-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-117-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-3-5 by Augusto E. Tartaglia requesting to vacate a portion of Haldane Avenue located east of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-3-5 be approved subject to the retention of a full width easement to protect public utilities for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed to provide for public access. 2) That the subject area can be more properly utilized in private ownership. 3) That the subject area should be placed on the tax rolls of the City of Livonia. 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. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Zoning Ordinance #543 to delete churches as permitted uses in C-2 districts. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, do you have any comments to make since we are the petitioner here? This came about as a result of the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for this public hearing as I recall. 13513 Mr. Nagy: That is true. There was a letter addressed to you as Chairman of the City Planning Commission indicating that the circumstance in which they, as the Zoning Board, had previously been asked to consider whether or not churches should be located within shopping centers, particularly the one they had was because of the two acre requirement that couldn't be complied with. They felt, upon their examination, maybe C-2 shopping centers are not appropriate locations for churches and asked the Planning Commission, as the planning body of the City, to review that matter and the purpose for this hearing is to hear public comment as to whether or not the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so as to remove this permission through the waiver use proceedings of having churches located in commercial districts such as shopping centers. Mr. Engebretson: If this were to be successful, the result would be that churches would continue to be appropriate in residential areas and even be preferred uses under certain circumstances. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Engebretson: Since the City is the petitioner here, we will ask if there is anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-6-3 closed. `... On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-118-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-6-3 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Zoning Ordinance #543 to delete churches as permitted uses in C-2 districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-6-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will delete a use which is normally not permitted in commercial zoning districts. 2) That the proposed language amendment will confine the location of churches to residential districts wherein they are considered as a preferred use. 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. Mt. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 13514 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish parking requirements for transmission repair shops and other types `oma of auto repair facilities. Mr. EngPhretson: Again John, we are the petitioner here. It is my recollection this came about as a recommendation from the Mayor's Roads Beautification Committee recognizing the potential problem with the current Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to parking requirements, and the purpose for this petition is to get that up to date. Would you say that was a fair characterization? Mr. Nagy: I think you gave the full background. Mr. Engehretson: Again, since the City is the petitioner here we will go the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against this proposed change. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-119-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish parking requirements for transmission repair shops and other types of auto repair facilities, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will provide for more adequate off-street parking facilities for auto repair facilities. 2) That the proposed language amendment is needed so as to insure preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer accolades to the Roads Beautification Committee for bringing this forward. It is something we probably should have done years ago but somebody had to bring it forward and congratulations to that committee. Mr. EngPhretson: Mr. Shane and I met this afternoon with the Mayor and conducted business and I don't think I will remember to do that next time but hopefully Mr. Shane will remember to pass that on. t� 13515 Mr. Ehgebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition \.. 94-4-6-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #47-94, to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02 of Zoning ordinance #543 with regard to the placement of pole-mounted basketball backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 districts. Mr. Ehgebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you please enlighten us as to the Council's purpose in sending this to the Planning Commission for this public hearing. Mr. Nagy: The City Council, based upon some complaints by residents with respect to the matter of basketball backboards, decided the ordinance should be looked at to see if we should regulate the placement and number of such basketball backboards. The proposed amendment would indicate that there shall be no more than one such backboard or hoop, either garage or pole mounted, located in all combined front yards or side yard setbacks of a lot. A pole-mounted backboard and hoop shall be located within the one-third of the front yard setback nearest the dwelling and contiguous to the driveway or within the one-third side yard setback nearest the dwelling. This proposed amendment would indicate that we are not restricting basketball backboards or hoops but we are allowing no more than one to be located in your front yard, but take the length of your front yard and it shall be located one third of the distance closest to the house and adjacent and contiguous to the drive, or in the event you want it in your side yard, again you take your side yard and divide it into thirds and it shall be in that one third nearest the dwelling. Again, no more than one such backboard. It is a regulation to try to place the backboard a little further away from property lines to keep balls from going onto adjacent properties or roadways to cause a hazard or a nuisance. Mr. Engebretson: Do you know if this came about because of multiple disputes that had to do with this issue or was there a single complaint? Mr. Nagy: I really don't have the full background. I suspect it was more than just a single complaint but I can't give you a number. Mr. Engebretson: This was, of course, also advertised in the Livonia Observer that this public hearing was going to occur and it has been posted here in City Hall. We will go to the public for their input. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposed ordinance change. 13516 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 94-4-6-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-120-94 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1994 on Petition 94-4-6-5 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #47-94, to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with regard to the placement of pole-mounted basketball backboards and hoops in R-1 through R-5 districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-6-5 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed language amendment will impose unneeded additional regulations on private property owners. 2) That the proposed language amendment bares no relationship to the implementation of City development goals and policies as reflected by the Master Plan of the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: I can certainly appreciate where perhaps some of our residents have concerns about it but I don't think this ordinance would allay those concerns. I think it probably falls in the same category as whether or not people are playing hockey in the `.. street or have swimming pools. It kind of falls in the nuisance category and if there are people abusing it at late hours, etc. there must be other avenues of the City to address those concerns. To single out basketball hoops to me is not appropriate as indicated in the resolution. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 685th Regular Meeting held on June 7, 1994. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-121-94 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 685th Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission held on June 7, 1994 are hereby approved. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. f"" 13517 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 94-4-8-11 by Art Van Furniture requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection ' r with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the commercial building located at 29905 Seven Mile Road in Section 11. Mr. Miller: This is the Art Van Furniture Store which is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road across from the Livonia Mall. They are proposing to put on a 7200 square foot addition to the rear of the store. The floor plan shows that this addition will be used for warehouse use only. The site plan shows parking, which they mcct. Landscaping is 13% when they are required to have 15%. The elevation plan shows the material used to construct this addition will be the same materials as the existing building. It also shows that the east elevation will have six overhead doors and the pavement in front of it will be down sloped and this will be used as a truck well. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Miller, do they have a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Miller: Because this building has improper setbacks, rear and side, it is a non-conforming building, so before they came before you they had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board, which they were, so by virtue of that they were allowed to go forward as if they were a conforming building. Mr. EngPhretson: Would the petitioner please come forward. Randy Bettinger: I am the store manager of the Seven Mile Art Van Store, 29905 Seven Mile Road. What we are looking to do is bring back our delivery system back to the City of Livonia instead of delivering out of Fourteen Mile and Van Dyke, which is in Warren. It will better service the people in this area and ease of operation and less burden on the store and the people as far as the flow of traffic. Mr. Morrow: Will the delivery trucks be downsized? Mr. Bettinger: The same size. Mr. Morrow: So there is no impact in that area? Mr. Bettinger: There would be one impact. The freight trucks that would come into our store right now, would no longer be coming in so there would be less traffic. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was 13518 #6-122-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 94-4-8-11 by Art Van Furniture requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a `. warehouse addition to the commercial building located at 29905 Seven Mile Road in Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan, defined as Sheet SPA-i dated 4/15/94 by Art Van Furniture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Elevation Plan, defined as Sheet SPA-3 dated 4/15/94 by Art Van Furniture, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That a sidewalk be placed along Melvin Avenue consistent with the adjacent sidewalk currently being constructed in connection with a condominium project. Mr. Engehretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: Randy, would you enlighten us as to the logic behind the decision to abandon your plans to change the sign on the front to say Art Van Furniture and Clearance Center or whatever the proposal was a year or so ago? Mr. Bettinger: The plan two years ago was to put a Clearance Center sign out to tell people we had a Clearance Center there. The Planning `,, Commission and the rest of the boards said it wouldn't be in our best interest to put it up because the signage footage isn't allowed for that size building. The idea was abandoned and I haven't brought it up again and don't plan to in the near future. We are drawing the traffic. We could use the sign, there is no question. Mr. Engebretson: Well I have been in your store on a number of occasions and it is my impression that you have proceeded with your marketing plan but that the only thing that was changed was the sign plan. You are operating a clearance center? Mr. Bettinger: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: Successfully? Mr. Bettinger: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: The sign change is not deemed to be necessarily needed? Mr. Bettinger: Yes. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 28007 Eight Mile Road in Section 1. 13519 Mr. Miller: This is the shopping center that is located on the south side of Eight Mile Road just west of Grand River. It is the Arbor Drug Store. They have an existing wall sign on the front of their store, which they were granted. It is 72 square feet. They are requesting another sign exactly the same as the existing one so it will be 72 square feet. They are allowed one sign at 74 square feet so they are in excess of one sign at 70 square feet. To get this before you they had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first, which they did and they were granted a variance for two wall signs, so by virtue of the variance they have a conforming sign package. Mr. Engebretson: We basically covered this at our study meeting and because it is now a conforming sign, we told the petitioner he didn't need to come in tonight. With that in mind, I would look for a motion. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-123-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Beacon Sign Company requesting approval for one wall sign for the building located at 28007 Eight Mile Road in Section 1 be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Package by Beacon Sign Company, received by the Planning Commission on June 1, 1994, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; as well as subject to the following additional conditions required by the Zoning Board of Appeals: 1) The sign is to be identical to the existing sign on the north elevation, including colors, and shall not exceed 72 sq. ft. in area. The sign is to be erected on the east wall as proposed. 2) This sign is for this petitioner and this business only. In the event Arbor Drugs should vacate this location, the signage is to be removed immediately. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Permit Application by Larry A. Pacific for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 14027 Alexander Street in Section 24. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is asking for a 10 foot diameter satellite dish to be located approximately 20 feet from the north lot line and 24 feet f um his rear lot line. To the rear he has the (... 13520 Buckingham Office Complex which is located in the OS area. The satellite dish will be 10 feet in diameter on a 6 foot high pole, which would be approximately 12 feet for the whole apparatus. On the site plan he shows, because it has the `.�. Buckingham Office complex behind him, there is an existing six foot high concrete wall along his rear property line. To the south is an existing six foot high wood fence, and then at the north lot line he would screen it from his neighbors by the existing landscaping. He has submitted consent letters from his adjoining neighbors on the north side and also tonight he submitted one from two lots over on the north. Mr. Engebretson: I see the petitioner is here. Larry Pacific, 14027 Alexander: At the study meeting they wanted a color. I have a sample if you want to see it. It is a mesh dish. It looks like charcoal gray but they call it smoke blue. Mr. Engebretson: I appreciate you bringing in that third consent letter. As we told you last week, our principal concern in dealing with issues like this is the aesthetic impact that they have on the neighboring property owners and we discussed whether or not this dish would be visible beyond your immediate abutting neighbors and you thought it would be two down. Is the landscaping going to prevent that? Mr. Pacific: The house to the south has an above-ground swimming pool so we have a six foot fence on our side. They also have a six foot fence on the other side of their property. Also the way the `r.. road is turning, the second house to the south is basically off at a distance. Their backyard isn't lined up with ours. Also, I might mention there is no way you could see this dish f um the front of the house. Mr. Engebretson: We appreciate your cooperation in dealing with this matter. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-124-94 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application by Larry A. Pacific for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 14027 Alexander Street in Section 24, subject to the following condition: 1) That the Site and Specification Plan by Larry A. Pacific, received by the Planning Commission on June 6, 1994, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. for the following reason: 1) That the proposed satellite antenna location is such that it will not have any detrimental aesthetic impact on the neighboring properties. 13521 Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 686th Regular 4m. Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 21, 1994 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION /// /,'J.., C. McCann, Secretary / ATTEST: Jack Engebretson, Chairman jg r..