Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-06-04 MINUTES OF THE 624th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 4, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 624th 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 20 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 preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions Stow 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, turned the meeting over to Mayor Bennett. Mayor Bennett then presented a pin to Herman Kluver for 20 years of service on the Planning Commission. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 91-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from R-7 to RC. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the subject site. It appears that the site may have to be outletted southerly through the Hines Park area to Newburgh Lake. In addition, appropriate pavement widenings of Plymouth Road may be required by the Wayne County Department of Public Services. In this connection, further right-of-way dedication will be required 11651 along the Plymouth Road frontage (60 ft. ) in accordance with the City's and County's Master Thoroughfare Plans. They state there appears to be no other engineering problems connected with the proposal. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this petition. New Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, since the City is the petitioner on this particular item, would you review for the folks in the audience and the ones at home briefly what the background is that leads up to this particular action and what the current zoning and the proposed zoning would permit. Mr. Shane: This particular piece of property, as indicated, is located on the south side of Plymouth Road some distance west of Newburgh and it is a parcel about 7.3 acres in size. It does carry a zoning classification of R-7, which includes condominiums but also includes apartments. It was rezoned sometime ago and an actual site plan was submitted and approved for a condominium project. That project did not go forth and it still remains in an R-7 district. It is the Planning Commission's charge, in cases like this, to look at land that is being under utilized, or not being utilized at all, to see if the classification of the land still makes sense with respect to the Future Land Use Plan and with respect to the area. In that connection it was felt that the RC classification would be more appropriate because the RC classification would not permit apartments but would only permit condominium units. It was felt because of the other residential facilities in the area that adjacent land such as this would be more in keeping with the City's Master Plan to develop as RC or condominiums so that is the requested rezoning from R-7 to RC. Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Shane. If there are no questions or comments, we will go to the audience to see if anyone wishes to speak for or against the approving of this petition and we will start with the landowner, if he is present. Charles Tangora: I represent the purchaser of this property. I think the Commission will also remember that I represented the previous owner, McBell Management. They are the ones that came in and petitioned for the rezoning to R-7 and also presented a site plan and subsequently the property went into foreclosure and the bank took over. Mr. Parz has purchased it from the bank with certain contingencies. At the time that we appeared before you for McBell, we represented to the Planning Commission, and also to the Council, that petitioner was interested in R-7 for building condominiums. I can assure you that the present purchaser intends to do that so he has no objection to the rezoning to RC. Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak for or against this petition? Wendy Parkins, 11636 Jarvis: I am against this petition. I am representing the Chaney & Bakewell's Association. I would like clarification of exactly what the zoning of this property is. We got the letter e stating it is R-7 but on the tax records, that I researched, it is listed as RUF. 11652 Mr. Shane: You are entirely correct. In the past it was zoned RUF prior to it being zoned R-7 some few years ago. A petition was presented to the City in the form of a petition to rezone to R-7 and it was ultimately approved perhaps two or three years ago so its current classification is R-7. The petition tonight by the Planning Commission would change the R-7 to an RC, which would not allow apartments as the R-7 does but would only allow condominiums. Ms. Parkins: Why was that not changed on the tax records? Mr. Shane: Sometimes when an owner or a new purchaser purchases property, they do not notify the tax assessor right away. That could be one answer. They are sometimes tardy in that respect. The assessor's office does not always know when a sale takes place. Mr. Engebretson: I can certainly understand your opposition to this petition if this were, in fact, zoned RUF. I also understand that you have been working with some information that does not necessarily reflect today's status. I am sure if you want to put your mind at rest as to when all this happened, if you were to contact anyone on the Planning Staff tomorrow morning, they would be happy to supply you with whatever documentation you would care to have relative to public hearings and things and when the zoning changed, but given the fact that it is R-7 and given the fact that what this petition would do would be to decrease the intensity of what would be developed on that property, would you still oppose what is going on here? Ms. Parkins: Yes. I have a statement that I worked up with the other neighbors and I will just go ahead and read it for you. There are many considerations as to what will happen to our neighborhood and Lot 538. Growth management should be of major concern being that a worker in the City Planning Commission office stated that Livonia right now is 95% developed. I know Ed McNamara, being the past Mayor of our City, was highly involved in growth management. People right now choose to live in Livonia because other surrounding cities like Oak Park, Royal Oak, Redford, etc. are being overbuilt and people are fleeing these cities to avoid the urban sprawl that is happening to the communities. Across Plymouth Road to the north, in the petition I read it stated it was going to be zoned R-1 but I don't know if that was finalized. Mr. Engebretson: It has not been finalized yet. Ms. Parkins: When the petitioner got up here he asked for that to be zoned for cluster homes, which is a different zoning. Mr. Engebretson: Cluster homes can go into R-1. Ms. Parkins: Right now we have an existing apartment complex to the west of our subdivision and now you are proposing to sandwich us in with condominiums to the east. Another concern in the area is the wildlife. We have red fox, opossum, raccoons, deer, etc. and a wide variety of birds in this area such as cardinals, bluejays, etc. The developments that are happening around our communities 11653 and other cities keep forcing this wildlife out to areas that are still wooded enough for them to survive in. We would like to maintain a single family atmosphere in harmony with our neighborhood and the properties to the east that are zoned RUF and we feel our neighborhood is truly being suffocated with multi-family dwellings surrounding our homes. Mrs. Fandrei: Ms. Parkins, what we are doing is just restricting the zoning. If we left it as it is right now, if we did not come forward with this petition, he could put in apartments. He has committed to condos, so rather than allow the building of apartments, he is making a commitment to condos and we are restricting it to condos so apartments will not go in. Do you understand the difference in what we are doing? Ms. Parkins: I understand but I feel, and the neighbors feel, that we are in an area that if you go down Newburgh Road you see apartments and businesses and we are a very small residential area and we are being closed in and to live in that environment, it is very threatening. We have a lot of problems in this small area, like having Hygrades across the street. When they smoke their hams you can't stand to breathe outside. There is a lot of concern. What is happening to our City? Mrs. Fandrei: We understand that. As it is right now, he can go in and put in apartments. Ms. Parkins: I can understand wanting to change the zoning but understand us, as residents of this area, how we feel about the zoning. Do you '11111. understand where I am coming from? That is our fear. Edwin Kozial, 11790 Jarvis: This is Lot 16. I have been a resident there since 1968. We have been fighting this piece of property for about 20 years. Several years ago when the petitioner that this man represented came in here and all the neighbors from Chaney & Bakewell Subdivision were here, we all understood this was going to go as condominiums. It was basically shoved down our throats until we received this petition and the neighbors did some checking and found out this piece of property is still farm land. We are still upset because we were under the impression this was going to go to condos. Mr. Engebretson: That is what this proposal is all about. Mr. Kozial: I received on the same day two petitions from the City of two different hearings. I don't know if this fellow represents the second item that is on the agenda today because that has something to do with this piece of property. This second petition deals with this piece of property. (He pointed out area on the map) I am against this being apartments. Across the street it was brought up to the Planning Commission probably a month and a half ago as 'qrr.- 11654 cluster homes. This piece of property should go back for further study before we get anything put in here. Let's hold the line on what we put in here. Mr. Engebretson: I am confused. You seem to be in favor of condominiums and against apartments. Mr. Kozial: That is what I understood we. are getting was the condominiums. If this petitioner still does not get what he wants, then we are going to end up with apartments. None of the 15 houses on Jarvis, or the surrounding neighborhoods, want neither condos nor apartments. Mr. Morrow: I think perhaps we didn't explain it very well. When this property was rezoned to R-7, we did not have available to us an RC zoning classification. We could not specifically designate what could go on that property. The petitioner told us it would be condos but he could have come back in or submitted a plan for apartments. This is brought before you tonight, by the City Planning Commission, meaning we are trying to put it back to the use that we were told it was going to be in the beginning and that is condos. That is what we are doing. We are rezoning to what we wanted to do in the first place but we didn't have an ordinance at that time that would put it in that classification. As far as the petition coming up, I will learn with you what the motives are because this is our petition and the next one is brought by an independent petitioner and you and I will learn together what his intent is with that zoning classification. Nelson Kowalski, 37921 Plymouth: I lived in this area for years and one of the most attractive features of living in this area is that it is secluded and it is nice and green and until we had the hot dog `'r. plant go in across the street with airplane motors blasting constantly, it was a very quiet and nice place to live. Livonia is a community of homes, the western end of the City especially. No one has ever come up to me, in my entire time living in Livonia, and said "Boy you live in Livonia. They have some beautiful apartments there". I have lived in Canton and Westland and I have seen what can happen to places Canton Gardens, Canton Commons, Stonybrook. There are places in Troy and Westland. It is not a good idea. Single family homes represent stability and they show a commitment to one's community. People that live in single family homes keep their places up and show a commitment. We have all seen apartment complexes go bad. This deal will probably go through and the taxpayers are all going to be stuck with increased traffic, police, fire, crime and all costs incurred for handling this while an absentee owner sits off 20 to 30 miles away and has very little concern for the property or the people in it. A very small group of people are going to make a killing. Somebody is going to make a lot of money at one time and we are going to be stuck with it. Mr. Vyhnalek: He is talking about apartments. We are talking about condominiums where people take care of them and live in them and don't move. Mr. Kowalski: I would just like to say finally, I hope it stays single family homes. This is why people live in Livonia. Apartments and condos are not what we came here for. `rr. 11655 Mr. Tent: Mr. Kowalski and Mr. Kozial and Ms. Parkins, you have all gotten the wrong message here and I have to go on record with Mr. Vyhnalek. We are talking about condominiums not apartments. The zoning that took place, took place a while back and it was for R-7, which would be apartments and that would fall into the category of what you were saying. What we are doing now, to protect the area and to protect the zoning in there, we are going to an RC, which is condominiums, and as my colleague had mentioned, condominiums are owned by people. They live here. They pay taxes and they are just as important to the City as people who buy residential homes. They are part of the community. They are not absentee landlords. So by going in this direction to the RC would give them exactly what Mr. Kozial was asking for. We are bringing in private individual ownership. It is not going to be a transient type of operation. We are talking zoning right now. They are going to have to come forth with a site plan. With the site plan we are going to control density. This is the next phase of this petition and at that time we can look to control the density. Don't be alarmed and come in with the misconception that these are going to be apartments. They are not going to be apartments. They would have been if we didn't take the action today by going from the R-7 to the RC because he does have the zoning for apartments. For now, we are protecting you and protecting the area. We are going in that direction the best we can with the RC zoning. It is not transient. Mr. Kowalski: It just seems really silly though when we have areas where there are apartments and we have areas where there are homes, to put condos or apartments in the middle of a group of homes. It will be two or three stories? Mr. Engebretson: No. You don't understand what is going on here sir. They are not going to be three stories. I will guarantee you that. At a maximum, they will be two and they will probably be one. We don't know, and we won't know that tonight, because we are not dealing with the site plan issue. That is a separate issue. This is zoning and let me just say it one more time. If we did nothing, or if this petition fails, this landowner can come into the City tomorrow with a plan for apartments with probably double or triple the density that would be allowed under this proposed plan and he wouldn't have any problem getting that approved. The City wouldn't be in a defensible position to stop that. Mr. Kowalski: Perhaps the issue then should be we should be presenting a petition to change the zoning to single family homes. Maybe that is what we should be doing. Mr. Engebretson: I don't know about filing a petition to change the zoning of privately held land to something else. I just don't know if that can be done. Ms. Parkins: When I come to the City and I get my information, I get what they have readily available to me. I want to ask a straightforward question. When you update your files on the land zoning codes, do you do that when you do tax assessments? Do you do it when the zonings are changed? 11656 Mr. Engebretson: To answer your question, if you want to know something about the zoning issues within the City of Livonia, the Planning Department would have absolutely current records, up to date I would imagine within days of such an event being concluded. In addition to that, all zoning changes are published in the newspaper with sketches and descriptions. There is nobody concealing anything here, but in a bureaucracy, and you are referring to the tax assessor's office, things take a while to work their way through but for future reference, the Planning Department could give you specific details of the status of zoning districts absolutely guaranteed current and if you wanted to know the petition number and the public hearing dates and the transcript of the meeting, all of those things would be available. They are all public record and nothing is being concealed. Ms. Parkins: I was just curious. I was here on May 21st and I asked for a tax and property file, which I have a copy of, and they state that this land code on this parcel is RUF as far as taxing. The last tax change was January 30, 1990. That is what concerns me. How do I know what is really truly up to date because you are telling me it is R-7. Mr. LaPine: I think I can clarify that. I may be wrong but I am pretty sure I am right. If you went to the tax office and you asked what this land was being taxed at, it probably is being taxed at RUF because it hasn't been developed. The zoning is there but it hasn't been developed. As soon as he puts his spade in the ground and it is developed into the RC, condos, then it becomes RC zoning and it will be taxed as an RC piece of property. Right now it is just a piece of land that is laying there so it probably is being taxed RUF. The person you should have called, as the Chairman pointed out, is not the tax assessor's office because as far as he is concerned it is still vacant land, which it is, but the Planning Department has the up-to-date information. Ms. Parkins: As far as submitting a petition to have zoning changed on a parcel of land, a builder can come in here as contingent owner based on them getting all their zoning changes, even if they don't own it outright? Mr. Engebretson: If they have written permission of the landowner to file that petition. Ms. Parkins: But you couldn't do that to change any land anywhere? Mr. Engebretson: I wouldn't want anyone to file a petition to change the zoning at my house. Ms. Parkins: I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-4-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was 11657 #6-91-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1991 on Petition 91-4-1-11 by the City Planning Commission proposing to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from R-7 to RC, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-4-1-11 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will ensure that the subject land is developed for condominium uses as opposed to rental apartment uses. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan designation of the subject land of medium density residential. 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. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to make one brief point. I don't want to appear to be insensitive to the concerns expressed by the neighbors because I think I understand where you are coming from but there has been a lot of confusion as the basis of some of your concerns, i.e. that it is RUF, another gentleman has been talking about putting L. apartments in here, we have transient residents that aren't going to keep up their property, etc. , when, in fact, none of those things are true and the bottom line is the City Planning Commission took this action to assure a minimized impact on the existing residents to provide further protection and enhancement of their property values by eliminating those points of concern that you talked about. So again, at the risk of appearing insensitive, that is not the case at all, we are really assuring that your interests are looked after here and that there will be a benefit to you in spite of the fact there has been a lot of misunderstanding. Mr. LaPine: I have been in Livonia 33 years. At one time we had a referendum in this town because people didn't want apartments. The referendum passed - it said no more apartments in Livonia. Builders took that to court and the Supreme Court said you cannot rule out apartments. A community must have all types of residential buildings so that ordinance was stricken down. There is nothing you can do about apartments or condos or single family homes. The only thing we can do at the City administration is to try to work to get the best that we can get and we can assure you that when we get a site plan on this piece of property, we are not going to give you anything down in that area that you are not going to be proud of. 11658 Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 91-4-1-10 by Ronald Parz requesting to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road east of Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from R-1 to RC. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Shane: 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 they have no objection to this petition, however, they do maintain overhead lines on this property that would conflict with any construction. They state to please inform the developer that they will need a site plan as soon as possible as they need eight to ten weeks to relocate their equipment, provided all necessary permits and rights of way can be secured. Mr. Engebretson: Will the petitioner please come up and tell us what you have in mind with this petition. Charles Tangora: I am representing the petitioner, Ron Parz. This particular piece of property has the identical ownership and purchaser as the first petition that was recommended from R-7 to RC. As I indicated the present owner is the bank and Mr. Parz is the purchaser with contingencies. The property that went into foreclosure is not only the R-7 but the adjoining parcel. That particular piece of property was bought by McBell subsequent to the filing of the original petition when they came in before you to change the zoning of the other parcel to R-7. Rather than go back and start over 'ft,.► again, they decided to go forward. Subsequently as I have indicated the bank wants to sell the entire parcel so if Mr. Parz wants the R-7 he has to also take this particular piece of property that is RUF. In considering the entire parcel, as a developer and in conjunction with good planning principles, he would consider this piece of property in conjunction with the condo site. He can use part of that property for setbacks, which have been set up in the RC zoning. He can also use it for some other use that he has. One of the things I have been told is there will be a retention pond that would be necessary. He looks at this particular piece of property as a potential area that he could put those types of amenities in that will be part of the entire development. Without that, this piece of property would not exist by itself and I think good planning and good engineering principles dictate that this piece of property, with the common ownership, would be developed and planned along with the condo development. I might mention that for this type of planning what he is looking for in the condos, nowhere comes close to the type of density that could go into this place. The value of the condos that he is planning are considerably more expensive than the type of condos that the McBell Organization was planning. They are one and two story ranch and townhouses. They will be sold in excess of $100,000. With the previous petition we had, the sale price was between $70,000 and $80,000 and I think the only thing we would want you to recognize 11659 is for us to go forward and really start on this entire site, we have to have some type of determination whether this piece of property will be zoned in conjunction with the other site or left in the RUF. I think it was suggested that if it was left in the RUF, it would not be able to be developed. * Mr. Nagy entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora, to not further confuse the issue, you have made several references to that property as being RUF and I believe it is R-1. Mr. LaPine: Who owns the property to the north? Mr. Tangora: It is my understanding they are all part of the residences. Mr. LaPine: Sinc23, 24the 4 andbank put owns a bidthis inproperty, thecould portionsresidents between each one of their properties? Mr. Tangora: I guess they could. That property has been vacant for a long period of time prior to the time the McBell organization bought it. Mr. LaPine: If you are going to put a retention pond in there abutting residential homes, you don't have my vote. Mr. Tangora: Obviously you have the controlling voice on that because we have to come back to you with a site plan. Mr. LaPine: You abut Middle Rouge Parkway, which is a flood plain, and you can dump your water directly into the flood plain. ther Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr.let mengora, I thro ghve theaken Chairhe firrst, Johnrwhat.areysetbacksang is, for g condos from the property line? Mr. Nagy: Fifty feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: So if that piece of property was attached to the piece we just passed for RC and that is RC, then they can build a condo 50 feet from the homeowner's property line. That is almost 79 feet in width. So without a retention pond there it could move the condos closer to the homeowners. Mr. Tangora: Absolutely. They have to be 50 feet away from the property line. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Tangora, I would like a clarification. You said if the purchaser were to go through with this purchase agreement and purchase what is now on the board R-7, would this parcel be a part of that? Mr. Tangora: Part of the same package. Mrs. Fandrei: Whether the zoning is changed or not? 11660 Mr. Tangora: Obviously yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy or Mr. Shane, what is the distance between the homes and this parcel? `m. Mr. Nagy: A range of 60 to 80 feet. Mr. Tent: Mr. Tangora, the retention pond is quite an issue because it is something that is objectionable to a lot of people. Could you explain what type of retention pond this would be? Mr. Tangora: The only thing I have seen are plans from the previous petitioners, who were planning the same type of development. It is not a retention plan that sounds like some kind of a lot that has some water in it and sometimes weeds grow out of it. Both petitioners have planned to use that "retention pond" as something of beauty because if they don't, they are not going to be selling condos. It would be part of the overall condo project and it would have to be an amenity to the condo project so that people who would be buying condos in the south end of the development, the retention pond would have to be down there, would be overlooking something that was scenic not something that was a mass of weeds and standing water. Obviously, we have to come back to you. If it is going to be part of site plan for location, we will with our engineers and working with the City engineers, we will try to decide what we feel is a good location but we will have to come back to you and the City Council to either overrule us or agree with our reasoning. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora I think it is safe to say from what I have heard here tonight that if this were successful, there would be no way that o.. property would ever be used for a retention pond. If it were amenties that were attractive to the condo owners as well as the homeowners, it might be a different story. I can't imagine that the whole development of that large piece of property would be contingent upon the inclusion of that little corner there. I understand the package goes together from the standpoint of acquiring it from the bank but the retention pond does conjure up scary connotations and I don't think we can risk that. While this is a zoning issue and the site plan issues really aren't appropriately discussed here, we owe it to the nearby residents that their interests be looked out for here, and I think we owe it to your client to know that there would be resistance to a retention pond. You do have a good place to stick it in a pipe and take it out to the Middle Rouge Parkway. Mr. Tangora: Obviously we will have to work with the Wayne County people with that and I am not sure what their requirements are. One request I would have, I would ask that the Commission here take action either approving or denying on this particular petition tonight. We do have a time problem. The purchase agreement has a contingency and has a time in there so we either go forward one way or the other either with or without this particular piece of property. Mr. Engebretson: I understand. Thank you very much. Now we will go to the audience to see if anyone would like to speak for or against this petition. 11661 Carol Pankow, 11716 Jarvis: I wasn't supposed to read this. Another one of my neighbors was supposed to read this but she is a little uptight and she asked me to read it. We have three lots. We have 20, 21 and 22. We are truly affected by this. Two of our lots we own all the way back to the R-7 property. I will speak personally after I finish reading the statement from the association. "We the residents of the Chaney & Bakewell Association are in agreement that Lot 537b2 should remain an R-1 zoning so it will keep the property line on the east of Jarvis uniform to the existing residential lots in the subdivision. Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 and 537b1 abut parcel 537b2 to the north and the west. Changing this uniformity would mutilate and destroy the environment of these properties also infringing on the subdivision." That is from the association and there are lots of us here. Basically the whole neighborhood is here. We have met several times about this. Like I said, my husband and I own 20, 21 and 22. I would welcome any of you to walk my property any time of the day you want and see the kind of situation we are in here. The R-7, I realize is multiple. There is nothing I can do about that any more but please consider the problems we have with that strip. Mr. Engebretson: What would you propose happen to that strip? Mrs. Pankow: We would love to purchase it but the price was double. I wanted to say something else. The man, and we talked to him many times, is David Frost that owns that property. We wanted to buy that property but he has doubled the purchase price. We can't afford it right now. We would love to have it because we felt we could subdivide that to the three ownerships. As far as we know David Frost owns that property. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Tangora just said it is owned by a bank and that both pieces are in foreclosure. He is a very competent attorney and he wouldn't say that if he doesn't know that to be a fact. Mrs. Pankow: As far as him having to have this property, I believe he can do without it and please help us out here because this is a big, big issue. The uniformity of just these last three or four lots is all we are asking for. Mrs. Fandrei: Mrs. Pankow, just to give you a feeling of how I feel, I agree with you. I do not want to see that line changed. I don't want the condominiums to come any closer to the homes. I think that would be a good buffer. Personally I would like to see it stay. Mr. McCann: I am not here to say what I am for or against. I have complete understanding with what you want to do with the three lots and I think it makes sense to maintain that as R-1, however, we do have a petition coming up regarding South Drive, just south of that and I think it would be a mistake for the Planning Commission tonight to vacate South Drive thereby locking the parcel in with the R-7. I agree with the R-1 remaining, however I think vacating South Drive would be a mistake. I think that is something maybe in the future. Mrs. Pankow: Exactly. 'fir 11662 Edwin Kozial: I own Lot 16, 17 and 537a3. Back in 1968 I bought the home. In 1969 I bought the other lot for $2,000. I asked the man who owned it if he also owned this and he said yes. He said if you want to buy that, I was going to give it to you, but if you want to buy it, it will cost you $250. I bought this 89' by 100' lot. I would like you to take your time in deciding on this piece of property over here because I want it to be landlocked. I don't understand why a bank, and banks deal with people every day, why they wouldn't come up to these three owners of these homes here. In over twenty years of having known the owners before, they all tried to buy that piece of property. The lady who owned it wouldn't sell. My kids have grown up here. I would like to see it stay as a residential piece of property not only for me, but as Carol Pankow stated, they want an enormous price for this piece of property. I have a beautiful piece of property. Let us keep it that way. Wendy Parkins, 11636 Jarvis: On this piece of property, as I was checking City records again, it states that the owner of this property is David Frost and there is no bank note on this piece of property. It is owned by David Frost outright. It states that in the record. Mr. Engebretson: This property went into foreclosure. That is how the bank got this property. Ms. Parkins: I would not like to see this go anything but R-1 and keep it part of our subdivision. If you break it off like that you are going to ruin the environment of our area there. It is a very quaint, quiet little neighborhood. It is not a big property. It might cost them a condominium in the end but everything is relative to who is getting the money and who it is benefitting. I would firw like to see it not changed. Kerry Pankow, 11716 Jarvis: My problem with this is I have actually kept up that little piece of property for twelve years now. If you can understand, I am exactly ten feet away from the lot line. I have put up with all the different sayings. When we went to the hearings on apartments on the other side of Alois, we were told at that time that we were not going to be sandwiched in. You definitely come home in a good mood because you say we are not going to have apartments or condos on the other side because the City of Livonia at that time said it wasn't going to happen. Now it was changed to multiple dwellings and now to go to condos. I feel better about it but at that time we asked about that little parcel and it was always said it was not going to be included. Again, it keeps being changed. I am really totally against this because if you could walk around in my backyard and see how close this would be. It almost forces you to move and when we are told retention pond, I can't say enough against it. It is a beautiful place to live. I do not want to move. I love the lot I have and I want to stay there. Mr. Engebretson: John, if that South Drive vacating were to not happen, could that property be developed as R-1? Mr. Nagy: Yes. fir.. 11663 Mr. Engebretson: So then possibly there could be one or more houses back there rather than a condo? Mr. Nagy: Certainly one house. I don't know about more than one. But definitely one. It could take its access from South Drive. Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to ask Mr. Tangora a question. Since you represent Mr. Parz, a prudent businessman and developer in the City of Livonia, would he consider selling that lot to the homeowners once he got possession of it? Mr. Tangora: I can't answer for Mr. Parz. Mr. Vyhnalek: Could Mr. Parz step up to the podium and answer that himself or is that unanswerable at this time? As a prudent businessman and developer who wants to work with the community and the neighbors, I think it would be to the best interest of this project if he were to obtain the whole property from the bank. Mr. Tangora: Let me say obviously that the bank is not going to be left with a small piece of property. As we go through the process, it is either going to be approved or not approved. If it is not approved, that leaves Mr. Parz with a piece of property he cannot use. He has to make a decision then to either sell it or try to develop it for some other residential use. I think one of the things that will come up is obviously I don't think he wants to lose money. He is a good businessman and he has proven that in this community and other communities. I think one of the considerations, obviously, would be how much he had to pay for that property. I recognize that it is not worth as much as the present R-7 property. I think that is an economic decision that he would have to make if and when that day comes. Mr. Vyhnalek: I think you could develop a very nice condominium complex just on the R-7 without that little piece of property and again, if he was a prudent businessman and wanted to be good to the neighbors and work it out, I think if he could work it out before he got to Council so there wouldn't be a big argument, I think that is what the neighbors want. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-4-1-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-92-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1991 on Petition 91-4-1-10 by Ronald Parz requesting to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road east of Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from R-1 to RC, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-4-1-10 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning would encroach into a single family residential subdivision area. 11664 2) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which designates the area as low density residential. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent single residential uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##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 91-3-3-1 by Anthony Jablonski and Eva Reno proposing to vacate South Drive east and west of Jarvis, south of Plymouth, 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 objection to the vacating of South Drive. However, it is recommended that a full width easement for public utilities and surface drainage be retained over the area to be vacated to accommodate maintenance of existing water main and sanitary sewer systems as well as road drainage from Alois and Jarvis. Further, it is this department's understanding that the south 274.17 feet of Lot 537 will be developed with Lot 538 so that it will not be landlocked. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison 4rm. stating they have no objections to this petition. Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here? Tony Jablonski, 11645 Jarvis: When I petitioned for the land to be vacated, I only petitioned for the property adjacent to my property not east of my property, which it says on the notice. I never requsted any other land but my own. Mr. Nagy: The petitioner's letter went to the City Council and the City Council by Resolution ##279-91 referred your letter to the Planning Commission and went on to add language in the referral resolution that South Drive be considered in its entirety to be vacated. It was at the Council's direction that entire South Drive be considered for vacating. Mr. Engebretson: The key word is considered. That is not to say it will happen. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, can we dissect this petition tonight? Mr. Nagy: Yes. You can recommend all or part or none. Wendy Parkins: From the Chaney & Bakewell Association, we would like to eventually see the whole area vacated but at this time we would like the piece next to Lot 25 held until something is decided on Lot 535b2. We have no problem with vacating the rest of South Drive. '041111.- 11665 Mr. Engebretson: Is the property owner of Lot 69 here tonight? Would you tell us how you feel about this madam? Eva Reno, 11620 Alois: The only reason I want that adjacent property is so nothing ti"" can be done to it. I want it left just the way it is. Mr. Engebretson: You are prepared to pay whatever additional taxes would come with that? Ms. Reno: Yes I am. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-3-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Gniewek and unanimously approved, it was #6-93-91 RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1991 on Petition 91-3-3-1 by Anthony Jablonski and Eva Reno proposing to vacate South Drive east and west of Jarvis, south of Plymouth, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-3-3-1 be approved as far as vacating that portion of South Drive adjacent to Lots 26 and 29- `:only and further subject to the retention of a full width easement so as to protect existing public utilities for the following reasons: 1) That the subject right-of-way is no longer needed for public access purposes. ,. 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more logically used and maintained in private ownership. 3) That no reporting City Department or Public Utility Company have objected to the proposed vacating. AND FURTHER, that Petition 91-3-3-1 be denied as far as vacating that portion of south Drive adjacent to Lot 25 for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way protects existing public utilities. 2) That the subject road right-of-way may be needed in the future for public access purposes. 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. Engebretson passed the gavel to Mr. Kluver. 11666 Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 91-3-3-2 by George Zammit proposing to vacate that portion of Haldane west of Fitzgerald Avenue between Seven Mile and Pembroke in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Sow 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 that the legal description retains appropriate easement areas for the existing Detroit Edison facilities along the westerly limits of the street as well as a twenty (20) foot easement for sanitary sewer purposes from Fitzgerald Avenue west to the Willow Woods Subdivision. They further state they have no objections to the vacating proposal. We have also received a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to this petition, however, they do maintain overhead lines on this property that would conflict with any construction. Mr. Kluver: Is the petitioner present: Patty Zammit, 19349 Fitzgerald: Just like the letter says, we just want it because our driveway is off on the easement. We want the shed to be in line with the driveway. Mr. Vyhnalek: On the east side, is that also vacant? Mr. Nagy: It is the same situation. `.• Mr. Vyhnalek: That can happen to the neighbor to the north also? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-3-3-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #6-94-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 4, 1991 on Petition 91-3-3-2 by George Zammit proposing to vacate that portion of Haldane west of Fitzgerald Avenue between Seven Mile and Pembroke in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-3-3-2 be approved subject to retention of a 12 foot wide easement over the west 12 feet of the subject right-of-way and a 20 foot wide easement over the south 20 feet of the north 30 feet of the subject right-of-way for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed for public access purposes. 11667 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more logically used and maintained in private ownership. 3) That no reporting City Department or Public Utility Company have objected to the proposed vacating. 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. Kluver, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver returned the gavel to Mr. Engebretson. Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 91-1-7-1 by the City Planning Commission, 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. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you give us a brief synopsis of what we are taking under consideration here. Mr. Nagy: Tonight we will be reviewing a series of proposed changes in the City's Future Land Use Plan where certain areas have changed due to zoning changes or actual developments so to have the Future Land Use Plan brought up to date and made current with the actual existing conditions in the field either by way of development or zoning changes. So it is an attempt to amend the Future Land Use fir. Plan for housekeeping purposes to keep it current with the actual conditions. We will be using a series of visual aids to show the subject parcels. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane has 27 graphics. I would propose that we ask Mr. Shane to go through them identifying the location and in a brief manner describe what the current use is and what we are considering changing the Future Land Use Plan to reflect. If there is any particular one of them that any member or staff has any comments to add or question to ask, you can please ask for the floor and we will interrrupt Mr. Shane. Mr. Shane showed the 27 graphics and briefly explained each one. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-7-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-95-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on June 4, 1991, for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled "The Future Land Use Plan", the same is hereby amended so as 11668 to update the Future Land Use Plan in accord with actual and proposed revisions having occurred since adoption of the Plan on June 10, 1975, for the following reasons: Noir consistent That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan are consistent with recent changes of zoning and/or with the current established uses of the land. 2) That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan will keep the plan current in keeping with the Planning Commission's policy. 3) That the proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Plan are logical and reasonable. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #6-96-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 623rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 14, 1991 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson, Gniewek, McCann, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei ABSENT: None Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #6-97-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Redstone Architects on behalf of Amoco Oil Co. for a new ground sign on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads be approved subject to the following condition: 'grow 11669 1) That the Sign for Amoco Oil Co. at Six Mile and Haggerty Roads, as shown on Drawing 2803.00/G-1 prepared by Redstone Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. \.. 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #6-98-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Sign Permit Application by Redstone Architects on behalf of Amoco Oil Co. for a new ground sign on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads. 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 Now Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Gniewek, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-99-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Permit Application by Jerry Carson for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property located at 31185 Lyndon in Section 23 for the following reasons: 1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that this proposal is in compliance with the general standards set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the general aesthetic character of the surrounding area. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 624th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 4, 1991 was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously adopted to reconvene the 624th Regular ,ftw Meeting at 10:05 p.m. 11670 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #6-100-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-4-8-25 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a mixed use development on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the I-275 Freeway in Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Revised Site Plan as shown on Sheet S1 dated 5/24/91 submitted by Schostak Brothers & Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Plan as shown on Sheet A4-1 prepared by Crawford, McWilliams Hatcher Architects, Inc. dated 5/24/91 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the signs shown on the proposed building elevations are subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number on site. 4) That the site landscaping be rejuvenated wherever necessary in order to bring it up to quality standards. Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 624th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on June 4, 1991 was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretary ATTEST: ' yL , Lil L:/4t3 Jack Engebre son, Chairman jg