HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-11-21 10902
MINUTES OF THE 590th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 21, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 590th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. William LaPine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 50 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent
Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski R. Lee Morrow
James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: Herman Kluver
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also
present.
Mr. LaPine 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 do
not become effective until 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. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-10-1-30 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located south
of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 32, from RUF and C-2 to R-1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the proposed rezoning.
Mr. LaPine: This petition was initiated by the Planning Commission. Is there
anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the
granting of this petition?
Frederick Post: I live in the corner house on Leon at Arthur. I would like to see
R-1 going behind me. My only interest is how is that going to affect
getting into it? Your notice stated you will have lots 60'x 120' but
you are showing 180' . I imagine that is to allow a road to come in
on the south side of the rezoned property.
`..
10903
Mr. Nagy: The purpose for the 180 feet of depth is, in fact, 60 feet for the
road and 120 feet for the depth of the lot. The road will be on the
north side of the proposed area of the R-1 zoning. Recently there
was an approval for a subdivision known as Van Court in back of the L
A Plaza shopping center. That subdivision will bring the road from
Levan Road easterly along the north side of that property immediately
south of the wall that is in back of that shopping center. That
road, hopefully, will be continued easterly across this additional
area that is now proposed to be rezoned to the R-1 classification,
which would provide for lot sizes comparable to what you have and
comparable to what is now being planned for as part of the Van Court
Subdivision. You will have lots backing up to your lot rather than a
road.
Mr. Post: Then that is fine. There is no intention of joining that road to
Elmira?
Mr. Nagy: That is a future matter that will have to be worked out at the time
the plat is prepared to determine whether or not there is support to
the proposal to connect to Elmira Dr. or end in a cul-de-sac.
Whether it ends in a court or ties into Elmira is something we will
have to wait and see how that works out. Right now we are in the
very first stages trying to get the land zoned and sometime in the
future there will be an additional hearing on the actual subdivision
plan. This is really just putting in place the zoning and another
hearing will follow when we get in the platting stages.
Mr. Post: The lot on the north side, their house faces north. Would there be
any possibility of that connecting lot, if there is one, interfering
with me? It will interfere with Lot 1. I don't think you will have
much trouble there.
Mr. Cockrum, 35841 Plymouth Road: The way it is standing now, we have over four
acres and if they take that back section off, it will leave us down
to three acres. We have had two or three possibilities of selling
that but nobody wants less than four acres. If they take an acre off
the back it will cheapen the rest of my land. I would like to leave
it as four acres commercial.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Cockrum, are you talking about the C-2?
Mr. Cockrum: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What building is that:
Mr. Cockrum: That is our farm market.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that land for sale?
Mr. Cockrum: It could be for sale. We have had a couple of inquiries but they
have both asked for a minimum of four acres.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Cockrum, how long have you owned that property?
Mr. Cockrum: Since 1964.
10904
Mr. Morrow: Has it always been in its present use?
Mr. Cockrum: Ever since it has been there.
Mr. Morrow: Have you ever anticipated expanding that use on that four acres?
Mr. Cockrum: No.
Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to point out that if we were to leave that C-2
piece commercial, then we are going to have an intrusion of a
commercial type zoning coming down into a residential area,
surrounded on three sides by residential. I don't think that would
be a good plan. I think we should have residential in back and
commercial in front.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-10-1-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-235-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
21, 1989 on Petition 89-10-1-30 by the City Planning Commission requesting
to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and
Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF and C-2 to R-1,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 89-10-1-30 be approved for the following reasons:
1) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding uses in the area.
2) The proposed change of zoning will remove unneeded commercial zoning
in the area.
3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for the use of vacant land
in the area for single family residential lots compatible with the
adjacent existing subdivision.
4) The proposed change of zoning will provide for development that is
consistent with good land use planning.
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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-10-1-31 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #843-89,
requesting to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between
Purlingbrook and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from
M-1 to R-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
10905
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bakewell was this line redefined since we first saw this item
to exclude certain of the commercial lots.
Mr. Bakewell: There is another transparency that redefines the lines. (Mr.
Near Bakewell showed the new transparancy to the Commissioners and
audience) As per the discussion at the study session, you can see
the lines for the lots adjacent to the lots that front on Eight Mile
have been removed from that particular petition that was originally
shown on the screen. Now we are talking about mainly an area that is
presently occupied by single family homes.
Mr. LaPine: The distance from Eight Mile to where we are proposing is what?
Mr. Bakewell: From the center line, subtracting the width of these particular lots
and that portion that cuts through the southern tier of lots, would
be 195 feet.
Mr. Morrow: Maybe Mr. Bakewell, for the benefit of the audience, could explain a
little bit about that R-2 section that sets up there intruding into
the M-1 district.
Mr. Bakewell: These particular lots were requested to be rezoned from the present
classification at that time from M-1 to R-2 by the owner of these
lots and the Planning Commission honored that request and so did the
City Council. Therefore you have the R-2 there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That means that by lowering the one lot south, that line is 195 feet,
and that means it is going to affect two commercial businesses. Is
that correct? One is way out of sync anyways. What is that
commercial in the blue right now? What business is that?
Mr. Bakewell: I think that is the particular one that we couldn't identify as far
as what type of business is in there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is it a viable business? Maybe someone in the audience will tell us.
Mr. Tent: What we are attempting to do is redefine the zoning boundary line,
however, it will still be a straight line diversion. Is that
correct? We are making a clean cut to make a natural division
between the industrial uses and the residential?
Mr. Bakewell: Right. As it was discussed with certain industrial property owners
that front on Eight Mile Road, that these lots that abut their
property are to be left in the M-1 zoning classification pretty much
to reflect their particular use at the present time wherein these
lots here that are vacant are not.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to the proposed rezoning.
Mr. LaPine: This again is a City Planning Commission petition pursuant to a
Council resolution. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to
speak for or against this petition?
Cyril Levinson, 24901 Northwestern Hwy. : Some of the questions my clients have is
number one, what is the reason for the rezoning?
10906
Mr. Nagy: It is to bring, to the extent we can, the established land use in
compliance with the appropriate zoning classification. You can see
from the map, with one exception, that the property is actually used
residentially, however it is zoned industrially so the homes are not
complying with respect to the industrial zoning. What this will be
doing by removing the industrial zoning classification, the affected
lots will have the more appropriate residential classification.
Mr. Levinson: My understanding is that the rezoning from M-1 to R-2, that there are
businesses where the parking lots will be taken? Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: As you can see from the two maps. The first map may have taken some
of the parking away but as a result of our study meeting last Tuesday
evening a new line has been defined and has been brought further
south so that the parking area that may have occurred in the back of
some of those industrial buildings established on the south side of
Eight Mile Road are no longer within the petitioned area.
Mr. Morrow: If the counsellor could let us know which lots he is representing.
Mr. Levinson: Lots 100 and 101. That is Richard Bame's property. My understanding
was this property was purchased because it was zoned M-l. Now the
property is going to be rezoned to R-2.
Mr. Nagy: Lot 101 is deleted but Lot 100 is not because it has an established
residential use on the property.
Mr. Levinson: He purchased both lots with the knowledge, at that time, that it was
zoned M-l. That was three years ago. His intent was to put up a
building. He has petitioned this body before. With the rezoning to
R-2, he will not be able to put up a building. That is my
understanding right now. I can only indicate, as I said before, he
purchased this property three years ago because of the zoning being
M-1. I have looked in that area myself and what is in that area and
I think as far as the vacant lots there, I think he would be hard
pressed to put up new residential buildings in that particular area
when you look at the condition of the particular homes in that area
especially with existing businesses that are there and especially
with the age of the area and the age of the neighborhood that exists
at this time.
Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I am one of the directors of the North Central
Civic Association. We have been in existence for 31 years trying to
maintain our area. Our area goes from Farmington Road to Middlebelt
and from Eight Mile Road to Pembroke. It has been a constant fight
for us in the past years to come down here protecting our homes and
the Council has brought this about to try to stop the infringing into
the residential area where a person has a piece of land that is
partly residential and partly industrial where they have continually
tried to come back into the residential area for parking or whatever.
The people in the area also bought their homes there intending to
live there and have lived there for many years and we have made a big
investment into the area and this would be a big relief to us to have
this done. Mr. Tent and Mr. LaPine know how many years we have been
coming down to City Hall fighting for our rights. I think it is time
10907
that the City looks up to the residents and respect the residents.
Who makes up the City? It is the residents and the people of Livonia
that makes up a City. A City is nothing without residents.
Sharon Wagner, 20417 Fremont: I am the second house from Morlock. We have a home
that is just two doors from us that is partially zoned M-1 and
partially residential. My husband and I have lived in this
neighborhood since we were babies. Our parents fought for this to go
through and we are taking over where they left off. I would truly
like to see this go through and I think I represent the majority of
people who couldn't be here tonight. What use is a piece of property
that is half residential and half manufacturing? The residential
people living there are thinking that eventually it will go
industrial. He is just going to hold that residential home that is
sitting there and let it run down because he is hoping it will
eventually go industrial. It should be rezoned residential.
Robert Wyman, 20321 Shadyside: I think it is great what the City is attempting to
do. That is all I have to say.
Rocky Zebari, 37731 Centerview, Farmington Hills: I operate a grocery store on Eight
Mile Road, which is three lots. We will be affected. That has been
M-1 since the early fifties. If something happens to my grocery
store today, I would never be able to go back into business. Then I
would have most of my property zoned residential and I would be
totally out of business.
Mr. Engebretson: Do you also own the property that is to the rear of that building
including the area proposed to be rezoned?
`r.
Mr. Zebari: Yes. Two of my lots would be affected.
Mr. Nagy: Lot 74 has now been deleted but Lot 75 is included. Lots 72, 73 and
74 are not part of the rezoning petition.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to know what commercial business has any lots in
that striped area that we are talking about.
Willie Wetzel: I am here on behalf of Bloomfield Metal Works. The lot that is split
zoned there. It goes partially through my property. The zoning on
this whole property always was M-1. Now I have an investment of
$150,000 there and I see no reason why it should be rezoned. I just
can't afford to have it rezoned because nobody would ever buy it. I
am in the process right now of building a new building in Wixom and I
would like to sell this piece of property as an industrial property
to someone else next year and I have someone interested but nobody
would buy it if it is a residential zoned property. It would be a
great loss. I couldn't even afford to build the new building.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You own Lots 75 and 76?
Mr. Wetzel: Just one lot. I own Lot 76. I am operating there as a manufacturer
of tools and that is the way it always has been. I don't see any of
my neighbors complaining about this type of business.
`•
10903
Mr. Vyhnalek: What if that is changed and his business is manufacturing and he
sells it to another manufacturer, would it be grandfathered in?
Mr. Nagy: Exactly.
Mr. Wetzel: But he would not buy it because he would not be able to sell it.
Mr. Nagy: You are currently nonconforming. The building itself right now
encroaches into a residential area. The City apparently granted a
variance and allowed you to build a nonconforming building. It
doesn't prevent you from selling.
Mr. Wetzel: The buyer has to be one who operates the same type of business. Is
that correct?
Mr. Nagy: A manufacturing business. It doesn't necessarily have to be a tool
and die or whatever it is.
Mr. Wetzel: Light manufacturing. I would be forced to find a buyer who operates
a manufacturing business?
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Wetzel: Nobody would buy this property if it was zoned R-2. Leave it like it
is. Maybe I can sell it. Nobody would buy this as residential
because it is M-1 right next door.
Mr. Morrow: The point I want to make is the fact that you are split zoned, it is
going to be tough enough to sell, but we are not taking your use away
from you. You are grandfathered in. The only thing I see you would
be precluded from doing, if you ever try to change that building, the
fact that it is split zoned, you would have to give up your right as
a nonconforming use because you are half in a residential area. You
are no worse off or better off than you are today than if this
petition should go through. If it was all manufacturing, it would be
different but now you have everything remaining if it weren't
changed. The only way your buyer could get out, is to tear down the
building and rezone. It is split zoned.
Mr. McCann: Basically we are not affecting your rights because you are a
nonconforming use at this point and if you want to do any changing,
you still would not have the right to do so.
Mr. Wetzel: I was just wondering because I don't see any neighbors complaining
about me under this particular zoning.
Mr. LaPine: That whole section along Eight Mile Road has been a thorn in the
City's side for years and years and it has been going on for many,
many years. It is nothing that just came up.
Mrs. Fandrei: One thing that might help you to understand this, the one that is R-2
requested the rezoning for insurance purposes. They were finding
difficulty in insuring residential property because of the M-1
zoning. They requested it be changed to R-2 to be properly insured
10909
and this is why we are trying to do this for the whole strip because
basically it is residential property and it helps all of these people
to have proper insurance.
Mr. Wetzel: Who zoned this to M-1 in the first place?
Mrs. Fandrei: The residential zoning predates all the M-1 zoning, so that came
first. We are just putting it back the way it really should be.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Wetzel, how long have you been operating your business there?
Mr. Wetzel: Ten years.
Mr. Tent: I just wanted to clarify one point that Mrs. Sullivan said. They
have been arguing this thing for years and years. We feel we have
compromised to the point where we have gone ahead and split this in
half. We don't affect anyone up on Eight Mile Road. We have
actually defined the line now where we say this will be residential
so we feel that this is in the best interest of the residents in the
area and the best interests of the commercial property in area
because we are giving them something to live and build by.
Robert Taylor, Farmington Hills: I own Lots 137 and half of Lot 138. We got a
notice that you were just changing one lot there. Is this permanent
that you are lowering it one lot or is this say so. We had no notice
of this until we got here tonight.
Mr. Tent: Lot 138 has been deleted.
Pete Bloomingburgh, 15119 Salem, Redford: I guess my first question is about this
resolution. It included all of them the first time. Now we have
come to a half one. How did we get to that?
Mr. LaPine: The Commission looked at it again after we heard comments from the
property owners along Eight Mile Road and decided it would be more
proper to bring it back and line it up with the residential property
instead of moving it up into some of the areas that they were using
for parking.
Mr. Bloomingburgh: Fremont does not have anything to do with this at all and it is
all the way down to commercial and it is not included in this at all.
I took my car and I measured from Middlebelt to Farmington Road and
that is two lots and I came back and I measured the four blocks that
we are talking about. One-tenth is all that is being affected. The
rest of them all have lots that go back and it just seems to me like
we are being discriminated against.
Mr. Morrow: Your Chairman indicated that this comes before us because the City
Council sent it to us in this form and asked us to look at this
one-fifth of a mile. That is why we are not picking on anybody in
the area. As far as downsizing the area of the petition, it is only
when we increase the size of the area that we have to go back to new
publishing. We will make a recommendation to the City Council based
on their request. That is what we are here doing tonight.
10910
Mr. Bloomingburgh: Basically we are just a group of small businessmen who are trying
to protect what we already have. All of our property was bought with
the zoning to be M-1 and we all know that M-1 property is worth more
than residential in this area and some of these properties, if you
rezone them, they are going to be able to run their business but when
it comes to selling, I am not sure they can do it.
`4111. James Muir, 20200 Shadyside: I am President of the North Central Civic Association.
I want to commend this panel and the Council for at least trying,
whether this proposition or whatever compromise proposition is worked
out. I see something positive happening to try to straighten out the
mess that we have dealt with for years. Maybe somebody isn't being
treated fairly but I feel it is a positive direction to cleaning up
this blight at the north end of the City.
Mrs. Sullivan: I just want to correct a statement by the man who talked about the
property that is part residential and part industrial. That piece
was sneaked in. We went down to have that corrected because that
never should have been built there.
Jake Bennett, 27865 Thirteen Mile Road: About 20 years ago we bought that little
spot there between Hugh and Beatrice. Before that it was the Country
Time Market there and before that there was a cab stand there. I
just can't see why that should be rezoned. It has been industrial
property for a good many years.
Mr. Morrow: Is that the one Mr. Bakewell said he wasn't sure what the use was?
Mr. Bennett: Yes. It is a septic tank cleaning company.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-10-1-31 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved,
#11-236-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
89-10-1-31 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#843-89, requesting to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road
between Purlingbrook and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
2 from M-1 to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 89-10-1-31 be approved as revised to delete
Lots 42, 69, 74, 101, 106, 133, 138, and 165 for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning will help to preserve the area as
a viable residential neighborhood.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will remove split zoning from
several residential properties in the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning will help to remove marginal
industrial uses from the area over the long term.
4) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony
with the adjacent and surrounding residential uses in the area.
10911
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
1543, as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`„ Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-10-1-32 by
Alan Mendelssohn requesting to rezone property located on the south side
of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
33 from R-9 to C-2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they are indicating to the petitioner that according to their records
there is an existing 20 foot wide public easement for a water main
along the east line of Lot 204.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Bakewell, this public hearing on this petition has been modified.
Is that correct? Is there an overlay now for the parking as well as
the C-2?
Mr. Bakewell: There isn't a new overlay.
Mr. Nagy: We have described in your notes that the narrower area to the north,
the 121 foot area, is recommended to be changed to the C-2
classification and the southerly portion of it to the parking
classification but we don't have an overlay. I think the petitioner
should be aware of what the Commission is recommending before we
amended his proposal. We should explain to him what you are
thinking.
Mr. Engebretson: I was going to ask if Dr. Mendelssohn has been apprised of it.
Mr. Nagy: No he hasn't. I don't see him here tonight either.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Even though the petitioner is not here tonight, I feel we have
reviewed this and if the Commissioners feel that we should split it
with the top part C-2 and the other part parking, I feel we should
recommend that to Council and that is our position even if petitioner
is not here.
Mr. Morrow: Did we hear from Dr. Mendelssohn at all?
Mr. Nagy: No and I cannot explain his absence.
Mr. LaPine: He is selling this property off. Is that correct?
Mr. Nagy: Correct. The doctor says here in his petition that he authorizes Mr.
John Anderson to represent him for any rezoning of land he owns at
the corner of Farmington and Plymouth Road.
Mr. LaPine: I have to agree we can go ahead and act on this.
10912
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-10-1-32 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-237-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
89-10-1-32 by Alan Mendelssohn requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road, in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 33 from R-9 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-10-1-32 be approved
for a change of zoning for the north 121 feet to the C-2 classification
and the rear 135 feet for a change of zoning to the P, parking
classification, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed changes of zoning will be compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding uses in the area.
2) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for a minor
extension of commercial zoning in the area.
3) That the proposed changes of zoning will provide for additional
off-street parking for adjacent commercial 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-10-2-49 by
Mobil Oil Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto
wash facility in conjunction with the proposed reconstruction of an
existing gasoline service station located on the southeast corner of Eight
Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Bakewell, in our notes it indicates that the adjacent shopping
center is leasing some property from them for parking. Can you show
me what portion they are leasing?
Mr. Bakewell: At the south perimeter and the east perimeter.
Mr. LaPine: If this petition were approved, the shopping center would lose those
parking spaces and apparently that won't affect their parking.
Mr. Bakewell: That is true.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division
stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. There
is a deficient side yard. 2. The canopy height is not specified. 3.
The entire sign package must be submitted for review.
10913
We have also received letters from the Division of Fire and the
Engineering Department stating their offices have no objections to
this proposal.
We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they
recommend denial of this petition because the car wash portion will
most likely aggravate traffic problems for the intersection. Their
,New letter states further this intersection handles over 60,000 vehicles
per day. At certain times, notably the evening rush hour, there is
almost as much traffic at the intersection as occurs at Plymouth and
Middlebelt. The storage holds 21 cars per the plan. However, it is
our experience that few have adequate storage, thus cars line up on
the main road. Because of the heavy flow of traffic, any vehicles
that "stored" on Middlebelt would present a hazardous and disruptive
situation. It is also feared that some would attempt left turns into
the car wash and the gas station from southbound Middlebelt. Because
of the curve and grade in the read, the heavy traffic volumes, and
the left turn movements from northbound Middlebelt, the
aforementioned turns into the station would be dangerous and
disruptive.
At your direction we requested a revised report due to a more
detailed site plan that was available. Although I do not have a
written report I did have a phone call from the officer in charge of
the Traffic Bureau, Lt. Robert Thorne, who is off ill but who
received our correspondence and indicated in view of the new
proposal, that is the coin operated actuated car wash, that after
reviewing a similar facility, that he feels that the amount of
traffic would be substantially less so there would not be as severe a
traffic problem as he first alluded to in his report. We do not have
a written report but he indicated that upon his return he would put
`\r that in writing and get a new report for us.
Mr. Morrow: I would assume then the Traffic Department is no longer opposed to
it? He didn't really come out and say it.
Mr. Nagy: I don't think he is recommending it just it will now have a
significantly less impact from a traffic standpoint.
Mr. LaPine: I agree with John. The only thing that changes is how many cars are
going to enter and exit that car wash.
Mr. Hyman, 2290 First National Bldg. , Detroit: I am the attorney for Mobil Oil. We
made a substantial presentation at the study session. I don't want
to occupy a great deal of your time.
Mr. LaPine: We want you to go through it again. This is a public hearing. We
want the public to know what the proposal is.
Mr. Hyman: What you have in front of you is the existing service station
property and building. We have taken that photo and with the help of
an artist have superimposed on the existing station the new proposed
auto wash along with a slightly changed sign at the corner. The
"'tr.
10914
proposed auto wash is at the eastern boundary. The proposed auto
wash is a one car facility. Contained within that facility is a
washing apparatus that is actuated by coins or tokens. At a signal
with a green light, when it is time to go the driver enters the auto
wash facility and the whole process, including drying, takes about
two minutes and the car then emerges at the other end of the building
and the next car gets the green signal to go in. Our analysis
indicates that the drip lane, the time required for virtually all of
the water and that is whatever is left after the drying process is
completed, is approximately 15 feet outside of the building. This
building is 75 feet from the road so by the time the automobile
emerges out onto the road the car is virtually drip free. Now
obviously I don't want to suggest that every drop has been removed.
We know better but in essence there is no real problem in terms of
drippage on the road or freezing in the winter.
We have provided, as the ordinance requires, 21 stacking spaces in
accordance with the site plan you have in front of you. The 21
spaces is based on your requirements for a typical traditional auto
wash. It is overkill by about four or five times in this situation.
Experience shows there will only be a couple of cars, at most,
waiting to be washed so the stacking space is more than ample. At
the study session you asked if we could obtain some information with
respect to volume. We do have two studies made for similar
facilities in Illinois. Mr. Nagy is passing a copy to you of those
two studies. The first study relates to a station at Hoffman Estates
in Illinois. Hoffman Estates is part of a very busy suburb outside
of Chicago, similar in many respects to Livonia. The traffic at that
intersection is approximately 54,000 cars at peak hours. Very
similar to traffic at this intersection. The study was taken during
peak hours on a peak day of a service station week. It was taken
under ideal weather conditions. A bright sunny day after a week of
rain. So you have peak hours, peak ideal conditions for an auto wash
business and the most stacking that was obtained during that entire
three hour peak period was approximately five cars. The study also
shows that the Village of Schamberg, which is within the Hoffman
Estates, and Cook County zoning ordinances both require five stacking
spaces for every one space that is actually being occupied in the
auto wash building itself. If those standards were applied in
Livonia, we would only need five stacking spaces and we have 21.
We have information concerning the exact nature of how this auto wash
operates. I do want to call your attention to the fact that on page
two of the Hoffman Estates study the indication is that only 10% of
the cars that enter the auto wash don't buy gasoline. Approximately
7% of the cars that enter the service station get both fuel and get
their cars washed. Most of the people who enter the station don't
get their car washed as part of the fueling process. It is an
extremely low volume. This auto wash is a convenience for the
customer of the gas station. By no means are we talking about an
auto wash as envisioned by the Livonia Zoning Ordinance. If you have
any questions, we will be happy to try and answer them. Mary Ellen
Perkawski, the real estate representative, is here. Bob Warner, the
site engineer is here.
10915
Mr. Tent: The building that you are proposing is going to be torn down and a
new building put up in its place. Is that correct?
Mr. Hyman: The service station building is going to be torn down.
Mr. Tent: Will you have washroom facilities in the building?
Mr. Hyman: Yes, two lavatories.
Mr. Tent: Will you have free air or are you charging a quarter?
Mr. Hyman: Free air.
Mr. Tent: How high are you going to have your canopy?
Mr. Hyman: It will be as required by ordinance.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That picture doesn't show the car wash too well. Is it going to be
of the same material as the building?
Mr. Hyman: Yes it is the same. The material of the auto wash and the
architectural treatment is the same. (Mr. Hyman passed photos out to
the Commissioners)
Mr. Vyhnalek: I beg to differ with you on that 15 feet. I went to three car washes
and I walked it off on one of them and it takes at least 50 feet of a
trail of water, but you have enough space.
Mr. Hyman: I have 75 feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This will also be a convenience store?
`r.
Mr. Hyman: The typical self serve station with the usual ancillary facilities
but the studies show that generally what you are talking about only
ten percent of the revenues relate to non-petroleum products.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many pumps?
Mr. Hyman: We will have eight and now there are six.
Mr. Vyhnalek: So you won't have to change any curb cuts?
Mr. Hyman: No.
Mr. McCann: In your pictures, there are two stations with aluminum siding on the
sides of the building and one is an all brick station with an all
brick garage. Have you determined which one this will be? Aluminum
siding or brick?
Mr. Hyman: It is the aluminum. It is not really aluminum. It is Inner Span.
Mr. McCann: The brick is much prettier.
Mr. Engebretson: I would like to thank you for supplying the information that we
`.
10916
asked for. Unfortunately, you did such a good job we don't have an
opportunity to study this five or six page document here this evening
but I will accept your summary of the areas we are primarily
concerned with. I would like to follow up about the drip line.
Realizing that Mobil Oil is a collectable fifteen billion dollar
corporation, I can't imagine that Mobil would be interested in
spreading ice on a road that handles sixty thousand cars a day. I am
just wondering what would your client propose to do, should that
event occur?
Mr. Hyman: One of the things we will be doing is placing a heated mat at the
exit. Now that is not a perfect solution because that is going to be
coming up from underneath and be momentary but it will help some.
Bob, is it possible to lengthen the drying process if it is
necessary?
Robert Warner: I am an engineer with Mobil Oil. When you mention the 50 foot drip
cycle, what type of car wash did you go through?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Regular tunnel wash.
Mr. Warner: That is the difference. We put in a trench drain and it drips
back into the system.
Mr. Hyman: This only uses ten gallons of water per car so already you have
started with a very low production of water. All of that water
doesn't stay on the car but is recycled into the system so you are
really talking about a very low volume of water.
Mr. Tent: I would like to pursue the brick facade. As I mentioned previously I
wasn't too happy with it. I have seen by your pictures that you do
have a station there with brick facade. There is more quality to
that. They are going to tear down the station anyways. I think that
would add to it. I would like to ask you how you feel about going
with brick.
Mr. Hyman: It is an operational decision. I will let Mary Ellen talk to that.
Mary Ellen Perkawski, P.O.Box 31042, Highland: I am the real estate representative
for Mobil. The reason for the brick in Novi was compliance with
their City ordinance. It is not our norm. Our normal facade is the
Inner Span.
Mr. LaPine: We are as good as Novi. I think we deserve brick too.
Ms. Perkawski: We would give you the brick on both the Mobil building and the car
wash.
Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned you had the 20 foot trench and you recycle the water
through the washing system?
Mr. Hyman: Approximately 75 per cent of the water is recycled. You have to get
a little bit of fresh water flowing in constantly.
10917
Mrs. Fandrei: So you are basically using dirty water.
Mr. Warner: No. We put three 1500 gallon tanks under the floor. We pump the
water through a filtration system before the water is used to wash
the cars. The rinse cycle uses clean water.
Now
Mr. Hyman: Approximately 7 1/2 gallons of the 10 gallons are recycled.
Mrs. Fandrei: Just a comment. Mobil has lead all the oil companies in updating
their stations, downsizing signs and putting in nice landscaping.
You have the most attractive stations I have seen in our area. I am
very proud of them. I am concerned about the car wash in this area.
From your own testimony you admit this is not one the customer would
go out of their way for. After experiencing one of them myself, the
coin operated, I agree with you. I do not feel that this car wash
would be an asset to this site or this area and I would have to vote
against this particular petition. I wanted you to know why.
Mr. Tent: I want to re-emphasize we have free air. Right?
Mr. Hyman: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: I want to make a comment. I will be voting against this particular
petition and my concern is traffic. Certainly under a waiver use
traffic is a very integral part of that request and that is why I was
particularly interested in what Lieutenant Thorne had to say about
the impact of that particular intersection. Eight Mile is one of the
troubled roads and we know with the development to the west, that
will certainly not be going down. It is on that basis that I will be
voting against this petition.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand these concerns about the traffic but I think
Lieutenant Thorne has reconsidered his position relative to the
impact on the traffic and I think the information Mr. Hyman has
brought to us tonight would bear out the fact that this isn't going
to be a big drawing car wash. It is for people who are already there
and there is going to be a gas station there already.
Mr. McCann: The reason I would recommend an approving motion is not because of
the reason I like the idea of that type of car wash but I think there
is a need for that type of car wash. It is a $2.00 car wash instead
of a $5.00 car wash and there is a certain segment of the population
I think, that would be beneficial to. This will be more for the
customer's use than to bring new traffic into the area. I believe
the brick building and the brick car wash will improve the looks of
the corner.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-10-2-49 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
#11-238-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
21, 1989, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 89-10-2-49 by Mobil Oil Corporation requesting
tr„ waiver use approval to construct an auto wash facility in conjunction with
the proposed reconstruction of an existing gasoline service station
10918
located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, be approved subject to the granting of a
variance for a side yard deficiency by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
following additional conditions:
`o. 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 9-22-89 prepared by
Dietrich, Bailey and Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be
adhered to.
2) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet 2 dated 9-22-89 prepared by
Dietrich, Bailey and Associates is hereby approved and 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 10-21-88, 6-24-86, and 6-87
respectively prepared by Mobil Oil Corporation, which are hereby
approved, shall be adhered to.
4) That the proposed car wash building shall be surfaced with face
brick. (The petitioner volunteered to utilize the material
specified. )
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06
of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
Nifty 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Morrow, LaPine, Fandrei
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-10-2-51 by
William Amell Enterprises (dba Hot "N" Now) requesting waiver use approval
to construct and operate a drive-thru restaurant with no customer seating
on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel
Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing
zoning of the surrounding area.
10919
Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Bakewell, what are the names of the businesses on either side
of this property under petition?
Mr. Bakewell: A donut shop and party store and the other side is automobile
related uses.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they believe the plan should be reviewed by the Michigan Department
of Transportation (Southfield office) relative to the number and
locations of drive approaches accessing Plymouth Road.
We have also received a letter from Howard E. Heller of Kin
Properties, Inc. stating that as management agent on behalf of the
property owners at 34800 Plymouth Road, they are most concerned with
respect to this particular proposal and for the construction of a
restaurant without adequate parking and which may cause hazards for
other businesses in the neighborhoods by virtue of the fact that cars
will be forced to wait to use the drive through facilities at said
restaurant. They are most concerned with respect to the setback of
the proposed facility on the premises in question. Therefore, the
property owner would like to register its objection to the proposal
in question.
We also have in our file a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement
Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found:
1. This proposal does not meet the requirements for either a
restaurant or a drive-in and therefore is not a permitted use in a
C-2 zoning district. This use as proposed requires the approval of
the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. The plans indicate the proposed type
�.. of building would be of wood frame construction. This type of
construction for non-residential property is prohibited. 3. The
proposal indicates an excess number of ground signs and excess sign
area. No wall signs are indicated. The entire sign package should
be submitted for ZBA review. 4. There is deficient space between
drives - 40' is required; 27' is proposed. 5. The proposed dumpster
enclosure is at a deficient setback. 6. No sidewalk is proposed on
the Laurel Avenue side. 7. The site plan does not indicate
underground sprinklers. 8. A 6' protective wall is required along
the rear lot line.
Also in our file is a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they are
opposed to placing this type of high intensity business in an area
already overburdened with traffic, driveways, and turning movements.
Plymouth Road from Wayne to Stark is one of the most congested areas
in the City. A development in this area should be of a low-volume
traffic generator. If however, approval is given, a sidewalk should
be required along the Laurel Avenue frontage. It is also recommended
that a continuous vertical concrete curb be required along the
outside edge of the drives.
John Carney: I am representing the petitioner. As you know, at the last study
session I asked you to table this resolution but inasmuch as the
public hearing was set, we determined we would go through with it.
Number one, the Building Department has said this is a restaurant. A
10920
restaurant is defined by City ordinance as having seating capacity.
This is basically a drive-thru, pick-up, food place. It is not a
restaurant. It was never intended to be. The Building Department
has, as Mr. MacDonald states in his letter, had a difference of
opinion. I have not been able to get hold of him but we will go
Saw ahead with the public hearing. This is not a restaurant and was
never intended to be and will not be.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Carney, were you listening to the comments that were in the
letter from Mr. MacDonald? Let's just forget the inside of the
restaurant being a restaurant. Do you realize all of the
deficiencies that he brought up? Were you aware a six foot
protective wall was required?
Mr. Carney: No problem with that.
Mr. Tent: So in other words, all of these problems that were brought forth, you
can handle them?
Mr. Carney: We are working on the conditions of the building. I was not aware
that the home office in Kalamazoo had a plan that does not meet the
City building code requirements. We can handle that.
Mr. Tent: That was my concern because regardless of what you call it, this is a
heavy traffic generated area and all those things should be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Carney: When you say 27 foot driveway, what you are talking about is in and
out traffic. What you are talking about in this case is two
�,. driveways going in and then going out. You are going into this place
like a McDonalds. The only difference is you buy it for a dollar
less. You go in one place and out the other. There is no parking.
You drive in one way and out the other. There is no exit. Once you
get in that line, you have to go out the front.
Mr. Nagy: If I may make a point of clarification. What the Inspection
Department is saying is not that the driveways have to be 27 feet
wide, they are saying restaurants, first they say they don't meet the
ordinance definition for restaurants and then they say they don't
meet the standards for a restaurant either. Be that as it may, one
of the requirements for a restaurant is that it be served by two
driveways and the driveways have to be at least 40 feet apart. They
are saying these proposed driveways are 27 feet apart.
Mr. Tent: What do you call this if it is not a restaurant?
Mr. Carney: I would say it is a drive-thru service window. Livonia's ordinance
says a restaurant has seats. I am going to tell you this might meet
the ordinance as a permitted use, such as a take out food service.
It is not defined in the ordinance.
Mr. LaPine: I am not going to argue. We are going to have to get a legal opinion
on this. I do have a question. In drive-ins where they put an order
in, like Wendys or McDonalds, they go around and they pick the food
up at the other side of the building and in most restaurants of this
10921
type when people have carry out, they take the food home and consume
it. My problem with an operation like this, I would assume the
people would drive in and then eat while they are driving. It has
been my experience over the years when I follow them very far, you
know where all the garbage ends up? On our streets.
'rr
People in audience: In our yards.
Mr. LaPine: I have a problem with that.
Mr. Engebretson: What would the proposed hours of operation be for this?
Mr. Carney: 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Engebretson: How many cars per hour would you estimate would be going through
there during the evening hours?
Bill Amell: Currently, during evening hours we have about 25 cars per hour.
Mr. Engebretson: As I look at the site plan, cars are going to enter from Plymouth
Road heading right towards that home that exists at the end of that
property and they are going to turn around there and I am just
wondering what type of a nuisance factor that will be for the
residents, particularly the one who lives in the first home, as well
as for all of them.
Mr. Carney: I would rather not put in a protective wall. I would like to put in
a really nice berm. I can do anything they want. If what they want
is a wall, that is fine.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the traffic pattern is inappropriate for a residential
area.
Mr. Carney: I understand what you are talking about but this is not a residential
area, it is a C-2 area.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Carney, does your client currently own the property?
Mr. Carney: We are buying it from Bob Evans.
Mr. Morrow: He has an option on it?
Mr. Carney: He has an offer to purchase.
Mr. Morrow: I believe we have established tonight that it is some form of food
service.
Mr. Carney: I would say yes.
Mr. Morrow: I think one of the duties of this Commission is to try to get a mix
of uses and I think up and down Plymouth Road we are pretty well
served with food services. I would say within a mile and a half we
have twenty food service type of establishments, one of which is
currently being remodeled. That is how I view it. I think we are
10922
adding to something that is already overserved. Secondly, with
something where the principal use is generating traffic, I would
L,° think, in my mind, it would clearly come under a waiver use where it
exceeds the normal amount of traffic and we know that road and that
• intersection is well served with traffic. Those are the things that
fir. I am troubled about whether we call it a food service or restaurant
or whatever. It is something that, as a Commissioner, I am trying to
take the residents' point of view as well as your point of view. I
think it is something we have to look at very closely.
Sandra Curd, 10843 Laurel: We have a petition of 43 residents on Laurel that will be
affected, who are opposing this petition. As a matter of fact, the
first five houses all signed the petition. (Mrs. Curd presented the
petition to the Secretary) Our three main concerns are the traffic.
At certain times of the day during the rush hour, the noon rush hour
and the evening rush hour, it is impossible to turn left on Laurel
from Plymouth Road. We wonder how somebody out of that restaurant
is going to turn left. They are riot going to be able to. They are
going to come down Laurel. Laurel has no sidewalks. We already have
a lot of traffic. We were able to get a "no left turn" sign up there
and we still have excess movement on our street. Secondly, in the
two-tenths of a mile between Wayne Road and Stark Road there are six
places you can get fast food. Between Stark and Farmington Road,
that is seven-tenths of a mile, there are ten places that you can get
fast food and going the other direction from Wayne to Levan, you have
seven and I have counted 23 places in that 1.6 mile that you can get
fast food at.
We have concerns about litter. We do have a lot of litter from the
t,`, Burger King and Wendys. People eat in their car and they don't drop
their litter at the first couple of houses, they wait until they get
to the people's houses at Pinetree and Laurel. If you go down there
on Saturday or Sunday morning, you will see the wrappers from the
burgers and the soft drink containers. That is our objection. We
have 43 signatures.
Paul Desrosiers, 34940 Beacon: I didn't have an opportunity to sign the petition but
I agree with it and I just wanted to show that I was also against the
proposal.
Anthony Micallef, 11050 Laurel: You are right about the traffic congestion over
there. You only get 50,000 cars a day in a 24 hour period.
Jerry Curd: I live on Laurel too. My objection is basically I have two small
kids. We don't have any sidewalks. My kids like to ride their
bikes in the street. There is a lot of traffic. The left hand turn
sign has helped a good deal. We don't allow our kids to ride during
the rush hours. It is a concern to me as a parent.
Karen Stock, 10477 Laurel: I have two small children who, when they have to walk to
the school bus, there are no sidewalks there and I don't appreciate
having to watch out and grab my daughter's arm and drag her onto the
grass because people are going down there 35 and 40 miles an hour. I
do oppose this situation.
`rr Betty Saunders, 10892 Laurel: My objection is basically the same as hers. I have a
five year old. I definitely don't want more traffic coming down that
street.
10923
Richard Lachance, 10219 Laurel: I am opposed to this mainly because of traffic and
debris. I think the City should not allow any drive-thru
establishment on the corner of a residential street.
Janet Rose, 10321 Laurel: I agree. I don't believe we should have something like
that there because we already have enough junk thrown on our lawn and
since we have a new street and no ditches, they can't even throw it
into the ditches any more. We don't need it.
Mrs. Fandrei: To Mr. Carney. Our ordinance book, Section 2.08, Definitions of
Terms Relating to Commercial Buildings and Uses, number (13)
Restaurant, Drive-In, Page 9, reads: "A drive-in or open-air
restaurant is any establishment where food, frozen dessert and/or
beverages are sold to the customer in a ready to consume state and
where the customer consumes or is likely to consume said food, frozen
dessert and/or beverages in an automobile parked on the premises, at
a stand-up counter, or at other facilities which are provided for the
use of the customer and which are located outside the building. The
term drive-in restaurant shall include the 'self-service' type of
restaurant whether there is or is not space provided for eating
within the building and the 'automat' type of eating establishment."
Mr. Carney: What it is saying, in effect, is either use in a building or in a
place provided for automobiles or whatever. We have no facility for
parking these car. They get their food and they have to get out.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think that was for the Daly Restaurant. Is that right Mr. Nagy?
Mr. Nagy: Yes for Daly Restaurant and for Big Boy.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I feel this should be tabled because we don't know what we are
dealing with until we get a legal opinion from the City attorney.
Mr. Carney: I just wanted to bring that up. These people, I will give them
notice if they will give me their addresses because we didn't have a
determination by the City attorney and we agreed to go ahead with the
public hearing because it had been published.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We want it for any future reference. This is the first one and we
want to be sure we are on solid ground no matter if we accept or deny
it.
Mr. Engebretson: I am not in favor of a tabling motion. I am in favor of a denying
motion. I don't have any problem with the proposed restaurant. I
think it is the wrong site. I think it would be inappropriate to
string this out as far as any legal issues are concerned. The fact
remains it is the wrong place for it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-10-2-51 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public hearing having been held on November
21, 1989 on Petition 89-10-2-51 by William Amell Enterprises (dba Hot "N"
`err
10924
Now) requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a
drive-thru restaurant with no customer seating on property located on
the south side of Plymouth Road between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does
hereby table Petition 89-10-2-51.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was
#11-239-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
21, 1989 on Petition 89-10-2-51 by William Amell Enterprises for waiver
use approval to construct and operate a drive-thru restaurant with no
customer seating on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Laurel Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 89-10-2-51 be denied for the following reasons:
1) Petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use
complies with all the general waiver use standards and requirements
set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance ##543.
2) That subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use and it will aggravate the traffic conditions in the
area.
3) The proposed use is not compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area.
4) The area is already well served with similar eating and carry-out
establishments as is illustrated in the new Restaurant Study done by
the Planning Department.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei
NAYS: Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-10-3-6 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution X1868-89,
requesting to vacate a portion of a 6' wide easement for public utilities
10925
on Lot 29, Koloff's Greenbriar Meadows Subdivision, located on the
west side of Ellen Drive south of Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 21.
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
there are no City maintained utilities within the easement to be
vacated.
Mr. LaPine: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission pursuant to a
Council Resolution. Is there anyone in the audience to speak for or
against this petition?
Joseph Holey, 15139 Ellen: I own Lot 29. I have two other slabs that were on my
land, that I plan to remove, that had sheds on them at one time.
When I started construction I didn't realize that I was going onto
that easement area. The sheds that were there were deteriorating and
when they started building a house behind me I wanted to start fixing
that up and I talked to the gentleman behind me and we were planning
to redo the fence. The fences along the line are deteriorating to a
point where they are ready to fall over and I think everyone in my
neighborhood would agree with me that they definitely need to be
replaced. I was trying to better the area. I removed the two sheds.
They were 15 years old and I tried to put in a shed that was neutral
in color. That is all I have to say.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine,
.` Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-10-3-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-240-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November
21, 1989 on Petition 89-10-3-6 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #868-89, requesting to vacate a portion of a 6' wide
easement for public utilities on Lot 29, Koloff's Greenbriar Meadows
Subdivision, located on the west side of Ellen Drive south of Five Mile
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-10-3-6 be approved
for the following reasons:
1) That the subject portion of the easement is no longer needed to
protect any public utilities.
2) That no public utility company or the city object to the subject
easement 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. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`rr
10926
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#11-241-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plan for Sunset Woods Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side
of Six Mile Road between Louise and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 11 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat conforms in every respect to the approved
Preliminary Plan.
2) That the City Engineer has approved the Final Plat.
3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the
City have been satisfied.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#11-242-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated October 30, 1989 from Ronald L.
Sesvold of Ramco-Gershenson, requesting a one-year extension of Petition
88-8-2-32 by Ronald Sesvold c/o Ramco-Gershenson requesting waiver use
approval to operate a video arcade within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center
located at the Northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that an extension be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That due to the many and varied changes that have occurred within the
shopping center during the past twelve months, the proposed use needs
to be re-evaluated and new development plans and public hearings are
essential.
2) Further, in view of the recently proposed expansion plans for the
overall shopping center the proposed use may no longer be compatible,
thereby further requiring new public hearings and more precise
development plans than is being represented by this proposal in its
present form.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: Sobolewski
ABSENT: Kluver
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
`r
10927
#11-243-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and
order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.38 of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to off-street
parking requirements for apartments and condominiums.
`.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-244-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 588th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on October 17, 1989 are approved.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#11-245-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 589th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on October 31, 1989 are approved.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
'taw adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved,
it was
#11-246-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Permit Application by Daniel Dinsmore to erect a roof
mounted satellite dish near the northwest corner of the Embassy Suite
Hotel located in Victor Corporate Park be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1) That the Building Plan showing the dish location on the roof of the
Embassy Suites Hotel prepared by Brooks Jackson Architects, Inc.
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
2) That the Specification Plans for a single 3.1 meter (10'-2") diameter
solid light colored satellite dish submitted by Metrovision are
approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10928
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 590th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on November 21, 1989 was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
j7e,
Raymond[ W. Tent, Secretary
ATTEST: /2 ` L'7.
William LaPine, Chairman
jg