Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-02-27 11015 MINUTES OF THE 596th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA `ieu. On Tuesday, February 27, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 596th 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 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent Brenda Lee Fandrei Sue Sobolewski Herman Kluver James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: R. Lee Morrow Messrs. H. G. Shane, Ass't. 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 90-1-1-2 by International Real Estate for Alan Mendelssohn, M.D. , requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-7. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. It was pointed out that the R.U.F. property immediately east of the property under petition is before Council now for rezoning from R.U.F. to R-9 for a senior citizen's complex to be built by the City. Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60' ) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Further, there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the subject site. The nearest storm sewer outlet is located at the intersection of Newburgh and Plymouth Roads. As an alternative, it may be reasonable to outlet storm drainage from the site easterly and northerly to the intersection of Grantland Avenue and Newburgh Road. This would require the establishment of an appropriate public easement through City-owned 11016 property immediately east of the petition area. We have also received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Robert MacDonald of 37681 Grantland expressing their distaste for the proposed rezoning to R-7. They state the City Planning Commission has shown foresight in bringing a "Silver Village" development to the adjacent property. They feel Dr. Mendelssohn could make a profit from his investment by selling the land to be developed for single family \r. homes and that usage would be most compatible with the surrounding area. Lastly, we have received a letter from Edwin Koziol of 11790 Jarvis stating the intent of his letter is to try to persuade the members of the City Planning Commission from permitting the building of yet another apartment complex on Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Jarvis. He feels such an addition would devalue the property and make it less attractive for families to move into the neighborhood. He feels the addition of more apartments rather than private homes will deter from the esthetic value of the neighborhood, not to mention that apartment dwellers do nothing to increase the contribution towards our city property taxes. He ended by urging the Commission to seriously consider the banning of any further multiple dwellings in this area. Ron Rogers, 32400 Telegraph, Birmingham: I am representing the petitioner. It is a 12 acre parcel that we are talking about here. We have proposed R-7 and we have done a layout to give you an idea what can be done with the site. It will take about 137 units. We also have elevation plans. (He passed this around to the Commissioners). We have included a community house with pool and extensive open space to give it a nice aesthetic look. We have included three-car parking per unit, which is a desirable thing for the tenant and the City is now looking at increasing the number of spaces required per unit. We have done that. We don't feel, as suggested by one neighbor, this should be developed as a single family residential Nair project inasmuch as it is surrounded by M-2 and it is primarily a commercial and industrial area. We feel this would be the proper zoning and proper use for it. Mr. Tent: Mr. Rogers, I presume you can speak for the petitioner, Dr. Mendelssohn? Mr. Rogers: Yes. Mr. Tent: Can you tell me why he has changed his mind? Mr. Rogers: He is moving to California and is no longer interested in it. We are trying to buy it from him. This is our idea. He is just interested in selling the property. Mr. Tent: You are talking multiple family. You are talking renters? Have you considered condominiums where you have property owners? Mr. Rogers: We are basically a multiple family development company. We are not in the business of building condominiums. Mr. Tent: I, as one Commissioner, would lean in that direction. I would rather have condominiums than rental units. Mr. Rogers: We develop income producing property. That is out of our line. That is why we didn't consider it. 11017 Mr. Tent: I feel that would be more appropriate than rental apartments. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Rogers, who is International Real Estate? Have they done anything around Livonia? Mr. Albee: They are members of International Paragon Properties, an industrial developer. They are industrial developers that have done work in Livonia but they have not done multiples in Livonia. They developed Belden Industrial Park. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have any other multiples in any other community? Mr. Albee: Yes. We have 3,000 units. Mr. Vyhnalek: Where? Mr. Albee: Westwood Village Apartments in Westland at Joy and Newburgh. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you build those? Mr. Albee: Yes we built those. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are these two stories? Mr. Albee: Yes these are two stories and carported. Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you ever done any senior citizen projects? Mr. Albee: No we have not. Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you ever thought about it? __ Mr. Albee: Everyone I have talked to has steered me away from it basically because of the economics involved. Mr. Vyhnalek: They are rentals also. Mr. Albee: I am not in that business. Mr. Kluver: I appreciate the fact that you brought your site plan but the issue is rezoning, the best use of the land and that is what we have to consider as opposed to getting too involved as to whether they are rental units or condominiums. It is the best use of the land based on your request to rezone it and that is what we have to consider. Duane Klem: I bought a lot in that subdivision on Grantland in 1988 and I am against this rezoning to apartments. I feel, as the one letter wrote, that renters won't be as caring about the community for one thing and also I would rather not see anything two story in that area because I would be looking out my front door at it. I haven't built yet. I will be building this summer and I am against it. Karl Berghoffer, 38101 Grantland: I have seen a lot of apartments in Westland and Taylor and usually people who rent apartments aren't as quality of life as ones who buy condominiums or who own homes. Those apartments would be in my backyard and I bought the property because it was secluded and that would really eliminate my privacy with the two stories. 11018 Scott Heinzman, 37601 Grantland: It is the general consensus of the taxpayers and homeowners along Grantland that zoning this property to R-7 is not the best use for Livonia. We would prefer for the land to remain vacant but if it has to be rezoned, we prefer single family homes. The single family homes that have gone in Livonia in the last few years are all in the $150,000 plus range in the northern section of 'try Livonia and we believe Livonia would be best served as a community to have young families starting off to have the opportunity to move in. Mr. Vyhnalek: What about additional senior citizen housing, one story? Mr. Heinzman: That is a hard one because there is already ten acres going in. That would rank probably after the R-1 through R-5. R-9 would rank after that. Mr. Vyhnalek: You prefer homes? Mr. Heinzman: I prefer homes, then seniors and then condominiums and then multiple. I know the Master Plan is looking to be rezoned to R-9. Mr. Vyhnalek: No, just one section. Mr. Heinzman: If you have ever gone through Westland, you have seen apartments springing up all over the place. It is not a pretty sight and you don't get people that are loyal to the City when they are living in apartments. That is my biggest concern. The senior citizens are mostly residents of Livonia and are concerned about the City of Livonia. Mr. Vyhnalek: The reason I asked that Scott was when we went to the other ten acres, the R-9, we had over 1200 to 1500 residents of Livonia waiting for senior citizens homes in the next three years and I hope we do something about that. Since this ten acres has already started, I am one for having what Dr. Mendelssohhn had before, senior citizens. I thought that was a good plan. Mr. Heinzman: That was a very expensive plan. That plan was targeted for $625 rental and would have gone up to $800 real quickly. Mr. Vyhnalek: There are some senior citizens that can afford that. Mr. Heinzman: What about ten years down the road. Are we going to have this amount of seniors needing housing? Are we going to close the market to young families who are looking and would like to live in Livonia because we have an excellent school system? Mr. Vyhnalek: There are both sides of the coin. Mr. Tent: I appreciate your comments and you echo what I feel. That is why I questioned the petitioner as far as condominiums are concerned because they become property owners and I too looked at the developments in Westland where they had the apartments and I am not too pleased with that and I, as one Commissioner, don't want that here in the City of Livonia. If you recall at the last meeting we had about the senior citizens development on the previous ten 11019 acres, we were looking at something like Silver Village and that is very attractive. One story single type development homes. Those are senior citizen homes and I would agree we should retain this as R-9 and pursue a senior citizen development. We don't have to go to a two-story building, which I would be opposed to. If we could get the developer to come forth and put in something like Silver `o. Village. That is attractive. It is homes and I think it would enhance the area. Don't cut the R-9 short if we could come up with a good development. Mr. Heinzman: You have a lot of land there that is vacant on Plymouth Road and the people who bought it thought it was going to be industrial and they would make a real estate killing but we live on the street and we have 40 or so odd families on the street and you have the land directly to the south where the City is going to put in Silver Village and maybe that land could be a compromise for some R-9. We would be completely bordered on the back by multiple unit dwellings basically along Grantland. That is our basic opinion. We would like to see our neighborhood grow. That is where I stand. Mr. Rogers: The wishes of the people who live on Grantland would be nice if this could be developed as a single family residential unit for homes to compliment the neighborhood that is behind it but it is not a site that does lend itself very well to that form of development and we feel the multiple use is appropriate and this is why we are making this petition. Mr. LaPine: At this time you do not own the property? Mr. Rogers: We are in the process of purchasing the property contingent upon the rezoning. Mrs. Fandrei: I am not feeling real good about supporting the apartment complex. We have 17 apartment complexes in Livonia with a total of over 1900 units and personally I feel that is adequate for a community our size. At this point I am not feeling very supportive of an apartment complex. Mr. Rogers: There is a need for people who cannot afford the down payment on a home or a comdominium type home, to have apartment living. Your vacancy rate in Livonia is quite good compared to the number of occupants you have in your units. There is a need or we wouldn't be considering it. Mrs. Fandrei: It is not just our own community. The surrounding communities also have a great number and the life of the apartment complex, because of the transient renter, doesn't seem to have the same atmosphere and feeling as properties that are owned, or the senior properties. Mr. Engebretson• Mr. Rogers, you have mentioned twice that this property is not suitable for development for single family homes. Why do you feel that way? Mr. Rogers: We feel you have an M-2 zone to its western border, which I don't know who I could get to purchase homes that are abutting an M-2 11020 zone and you have a fire station on the southern border and I don't know what the future development would be along Plymouth Road. For those reasons it wouldn't be something I would want to invest my money in for appreciation, a home backing up against a Hygrades plant or to a fire station. `ler Mr. Engebretson: If there were a buffer area in there, as Mr. Heinzman pointed out, there is a need for low cost housing as well as the higher cost ones that are being built in the City. I was just wondering if that might not be such a bad place because the people on Grantland are only 50 or 100 yards further away from the Hygrade property. Mr. Rogers: With single residential zoning, you would probably get 2 1/2 homes to an acre. At that price we would be priced out of the ballpark. Mr. Tent: Are you familiar with Livonia? Have you studied it at all. Mr. Rogers: Yes I am. I built in Livonia 25 years ago. Mr. Tent: What did you first notice when you built in Livonia 25 years ago? It is a single family community and this is what they want. Mr. Rogers: It is also a very viable industrial community. Mr. Tent: My point is Livonia wasn't built on apartments and condominiums. It is basically single family homes. You could put homes in this area you have here and they wouldn't have to be $200,000 homes. There is a need for single family residential homes throughout the City. There is no reason why in this area something like that couldn't be pursued. Nom. Mr. Rogers: It was my understanding the Master Plan shows multiple in lieu of an industrial petition that was being presented to you. Mr. Tent: I was just asking you if you had an opinion on that. Mr. Rogers: We are not single home developers. I do know the economics. The price we would have to pay for this land would prohibit us from developing it as single family residential. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-1-1-2 closed. Mr. Kluver: I would like to make a tabling motion to the study meeting of March 6 in order to evaluate the zoning that would be applicable to this area in conjunction with the Future Land Use Plan, which at that time had designated this as a use for medium density, so we could properly evaluate the petition. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #2-299-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 27, 1990 on Petition 90-1-1-2 by International Real Estate for Alan Mendelssohn, M.D. , requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of 11021 Section 30, from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-1-1-2 until the study meeting of March 6, 1990. 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 90-1-1-3 by Southwood Construction Co. for Alexander Spiro requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison Avenue, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from R-9I and P.S.: to R-C. 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 the development of a residential condominium site at this location may accelerate the need for the improvement of Harrison Avenue north of Five Mile Road. Under the Special Assessment procedure, the condominium site would be expected to share in the cost of this improvement based on its benefit to the entire site. We have also received a letter from Matthew Lenart who lives at 29003 Rayburn stating his conditional support for this request. He states as a potentially impacted property owner, he is concerned about the effects of traffic, the impact on property values and the quality of people who will become our new neighbors. Accordingly, he strongly supports the proposed development of a quality condominium project so long as access is not provided to or through Rayburn or Roycroft, and the developer provides adjoining property owners with appropriate screening and unit orientations. He finishes by strongly recommending that the Planning Commission grant the petitioner the rezoning as requested. Lastly, we have received a letter signed by Taska and Jorgen Larsen of 15423 Harrison stating they would be pleased to see this property developed similar to Silver City or private homes for a solid tax base. However, they believe they could appreciate the suggested condominium complex if all the traffic did not flow on Harrison. They feel this is extremely unfair since Garden, Rayburn and Roycroft adjoins the planned complex property. They also feel one exit is unwise for a complex that size. Attached to this letter is a list of 22 names all of whom live on Harrison stating the undersigned agree to the stipulations and suggestions in the attached letter regarding traffic on Harrison. Jonathan Retzlaff, Southwood Construction, 31731 Northwestern Hwy. , Farmington Hills: Basically, our request for the R-9 zoning is for a cluster condominium project. We are a residential builder who have extensive experience in the City of Farmington Hills and the City of Livonia. Our current projects in Livonia are the Merriwood Park Condominiums, the Merriman Woods Apartments at Seven Mile and Merriman, and the Canterbury Park Apartments on Seven Mile Road east of Farmington. Our request to rezone this evening is for this parcel you see before you and the basis for our rezoning request is that the parcel abuts P.S. Zoning on Five Mile and R-7 zoning on 11022 Five Mile. We consider that a transitional type zoning from the extensive use along Five Mile to residential to the north. (He presented an elevation plan) Mr. LaPine: To get it on the record, your proposal is to demolish the school. Is that correct? Mr. Retzlaff: That is correct. Jim Ludwig: What we have done here is taken initially an air photo of the area. (Mr. Ludwig presented the photo to the Commissioners) We have taken an overlay and rendered the different zoning uses you have along the major mile road and along Middlebelt. You have ranging from commercial to professional service or light office along Five Mile and then primarily you have R-1 to R.U.F. What we are suggesting with our petition is to go to R-C zoning, residential condominium, which is more in keeping with the rest of the zoning around the surrounding area. That is primarily what we wanted to illustrate with this map. Are there any questions? We also brought along a site plan, which we use to illustrate. Mr. Retzlaff: Basically our plan calls for 103 units, attached buildings. Twenty-seven individual buildings with three to four units per building, approximately 1250 square feet to 1600 square feet. The size of the units are one and two story. Our market target is the City of Livonia existing residents who are retired or younger professionals who are tired of every uay maintenance of a yard. Mr. Ludwig: I would like to point out some of our amenities. We have created a park like setting with setbacks as required by the zoning. We have provided more outside parking that is currently required by the `. ordinance and is also required by the proposed revision of the parking ordinance. We have staggered the units to minimize the impact of long rows of buildings. We have primarily two front drives and two side drives giving an elevation that looks like single family homes rather than a row of townhouses and we have done that throughout the project. There is a small amentity package with a quiet rental cabana and swimming pool to provide the residents their own private recreation during the summer. The entry way - we have gone through several revisions working with the neighbors and adjacent homeowners. We have taken the site plan to the homeowners and met with them and had an informal session and introduced our ideas to get feedback from them. After that meeting there have been several revisions in response to their concerns and then we forwarded those changes to them and I believe a few of them are in the audience tonight. I am sure we will hear from them. Our primary concern has been the entry to Harrison Road. Mr. Shane, correct me if I am wrong, I believe the setback is 50 feet, or is it 75 feet? Mr. Shane: Fifty feet. Mr. Ludwig: Originally we were 75 foot setback to the first building. That still puts the building within a perpendicular line overlapping the residents. They were concerned. We agreed to downsize a few of the units and that allowed us to bring this back to a setback of 11023 166 feet off Harrison right-of-way. There is also considerable berming. There are large trees on the side. We will preserve the existing trees. I do know this is a zoning question but I think it is also important, because your ordinance requires a site plan to go with a rezoning request, to illustrate what we intend to do with the property. We have a church down to the south and a home for the elderly. (Mr. Ludwig presented an elevation plan) Mr. LaPine: What would these units sell for? Mr. Retzlaff: $110,000 to $130,000. Mr. LaPine: Are they brick? Mr. Retzlaff: The exteriors are brick and wood. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Ludwig, you spoke extensively about the buffering throughout the project and I would like to ask you to focus your attention on the first neighbor to the south of the entrance. It looks like the neighbor to the north is well buffered as far as traffic coming in and out. What about the one to the south? Mr. Ludwig: The neighbor to the south, their house is set back from the property line approximately 45 feet and their concerns were primarily about the side of the house. Mr. Engebretson: You have consulted with that neighbor? Mr. Retzlaff: Yes we have. Mr. Engebretson: Have you consulted with the Planning Department and the Fire Marshall relative to a single entrance to a relatively substantial number of units? Mr. Retzlaff: Yes we have. We met with representatives of Mr. Shane's office and representatives of the Fire Department. They wanted a more extensive plan at the time. We compared this to the Merriwood Complex at Eight Mile and Merriman, which has one entrance. Mrs. Fandrei: You mentioned parking. You have two-car attached. How much room is in the driveway for parking? Mr. Retzlaff: Less than 25 feet in the driveway. Mrs. Fandrei: You would have room for two cars in the driveway. What about the width of the road? Mr. Retzlaff: The entrance road is 28 feet wide and the remainder will be 24 feet wide. Mrs. Fandrei: You would have the possibility of parking on one side of the street. Is that your intent? Mr. Retzlaff: Yes. I wanted to get a consensus. If that is agreeable with you. Mrs. Fandrei: I find Merriwood is one of my concerns. I find most condo complexes do not have adequate parking. 11024 Mr. Retzlaff: We have had a problem with that ourselves. Mr. Vyhnalek: When the senior citizens project came along back in 1988, we approved it. That was R-9I, which was four stories, for half of it. The other half was P.S. towards the left. This is all going `. to be two stories? Mr. Retzlaff: No sir. The units will be one and two stories. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the maximum height? Mr. Retzlaff: I believe the ordinance says 30 feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: Your two stories will be maximum? Mr. Retzlaff: It will be approximately the same as any two-story house. Mr. Vyhnalek: We are eliminating the four stories and going to two stories all around. Mr. Shane, what was the reason the Council turned the other petition down? Mr. Shane: I think the Council was concerned with the height of the buildings, which were three stories proposed for the senior citizen development. That was the basic reason for it. They thought it was out of character for the neighborhood. Mr. 'Fent: You have 103 units there and you said it would be one and two stories. What is the percentage of the two stories? Mr. Retzlaff: Approximately 25% will be one story. Gary Garland, 15809 Harrison: I have approximately 500 feet of property line that abuts this property. I am probably the most affected of the residents there. As far as the zoning of the property, obviously the most preferential zoning for the property is single family. Possibly, it is not economical for it to be developed in this fashion. The next best zoning to me would be senior citizens' housing. It happens that the present owner, Mr. Spiro, had us all go through this to develop for senior citizens' housing. For one reason or another he eliminated his access to Five Mile Road, for financial gain I am sure, so now we have rezoned the property to semi-commercial use instead of senior citizen use, which would have possibly fit in well with his adjoining property. He sold his adjoining property and now he says he wants to do something else with his property. If it is Mr. Spiro and we are going through this so he can make some more money, I think that is terrible. If it is Southwood Construction, if it can't be single family or senior citizen, I agree that probably condominiums, done in a proper fashion, is the next best transition because sooner or later the property has to be used for some use. There are obviously heavy concerns about traffic from the entire surrounding community, which I guess would be addressed at the site plan time but to take 100% of an extra 103 homes and put onto Harrison, doesn't seem logical to me since there are two other side streets that have access to Middlebelt. Even if they took 20% on one side and 20% on another side street and took 60% of it onto Harrison, maybe that 11025 is appropriate. City engineering will have to make those decisions. As far as the basic zoning change itself, I think if it had to be condominiums and that was the best use that we could come up with for the property, I think if they bring their condominiums close up to the front of Harrison, I believe it is going to appear that we didn't know what else to do with the property so we stuck some condominiums in the middle of it. I think if you are going to change the zoning for condominiums, it would he appropriate to have a 200 foot setback to get the condominiums back into this area. That was the discussion I had with the people from Southwood. To have it this close was unacceptable. I don't think it is reasonable for me to have six families at my patio. I think if the zoning change is made, this should he a minimum 200 foot setback. The other thing we discussed was, I had suggested that they use this part as an entrance and we had suggested that they bring this entrance down the center so my neighbor on the south side was as protected as I was. They did this so that they could keep the building as far forward as possible. My concern is if they move this back where it should be out of the residential area, they wouldn't have to keep it as close to their house and give them some privacy that they are entitled to. It is probably the third best use. Residential is best. Senior citizens is second best. If we have to have something, maybe we will have to give into it. I don't think that should stick out in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Tent: If that was taken care, as far as the 200 foot setback, would you find this type of development compatible to what you would like in the area if we could correct some of the other problems with the petitioner? `\r Mr. Garland: I believe that the elevations and the type of condominiums, if that was the type of condominium that was going to be built, I believe it would be a decent transition here. My concern is, and I went to their development at Eight Mile and Merriman, I was assured that they could give all of us some decent buffering to protect us from the development. I went to Merriwood and I stood on someone's deck and I could look at neighbors. I stood in someone's yard and took a picture and I had full sight of twelve sets of basement windows. My concern is there would have to be some kind of protection. Mr. Tent: Mr. Shane, that one at Merriwood, that was a different concept, wasn't it? Mr. Shane: Part of it was similar but it was a much larger concept and it had a much different setting. Mr. Tent: It was a poor choice to point out as a carbon copy of what would go in at this location. Mr. Shane: It certainly isn't a carbon copy. Lillian Edney, 15405 Harrison: I have been a resident of Harrison since 1958. Incidently I was not invited to this Southwood meeting to get a preview of this. I have a lot of concerns. Mainly, would the condos be for sale or rent? Nmw Mr. Retzlaff: For sale. 11026 Mrs. Edney: 103 units, that is 206 cars at minimum that would be coming out on Harrison. I like the part where they said they would share the cost of Harrison having to be repaired because of all this traffic. We the homeowners would have the privilege of sharing that too. Why should we be penalized for the traffic that is going to be Nor using Harrison? We are going to be approached to repair the street. Is Southwood going to buy that from Spiro or is Spiro going to be the builder? Mr. Retzlaff: We are. Mrs. Edney: I again prefer the single family dwelling or if not that, the Silver Village type of senior citizen housing. In our area we have rural mail delivery. I have to cross the street to get the mail. Quite often I have to wait for six cars to pass for me to go across the street to get the mail. If this goes through, I don't know how I will get the mail. We believe in being neighborly on Harrison Street so we would like to share this extra traffic with Rayburn and Roycroft residents. They don't want it. We don't want it either. I just really think that it is a dangerous situation to have that much traffic coming through. What provisions will be taken care of in regard to the sewer systems? My main concern is this should have more than one entrance. We get a lot of traffic as it is. Henry Kozyn, 28575 Broadmoor: Approximately 2 - 2 1/2 years ago the rezoning of this property was requested. There was not much objection because the proposed building density was rather light and access was provided onto Five Mile to take care of the additional traffic. The present rezoning request, however, is based on a development '414111, proposal that requires a much greater building density and is inadequate to properly handle the increase in traffic inasmuch as it does not provide access to Five Mile Road as in the previous proposal. According to the drawings shown to us by Southwood Construction Company, all traffic into and out of the complex will have to use Harrison. The condominiums will be priced about $130,000. It is definitely not low cost housing, and we may safely assume that the majority of occupants will be two-car families and you will end up with an increase of traffic on Harrison of maybe as much as 350 vehicles per day, 175 in and 175 out. It is also reasonable to assume thata portion of these vehicles destined for or returning from the Six Mile and Seven Mile areas, that these people in order to avoid the two traffic lights will be using the residential streets north of the property, namely Broadmoor. If only one-third of the drivers decide to take that route, the people on Broadmoor will be faced with an additional 120 vehicles per day, 60 inbound and 60 outbound. This street was paved just a little bit over two years ago and we are still paying for it. By the time it is paid for in 1995, it will have cost me approximately $2,400 but by then it will most likely be ready to be paved as a result of the increased traffic. Since I have no small children at home, I leave it up to my neighbors to bring up the safety issue. I strongly recommend to the Planning Commission that this request not be granted approval unless the proposal is modified to close off the entrance on Harrison and to provide instead an access road on Five Mile, which is designed to handle a large amount of traffic. 11027 Jean Kehn, 15730 Harrison: I am fifty feet from their entrance right back of my drive. On top of that the water shutoff is in my drive for that property. Next door to me on the east side we have a culvert to carry off all the excess water. I can't complain. This seems to be the best of all evils but I am concerned about widening the street. - Who is going to pay for that? We don't need it widened. Who is going to pay for the sewers in there? I agree with that gentleman, shut off Harrison. Tonight when we came to this meeting, we had to sit in our drive while six cars passed us because everyone was coming up Harrison and that is every day of the week. What do we do now? I don't think it is the taxpayer's responsibility. If Mr. Spiro wants to make some money, let him help pay for it. Dick Massingill, 15905 Harrison: My concerns have already been stated. I am concerned about the traffic flow. Harrison is in a constant need of patching. It is almost a patch quilt street. Any time there is a big rain, the street is flooded. The traffic on Broadmoor continues to increase. When they first put the restaurant and bar down there at the corner of Broadmoor and Middlebelt, we were told they could not make a left hand turn out of the bar. Someone picked up the left hand turn sign and it has never been replaced so they just come and go as they please. I am concerned about the sewage inceptor. How will they take care of that much sewage from 103 condominiums. My biggest concern, of course, is the traffic and I wasn't notified of any of these meetings they were talking about but I am not right adjacent to the property. That is my biggest concern. Charlotte Eickhoff, 28900 Rayburn: That is two houses at the end of the property where it is zoned professional services. I understand there is a traffic problem but Harrison has a light. Rayburn does not. On any given day I ask any of you to come during rush hour traffic and make a left hand turn onto Middlebelt. You cannot do it and as you all know Middlebelt and Five Mile is one of the biggest accident areas in the City. There is at least an accident there a week. There have been several fatalities at the corner. That makes it very hard for us. We have to contend with the 7-Eleven. We also have to contend with Little Caesar's Pizza. We have to contend with a job placement service that is there now and the auto parts store. The people who go into Little Caesars and the job placement services and auto parts all turn onto Rayburn and then into the driveway, making it twice as difficult for us to make a left hand turn off that street. I think if they did a study on traffic on Middlebelt, they would find that a street going through there is not feasible. At least Harrison has a traffic light and they have more than one road out of their neighborhood. They can go down Broadmoor. They can go down a little further. We have one way in and one way out. There are 35 homes affected on Rayburn whereas the homes affected on Harrison are only 17 homes in that immediate area. Mr. LaPine: Are you for or against the project? Ms. Eickhoff: The project itself doesn't seem too bad. It is not one of the best plans per se to date but obviously something is going to be developed on this property. When they had the site plans for 11028 the professional service, there was an entrance from the nursing home to that property along with Harrison, which made a difference and they were only supposed to build three stories. It sounded good at the time. He sold us a bill of goods and didn't do anything with it. I am not totally against this provided the homes are of the value he is planning on putting in there and not going to bring down the value of the surrounding property. Robert Ostander, 15400 Harrison: This traffic problem. In listening to the gentleman talking and the sketches, he talks about the green berm in the space here. (He pointed it out on the sketch). It is my understanding that the City of Livonia is planning on widening Harrison. In doing so, property has to come from some place. The people living on Harrison are going to have what? Thirty-five feet? With all this traffic going by the front door. 110 units. We are going to pay for it and we are going to have traffic from people we don't know. Harrison, it is my understanding, they are planning on making it a boulevard. Do you want a boulevard in front of your house? The first group of people on Harrison are going to take this right at the neck. We are going to have to pay for it and we are going to have to live with it. Before approving this rezoning request, I would suggest you ladies and gentleman figure out what to do with the traffic. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, is there any plans for widening Harrison? Mr. Shane: It is indicated by the Engineering Department. What they are indicating is when you begin a development area and a street has not been developed to its full potential, there comes a point in time when you have to talk about developing it to its full Nkm. potential. At the moment it is a paved street along Harrison but if it were developed as the Master Plan indicates, there would be an 86 foot wide right-of-way with a 34 foot wide pavement. Now, I believe, it is a 24 foot pavement and all the right-of-way is not available. If it were developed, and when it is developed, it would be done on a special assessment basis like all residential streets are. In this case, since it is a half mile collector street, it is one designation above a normal residential street, the City's participation is somewhat more than it would be if it were a normal residential street so when the assessment rolls came out, the assessment on abutting properties would be as if it were a 60 foot residential street. The ultimate decision on whether Harrison would be paved or not would be the City Councils and only after a series of public hearings sometime in the future. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman, I think the citizens that have spoken here tonight have individually and collectively made many valid points and I think it is important that you understand that we listen carefully and take all of those comments into consideration throughout this process. I think it is also important that you realize, and I think it was said earlier tonight, this issue tonight is for zoning only and not site plan approval. The site plan that was presented is simply to give us a sense of what the developer has in mind to enable all of us, you and us, to evaluate the feasibility of this rezoning request. If you look at the present zoning, it is conceivable that if a developer were to bring into the City a valid 11029 site plan that met the ordinance in every respect, you could have in your backyard a four-story senior citizen development. Not a Silver Village, but a four-story development. That is the zoning that is there now and in addition to that you could have a professional office building with doctors, attorneys and engineers and the like on the interior part of that land. So I guess what I "41m. am trying to do is to give you some sense that we are very aware and understand your concerns, but what you see here tonight is far better than what you might face under those other circumstances. I am not trying to say that is a likely thing to happen and I'm also not saying the City can't prevent things like that from developing, but the City would be hard pressed to stop a valid site plan that met the ordinance in every respect along the lines of what I said a few minutes ago. In summary I would like to leave you with this thought, that the site plan you are looking at here tonight appears to have a lot of good points and it has some flaws. There will be a public hearing on this issue relative to the site plan if this proposal is successful and it will be aired out again. I get the sense that there has been some negotiations with the neighborhood and that the developer and his planner have made movement to try to be accommodating and I get the impression that they would continue to work with you in that spirit if this rezoning is successful so please understand that the issues here are very complex relative to zoning, but the site plan is only to support a sense of what is going on. The site plan is not something that we are dealing with here tonight. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Shane, assuming that possibly this was residential, let's say R-2, how many single family homes could be built on this property? Mr. Shane: Taken from the least restrictive zoning district, single family, which would be R-1, 60 foot lots, you could build on approximately 64 lots, four units per acre. This particular development is developed at about 6.4 units per acre. Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you own the property or does Al Spiro? Mr. Retzlaff: Mr. Spiro currently owns the property. We are under contract. We are purching the property contingent upon the rezoning. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is there any way you could exit out onto Five Mile Road from this property? Mr. Retzlaff: We looked long and hard at that. We talked to some of the property owners along Five Mile and they have no interest in selling any portion of it. We have given it considerable thought. We even considered the church area. They have a dual entrance on either side of the building but currently there is no owner along Five Mile that is going to give us access from Five Mile. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Spiro does not own any of that property? Mr. Retzlaff: No. Mr. Spiro sold that property. Mrs. Sobolewski: That is entirely sold? Mr. Retzlaff: To my knowledge. 11030 Mr. Tent: Mr. Retzlaff, I agree with what Mr. Engebretson said insofar as the zoning is concerned. They are my sentiments exactly. We are not discussing site plan but I am going to ask you, several opinions were put forth about your driveway that is coming east out onto Harrison. Would you be amenable, when we get into the site plan, of pulling that back? Would that be something you would entertain. Mr. Retzlaff: Our original plan that we submitted to the City showed an entrance parallel to that south boundary line and subsequent to that meeting we were at approximately 75 feet back. This has been adjusted to 130 feet back to accomodate some of the concerned residents in the neighborhood. We think it addresses the buffering. We have had some subsequent meetings with some of the homeowners there regarding some landscape berming and having more mature trees in the front. The plans you see before you are somewhat of an agreement between our company and some of the residents. Mr. Tent: In other words you are still flexible? In other words when you sit down with the residents and come forth before the Planning Commission again on the site plan, you could make changes because traffic is a concern? Mr. Retzlaff: It is a concern to us too. Mr. Tent: I wanted to know if your feet are in cement. Mr. Retzlaff: No our feet are not cast in cement although we think we have a good plan here. We are willing to negotiate. We are willing to look at alternatives. I might point out that this plan, under current zoning for this type of unit, is allowable for 150 units. We think r we have made a lot of concessions already. Mrs. Larsen, 15423 Harrison: We heard that church was for sale. Whether it is true, I am not sure. Mr. LaPine: We would not know if the church was for sale. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regaring this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #2-300-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-1-1-3 by Southwood Construction Co. for Alexander Spiro requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison Avenue, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from R-9I and P.S. to R-C, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-1-1-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a variety of housing units to serve all population segments in the City. 11031 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the use of a vacant parcel formerly owned by the Livonia Public School District. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. __ 4) That the proposed zoning district will provide for "for sale" units as opposed to rental and buildings will be limited to two stories in height consistent with surrounding development. 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 90-2-2-3 by George W. Auch Co. requesting waiver use approval to allow the outdoor storage of steel products and materials on property located on the east side of Globe Road between Amrhein Road and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. 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 their department has no objections to this petition. We have also received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found. We have received a letter from Anthony Bennett Properties stating they disagree with outdoor ,,` storage and excess trucks and they do not believe this was what was in our minds or plans when this Industrial Park was conceived. They further state the buildings in this Park have all improved their appearances and landscaping, which in turn, brought the property values up. They state it would seem that to allow outdoor storage would be a determent to the Park. Fred Auch: I am with the George W. Auch Company and I am here with Don Simon who is President of Contractors Steel. As you can see Don fronts on Amrhein. It runs to the rear of this property, which is otherwise landlocked. Everything on Don's space right now, outside of the building, does consist of outside steel storage in the M-1 area. As a matter of fact, it is indicative of the fact that Planning Commissions are getting more involved in what is going on in their community. I think this is the first time, in 22 years of operation, we have had to be here to seek a waiver use such as this. The property adjoins Don's back property. It is the last available space for him to use to expand his facilities but it is consistent with the use we have had on the property for the last 22 years. Mr. Vyhnalek: What would you put on that property? 11032 Mr. Auch: I will pass out an aerial photo that will show what we want to do. (Mr. Auch passed out the photo) We would fence enclose it, grade it, put stone paving on and put the lights in the corners. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is it the same material you have in the photos? *ftly Mr. Auch: Exactly the same material as in these photos. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the height? Mr. Auch: Maximum height would 7 and 8 feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you purchased this property yet? Mr. Auch: It is purchased and the offer is accepted but it is conditional upon waiver use. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to use the building for your business? Mr. Auch: Not immediately. We are planning that this would be our main office sometime down the line. Mr. Vyhnalek: That could be used as a warehouse. Would there be enough parking, if you take that entire back section would there be enough parking for a viable business to come in there. Mr. Auch: Right now it has approximately 50 spaces. I can't speak for the ordinance but it would be a simple matter to move the fence back. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are not going to put down blacktop? You are going to put down stone? Nor Mr. Auch: Correct. Mr. Kluver• Mr. Auch, you indicated that if you were to be approved to have this additional storage area, the same types of material would be stored as are presently stored in your yard. Looking at your facility, these are presently outside storage for various types of structural steel and various units that you have out there. Do you handle that by a gantry type crain? Mr. Auch: In the gantry crain aisles, it is handled by a gantry crain. In the others, it is a hugh fork lift. Mr. Kluver: These sections that you are going to store out there, is this the need because of additional business, because you have to increase your inventory or is it a situation because you are required longer time in order to have these sections developed? Why do you need the extra space? Mr. Auch: Our business is picking up and we find Livonia has been fantastic for us. This is the first chance we have had of expanding our property and it will give us a chance to increase our storage area so that we can do more business. 11033 Mr. McCann: I notice that you are going to be traveling under some pretty strong power lines and there is a tower right there dividing the two pieces of property. I am wondering how that is going to affect your car running through there with the steel. Mr. Auch: The first lines on that tower are about 60 feet up and I have `"r► checked with the utilities. Michigan Bell is there and Edison and I don't believe there is any problem with that area. Right now our fence line goes right up to the transmitting tower and we have been doing this same thing for many years and there has never been a problem. Mr. McCann: Have you thought about enclosing this steel building? Mr. Auch: In this area, no. I don't think we would enclose it. We will just use it as a storage yard. Mr. McCann: The cost is prohibitive? Mr. Auch: It is not just cost. It is a question of our cost of structural beams. We can leave them outside and based on that it is a little less cost than putting up a building. We found that just laying it on the ground is quite ample for us and is not a problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: How will this affect your neighbors to the right and left? Mr. Auch: To the north is the rear of Hostess. They use that right now as a parking lot for their trucks. I have been checking nightly to see how many trucks they have. They have about 20 to 25 trucks jammed in their back yard. I don't believe it will be a problem for them. I think it will be an advantage for them because we intend on lighting our lot and we throw a lot of light and that means that lot in the back where they store their trucks now will be lit. Also on the north is a strip building and they use the back as a drive through. On the south side of our property is another company and they have 100 to 150 car parking area back there and our property would run parallel to it so I don't think there would be any problem in that area either. Mr. Kluver: I guess when you have an outside storage facility regardless of the type of industry, whether it is referred to as a clean type of industry or steel warehouse type of operation, there is an impact by outside storage and there is always a situation where there is a major housekeeping problem regardless of how well any business is run. That is one of the problems I have difficulty with. I have spent many years in industry, the automotive industry, and housekeeping is a major problem. There are some problems out there that exist no matter how well you manage it. Mr. Auch: As you can see, Mr. Kluver, on that drawing, he has to to keep the steel neat and orderly and acceptable to make it handleable. Mr. Kluver: I understand that but this is M-1 zoning, which we look at as it is like having gold in a gold reserve because Livonia was very prudent in their development of the industrial belt. One mile wide, six 11034 miles long. It is very precious to the City and it has been a very successful development for the City of Livonia both for the tax base and also for the employment of the City. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am looking at your map here and I can't see any other property `, that has outside storage except yours in the whole area. Am I mistaken or is the map wrong? Mr. Auch: On Globe you have Michigan Bell about five buildings down from us and they have all of their materials outside. They have trucks and telephone poles, etc. There is also Detroit Edison on the corner of Globe and Plymouth. They have their trucks and their transformers, etc. stored there. Both Edison and Michigan Bell are storing outside like that. Dave Joslyn, Vice President of Air Gage: We own the property just south of the property in question. For your information Tony Battaglia, the gentleman who wrote the letter, does own the property that is considered Michigan Bell Telephone Company property. We are concerned, as the borderline neighbor of this property, of changing drastically, we think, the complexion of what Globe Street has been and what it has become in the past few years. From the time we built about four and a half to five years ago, there has been a drastic improvement and some major investments by the company owners in this area. I point to Test Tech who just put a whole new front and extended their building and made it much more attractive. There has been a lot of landscape work done by the other property owners there. We are very concerned that opening this to storage of steel products is going to devalue and push down the value of this property. We are also concerned it is just not going to fit with what that industrial park was set up to be. I think there is a great difference between storing Bell telephone trucks or Detroit Edison trucks down the street that leave every morning than storing steel. There are poles at Bell Telephone but it is not in general a storage area. It is really a harbor place for their trucks. Would the cranes come out onto that property later. As I understand that may or may not be something you could enforce. There are some residents that are very concerned that this could be, because they are buying a whole section of property that they could use Globe Road as an exit. We don't see that as a viable alternative. We have the Bell telephone trucks. That is a considerable amount of traffic. The traffic there right now is pretty phenomenal. We don't feel that we want an outdoor PA about 75 feet from our design engineering area. We are not talking very far from the corner of our building to the corner of their fence amd we are not interested in having an outdoor paging system that we can already hear being added to that. In general, we don't think it is the right use of the property. I understand that it is landlocked but that doesn't mean someone else could not build and expand that facility or do something back there. Mr. Auch: I would like to answer a couple of questions. First of all, Air Gage's question about us moving our trucks out onto Globe. We have no intention of doing that. All we are going to do is fence in the area there so we will have protection. We have accesses to Amrhein Road like we have for 22 years. We do a nice job with our 11035 landscaping and try to be a good neighbor in the City of Livonia. If you drive by you know we do a nice job as far as our grass and we keep up everything on our building. On Globe Street we have a very nice building. We are going to use this building. Our intention in three or four years is to come in and use that for our `r offices because we are running out of room. I think all we are doing now is extending what we have been doing for 22 years just another 373 feet. We really are not using it for anything more than what it has been used for in the last few years. We want to be a good neighbor on Globe. You won't be able to see what we are doing because it is all locked in in the rear. I don't think that is going to be a problem. We parallel Air Gage's parking lot. They have about a 100 car parking lot in the rear. Mrs. Fandrei: You haven't spoken to the outdoor PA system. Was that something you were planning on installing? Mr. Auch: We do have a PA system. At this time we do not have any intention of putting a PA system out yet. Our foremen have their own walkie talkie radios. We are planning on operating with walkie talkies like we do now. Mr. McCann: I understand you are asking for waiver use and a waiver use runs with the land if you sell the property. I understand you are planning on being there but we have to look at it for the long run beyond your particular use. Expanding outdoor storage is not something that is regularly done. You already have quite a bit of outdoor storage. Don't you have some inside storage you could use so we don't have to expand the outdoor storage? That is what we are trying to avoid. `rr Mr. Auch: We have a 100,000 square foot building right now. Then we have two grainways and two big craneways. It would be impractical for us to put a building on that piece of property. We have an easement on the east of this property. There is an easement also on the north side of this property. I think it would be best served for us if we don't build any buildings. We have high tension wires there. It just wouldn't work out. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-2-2-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #2-301-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 90-2-2-3 by George W. Auch Co. requesting waiver use approval to allow the outdoor storage of steel products and materials on property located on the east side of Globe Road between Amrhein Road and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 90-2-2-3 for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 11036 2) That expansion of the outdoor storage of materials onto the subject property, as proposed, will be detrimental to and incompatible with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That very little outdoor storage of equipment and/or material takes r.. place as part of the operation of the vast majority of existing industrial uses in the area. 4) That the approval of this waiver use request would prevent the use of the subject property for a more permanent and substantial use in keeping with the majority of the existing uses in the area. 5) That an Industrial Park such as Globe Industrial Park, within which the proposed use is located, traditionally has more restrictive standards so as to attract "cleaner" type industrial uses which tend not to have outdoor storage of equipment and materials. 6) That the amount of available building sites within the City's industrial area is becoming scarce. 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: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Sobolewski ABSENT: Morrow 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 89-12-3-8 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1090-89, proposing to vacate Bennett Avenue between Fairfield and Mayfield Avenues, north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10. 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 twenty foot wide easements are being retained over portions of the sixty foot right-of-way to be vacated to accommodate existing overhead Detroit Edison facilities. Since there are no City-maintained utilities within the sixty foot right-of-way, their office has no objections to the vacating petition. We understand that Detroit Edison has written a letter to the Planning Commission but we have not yet received it. However, in a phone conversation with them they stated Detroit Edison does not have any difficulty with the vacating of the street provided the necessary easements are retained. Those necessary easements were described by the Engineering letter. The purpose for those retention of easements is that there is an overhead line on the north side of the right-of-way and it is their intention to have those easements maintained if this is vacated. 11037 Gary Wrigley, 17751 Fairfield: My lot would be Lot 49. I know just to the east of us that street has been vacated. Originally the street was put in to come all the way through Bennett to allow people to go into Rotary Park. Many years ago the police elected that they only wanted one entrance into the park for security reasons so about three years ago they vacated it just to the east of us. Just Lots 72, 73, 48 and 49 is where this easement only exists. I am stumped on the power lines and the easement Edison wants. It has been vacated on the other side and there are power lines there. I had some plans for that land and I guess I want to know do they still want access to this easement? Mr. Shane: The public right-of-way provides an easement for utilities. If the public right-of-way is vacated without concern for any kind of easement for utilities, then Detroit Edison has lost access to their equipment. What they are asking is even though the right-of-way itself is vacated, that there be maintained private easements over portions of the former right-of-way and it would be over the north portion towards Lot 48 and 73. There was an easement, I am sure, retained over the vacated street as well. So you vacate the right-of-way but you maintain an easement for utility purposes. Mr. Wrigley: How much of that land would they want? Mr. Shane: What they describe is the north 20 feet of the right-of-way. That north 20 feet would be towards Lots 73 and 48. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-12-3-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #2-302-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 27, 1990 on Petition 89-12-3-8 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1090-89, proposing to vacate Bennett Avenue between Fairfield and Mayfield Avenues, north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-12-3-8 be approved subject to retaining a private easement for public utilities over the north 20 feet of said public right-of-way and subject to retaining a private easement for public utilities over the west 20 feet of the east 185 feet of said public right-of-way, for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed for public access purposes. 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more advantageously used for private purposes. 3) That vacating the subject right-of-way will place the subject land area back on the City's tax rolls. 4) That no City department or public utility have objected to the subject vacating. 'rr.. 11038 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 \r. adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-12-3-9 by Brian P. Henry requesting to vacate a 12' wide public utilities easement across Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Livonia Executive Park No. 1 Subdivision located on the north side of Industrial Road and west of Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. 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 since there are rio City-maintained utilities within the subject easement area, their office has no objections to the vacating petition. Brian Henry, 32270 Telegraph, Birmingham: I am here on behalf of J & L Industrial Supply, which owns the three parcels in question. The original easement was to serve three lots and our client, J & L Industrial Supply Company, built a building that is going to extend across the three lots so the need for the easement has been eliminated and the electrical hookup will be at the top. There is still an easement that runs north and south extending directly above so there still will be no actual hookup. It will be through a much smaller area. That is why we requested a vacation of easement. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-12-3-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #2-303-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 27, 1990 on Petition 89-12-3-9 by Brian P. Henry requesting to vacate a 12' wide public utilities easement across Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Livonia Executive Park No. 1 Subdivision located on the north side of Industrial Road and west of Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-12-3-9 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That no City department or public utility company have objected to the proposed vacating. 2) That there is no longer any public purpose to be served by retention of the subject easement. 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. 11039 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, announced 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 and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was _r RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 30, 1990 on Petition 89-12-2-56 by Michigan Laborers' Training Institute requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of equipment and materials in conjunction with a proposed construction laborers' school to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-12-2-56 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 2-20-90 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That materials and equipment proposed to be stored on the site shall be limited to: one (1) air compressor, 20 pieces of 6" vetrified pipe, 10 pieces of 8" PVC pipe, 20 pieces of 6" concrete pipe, 1 manhole structure, and 1 semi-trailer. 3) That all deficiencies and problems noted by the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the Inspection Department in their letter dated January 22, 1990 shall be rectified. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #1543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Sobolewski NAYS: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei ABSENT: Morrow Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #2-304-90 RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 30, 1990 on Petition 89-12-2-56 by Michigan Laborers' Training Institute requesting waiver use approval for outdoor storage of equipment and materials in conjunction with a proposed construction laborers' school r.. 11040 to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft Road and Industrial Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 89-12-2-56 for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use will be incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed use does not provide for maximum use of the property at a time when vacant industrially zoned land is becoming scarce in the City of Livonia. 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: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: McCann, Sobolewski ABSENT: Morrow Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimot . iy air. approved, it was #2-305-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 594th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 30, 1990 are approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #2-306-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 595th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 13, 1990 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tent ABSENT: Morrow Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was 11041 #2-307-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-2-8-2 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a 42 unit condominium housing project located on the west side of Victor Parkway just south of Eight Mile Road in Section 6, be approved subject to the following N` conditions: 1) That the Site Plan for "The Villas" by Beck Development dated 2/16/90, prepared by Quincy Johnson Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Plans for Units A, B, and C of "The Villas" by Beck Development dated 1/30/90, prepared by Quincy Johnson Associates are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That a detailed Landscape Plan be submitted for Planning Commission approval within thirty (30) days. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #2-308-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan by K Mart Corporation to renovate the landscaping at its store located at 30255 Plymouth Road subject to the following condition: 1) That the Landscape Plan for K Mart Store #4352, shown on Sheets L-1 and L-2 dated 2/2/90 prepared by S. K. Li, Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #2-309-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that a one-year extension of Revised Site Plans submitted in connection with Petition 86-6-8-33 by Chestnut Hills for the construction of a multi-use complex on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in Section 6 be granted subject to the following condition: 1) That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that approval of Petition 86-6-8-33 (Revised Site Plan for Chestnut Hills Development) be extended for one year subject to the same conditions as set forth in its Resolution #2-44-89, adopted on February 28, 1989. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 11042 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 596th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on February 27, 1990 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. ,0161. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION i Raymo W. Tent, Se retary ATTEST: L.�G �C ie:. :__7 William LaPine, Chairman jg rr.