Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-07-12 10246 MINUTES OF THE 561st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA Now On Tuesday, July 12, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 561st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. , with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski Jack Engebretson James C. McCann William LaPine Raymond Tent Members absent: R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Vyhnalek 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 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 tonight. 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. Vyhnalek introduced the new member of the Planning Commission, Raymond Tent. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-1-16 by Cyril Van Loke for Sword of the Spirit Lutheran Church requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, from RUFB to R-4. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating there are no sanitary sewers readily available to service the future lots referred to in the petitioner's letter dated June 1, 1988. John Mahn, representing petitioner as well as Mayflower Development Co. : To answer Mr. Nagy's letter from Engineering we plan on putting a sanitary sewer along Seven Mile south of Laurel to service church property. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to develop both sides? Mr. Mahn: Yes sir. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many lots on this side? Vr. 10247 Mr. Mahn: Five. Mr. Vyhnalek: That will be 90 foot lots? Mr. Mahn: Yes. New Mr. LaPine: The parcel you own, on the west side, are you going to split that into two lots? What will they be? Mr. Mahn: 100 feet by 200 feet. Mr. LaPine: The ones across the street are going to be what? Mr. Mahn: 90 feet by 130 feet. Mr. LaPine: You are going to have five lots? Mr. Mahn: The church is splitting up five lots. Mr. Tent: What will be the value of homes? The selling price? Mr. Mahn: The same as at Seven Mile and Gill, range from $160,000 to $200,000. Mr. LaPine: The square footage? Mr. Mahn: We haven't put the restrictions together as to what we feel will be good for the area. I would say something around 1700 to 1800 square feet. Mr. Engebretson: I am missing something. As I look at two parcels you say you are going to divide into two 100 foot lots, it appears that it has the same area as where you plan on developing five 90 foot lots. r.. Mr. Mahn: The church property has much more vacant land than we do. The existing house on southwest corner, the setback is over 100 feet and the house stays. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you saying that house is going to remain and lot split is below there? We are only dealing with less than half a lot? Mr. Mahn: Right. Mr. LaPine All the other lots are 1/2 acre lots? Mr. Mahn: I do not know. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Bakewell can you tell us? Mr. Bakewell: The majority are 1/2 acre. Mr. LaPine: The parcel you own, how large is that? Mr. Nagy: Two acres. Mr. LaPine: How much of that two acres are you spliting, 2 one-acre parcels? Mr. Mahn: Two lots 100 feet by 200 feet. 10248 Mr. Tent: Who is the builder of the homes on this site? Mr. Mahn: Mayflower Development Company. Mr. McCann: Would you consider four 100-foot lots to keep the flow of the street `oft. instead of going five 90-foot lots? It would be more in keeping with the rest of the street. Mr. Mahn: That is the church's property and it is a joint venture and the church is looking to raise some funds so it is a matter of economics, the more lots the more money for the church. Mr. McCann: I understand I just hate to see a change of one area so quickly. Mr. Mahn: There are 90 foot lots just south of it. Henry Cholewa: I live in the fifth house on Gill Road. What is going to happen to area church now owns if this petition goes through. There is 270 feet from my lot line to where the 130 foot lot line would end. What is going to happen to that area? Mr. Koskela, 16875 Woodside, representing the church: The proceeds from sale of the lots are going to be used to improve the current church site. We are going to build an addition, improve the parking lot, put in landscaping, upgrade our facilities. Mr. Vyhnalek: Anything new south of church? Mr. Koskela: We have parking lot back there now. We are looking at extension of church building and paving. `'w Mr. Vyhnalek: That will remain the church's property. Mrs. Kaczor: The people on Laurel own all of the property back of ours. What we were wondering is there going to be anything done back there? Mr. Koskela: We are going to retain that property upon advice from Planning Department. It was suggested we just rezone the whole site. Mr. Nagy: The church under our zoning ordinance is required to have a miminum site area of two acres. They have to meet their minimum lot requirements. Mr. LaPine: You see where the church property is, who owns the parcel directly behind that parcel? Is that part of deal? Mr. Koskela: That is. Mr. LaPine: My position is it would be more practical to make four 100-foot lots rather than five 90-foot lots. Robert Metti: I live behind church. I have only one question. I wonder what is the setback of the houses. Mr. Vyhnalek: It has to be back as far as yours right Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: The R-4 requires a 40 foot front yard setback. 10249 Mr. Metti: Mine is 90 foot. Mr. Vyhnalek: By ordinance it is 40 foot. Mr. Metti: So the back of the houses would be in the front of my house. Mr. Vyhnalek: If yours is back 90 feet, that is correct. Mr. McCann: What is frontage? Mr. Metti: 123 feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: Ranch or colonial? Mr. Metti: : Colonial. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Metti, would it matter to you whether they are 90 foot or 100 foot lots? Mr. Metti: If someone drives down road, I wonder if this is going to improve area or not. Mr. Tent: I have seen situations like this before. They want to be as close to curb as possible. Would it be a hardship if you could stagger setbacks so you could allow existing owner not to be viewing back of homes? Mr. Mahn: We would work on it. We have done things in the past in the City and it is always to improve the City in regards to beautification so I don't think there would he a problem with that. Mr. Metti: I have no objection. `\r Mr. Koskela: Without zoning change I believe setback would be 50 feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: Four lots instead of five, what hardship would that be on the church? Mr. Koskela: Economically, we have certain costs. We have engineering costs, planning costs. We are going to put in storm sewers etc. It is an economical hardship. Judy Bell, 18728 Laurel: I live fourth house from church. I would like to go on record I object. Also because our street is real unique to put five houses on 90 foot lots destroys the whole concept of that street. We like the concept of street. I just want to let you know I object to this proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: Could you live with 110 foot lot instead of 90? Mrs. Bell: No I would like to see 160. My personal thing is the most I could accept would be 3 homes, that would give them 150 foot lots. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-1-16 closed. 10250 On a motion made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #7-115-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 on Petition 88-6-1-16 by Cyril Van Loke for Sword of the Spirit `_ Lutheran Church requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, from RUFB to R-4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-1-16 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for substantial size lots to be developed on the property. (3) The proposed change of zoning will not effect the use of the balance of the property for church purposes. 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-1-17 by McBell Management requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-7. 'Now Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating the comments outlined in their letter dated August 29, 1980 remains the same relative to this petition. Engineering's letter of August 29, 1980 stated there were no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service subject site and it may have to be outletted southerly through the Hines Park area to Newburgh Lake. In addition, appropriate pavement widenings of Plymouth Road may be required by the Wayne County Road Commission. In this connection, further right-of-way dedication will be required along the Plymouth Road frontage in accordance with the City's and County's Master Thoroughfare Plans. There appears to be no other engineering problems connected with the proposal. Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road, representing petitioner: With me tonight is the architect, George Hartman, from Plymouth, Michigan. I have a very brief presentation of type of development petitioner would like to put there. McBell Management Company consists of two young men, both living in Livonia, Jim McAree and Craig Corbell. They have done other multiple developments. We have renderings of type of work they do. McBell Management Company is not here as an optionee. They have purchased the property. They did go with the knowledge that there have been several petitions for this property that have been turned down. They are relatively new property owners. I would like to turn this over to Mr. Hartman who has site plan. It is intended they will build condominiums, $75,000 to $80,000 range. 10251 Mr. Hartman: (He showed plans). Four buildings up front which are two bedroom, two story units. One set of 1 bedroom unit. We have made some allowance for the wider right-of-way - 75 feet. We have made provisions for detention pond at rear. Car ports or garages located between units. (He then showed elevation plan) All buildings are two-story units and designed for low maintenance. Large deck areas and individual entrances. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is height? Mr. Hartman: Approximately 25 feet to ridge. Cluster roof structure. Mr. LaPine: How many two bedroom units? Mr. Hartman: 64. Mr. LaPine: How many one bedroom units? Mr. Hartman: 16. Mr. LaPine: Are they going to be all brick? Mr. Hartman: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Do they have laundry facilities? Mr. Hartman: Each unit has own laundry area. They are very well equipped. Mr. LaPine: You were talking about car ports and/or garages. Could you explain? Mr. Hartman: Right now we are discussing possibility of whether we should go with '4111. enclosed garages or car ports. If car port, it would blend in. Mr. LaPine: Would each unit have car port? Mr. Hartman: One space for each car. Mr. LaPine: Are there any recreational facilities? Mr. Hartman: No, we have proposed large greenbelt. Mr. LaPine: These will be sold as condominiums? Mr. Tent: When you speak of car ports vs garages. At that price you are only relegated to car ports. If you are indicating garages, that will be another step up in development. You hadn't really decided to put in garages so you put in car ports. Mr. Hartman: No not necessarily. I would say that the cost of garages vs car ports is very close. Right now it is in discussion stage. Mr. Tent: These units will not have basements, is that correct? Mr. Hartman: That is correct. 10252 Mr. Tent: What is the density of units per acre? Mr. Hartman: One unit for 740 square feet. Mr. Nagy: Eleven units to acre. Mr. Tent: Do you have any examples or samples where you can point to? Mr. Hartman: I would like to show you one. This is a development that is under construction right now in Old Village Plymouth, backs up to Hines Park. These units are very similar. (He then showed renderings) Mr. Tent: What do they sell for? Mr. Hartman: These are apartments, but they are similar. Mr. Vyhnalek: Let us stick to rezoning tonight. Mr. Kluver: I wanted to get back to zoning issue rather than addressing issues of the site plan. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, the land to west of subdivision, what is it zoned. Mr. Nagy: R-1, single family. On west side of subdivision there are multiples going up. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, was this property ever before the Planning Commission before? Mr. Nagy: Yes, twice. Planning Commission recommended approval for first petition and recommended against second petition. Mr. LaPine: We have R-1 district and possibility of R-7 in between two single family homes. Mr. Kluver: Obviously there is a reason why you are moving towards having this type of zoning but have you looked at a development of residential. You have 7 1/2 acres. It would seem to me that should be a future consideration. Why can't you develop it as residential? Mr. Hartman: I think by time you try to develop it as residential with single family homes because of lack of sewer system and cost of homes, it becomes prohibitive to build something that is accessible to the average person. This allows the average person to buy a home. Mr. Kluver: Can you show me figures that will prove this would not be feasible as residential homes? Mr. Hartman: This is the path the client chose. P. S. Sidhu: I own Lot No. 538 and I own Lot 541, 542 and 543. If you approve this for apartments, what will I do with this empty lot? Allowing apartments over here, the property will go down and this land would be useless. If someone comes in there, develop subdivision in whole area. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you owned property? Mr. Sidhu: 1982. 10253 Valerie White, 11783 Jarvis: I live across the street from the proposed development. I am here to represent members of the Chaney Bakewell Subdivision Homeowners' Association. Many of us are here tonight as well. A year ago we presented a petition to Planning Commission relative to very similar rezoning. I would like to read through that petition again. `` We the members of the Chaney Bakewell Subdivision Homeowners' Association are opposed to the rezoning as proposed in petition for the property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Road in Section 30 from RUF (rural urban farm) to R-7 (multiple family dwelling). When here-to-for undeveloped property is proposed for a new use, the interest of the property owner and developer are of one kind - monetary gain. It is the role of the Planning Commission to represent the needs of the community. An apartment building, and now we would like to include condominium, is an investment and the owner's number one concern is to receive a return on that investment. Most often the owner is not a member of the community and is unconcerned about the future quality of life within that community. Apartment residents generally do not have an investment in the community either, unlike those of us who have made the investment and have been proud to call Livonia home. Many of us are long-term residents and all are taxpayers. We can sight may potential problems: overcrowding of schools, strain on city services such as water and sewer, and traffic problems. Because of the rezoning of the property just west of Alois to R-7, which Mr. Nagy referred to, we can anticipate in excess of 350 additional vehicles on less than a quarter mile of roadway that at peak times of the day is already a problem. We believe that having two such developments on such a short stretch of road will have a very serious negative impact on our property values. We believe the City has a responsibility to the long term property owners who call this city home, to protect our investment and consider our wishes. We have heard reference many times to the City's master plan. While it may be a good plan as a whole, we fail to see the integrity of the part of the plan that sandwiches two desirable and private streets between two large developments. In closing let us say that no matter what the owners and developers of the property promise or propose, allowing for rezoning to R-7 brings with it no future guarantees. It is the nature of apartment buildings to be sold over and over again in the years to come for investment to investors and not to neighbors. Ed Kozial, 11790 Jarvis: I am against the proposal, condomoniums or apartments as such. There is no guarantee. He tells us one, he could go with another. Three years ago Evangelista came here and asked for apartments. In 1987 the Investment Business Company asked for same. The third year there is another investor. We are not against him building single family residential homes but condominiums absolutely no. I have been resident for twenty years and every time there has been a petition here, I have been here. 10254 Dorothy Bailey, 11750 Jarvis: My property is directly behind the proposed rezoning. I object very much to having a multi-dwelling there because of wildlife, because it is so pleasant, so wonderful, so quiet. We are the oldest in years and the oldest in residence on Jarvis street and we love it. I am very much against multi. Single family dwellings - fine. I would like to ask one question. Why is it that builder on Grantland Street can come in and build small family dwellings and certainly they must have made a profit. There are young families. Apparently they are enjoying themselves in smaller homes not big homes like they are putting up around now. There certainly must be a demand for smaller homes. Even retired citizens are moving from their big homes to smaller homes. M. L. Anderson: I am the second oldest one on street. I am firmly against the same as the rest of them. I have lived here in Livonia for 22 years on this same street. When I moved here it was a city of homes. Now as I look around, Livonia is turning out to be a city of apartments and condominiums and mini-malls. I am against the whole thing. Carol Pankow, 11716 Jarvis: My biggest concern is the property was purchased already. Can I ask a question was 537 picked up also? Mr. Hartman: No. Mrs. Pankow: Our concern was if it goes to multi-family dwelling, we are afraid they will put parking lots in there. Single residential would be welcome. Mr. Vhynalek: Mr. Nagy is Lot 537b1 and 537b2 is that all owned by one person? Mr. Nagy: Lot 537 is separately owned but the other parcels to the north are contiguous to and have common ownership with the lots that are between Jarvis Street and subject property. There are no landlocked parcels. \r Pat Zarem, 11901 Jarvis: Unlike my neighbors I am somewhat new to this neighborhood and I feel what I have seen going on to the west of us, I can't fanthom the amount of traffic. I have young child to be born next month. We are going to be squashed in with apartments and condominiums. I don't feel they have views for residents. Charles Wheeler, 11878 Jarvis: I am opposed to apartments but I would like to see single family dwellings go in myself. Mrs. Anderson, 11820 Jarvis: If you go down Newburgh Road you see apartments being built. Right by Stan's Market there are more apartments. Right off Plymouth Road they are fixing land to put in apartments. What do we need with all those apartments? It is just going to be such a traffic jam. In the winter time the heat gets low. If they build apartments, that is going to take more heat. Linda Jablonski, 11645 Jarvis: I am against apartments or condominiums because of same. We will be sandwiched between the two and we need more houses than apartments. Cathy Francavilla, 11667 Jarvis: I am from other side but I feel like the rest of neighbors. We are getting apartments or condos on one side and it is 10255 just sandwiching us in. There is no light and the traffic is always backed up. There needs to be left turn lane. I just think building homes would help all the way around. There was no no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-1-17 closed. 11111/ On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was ##7-116-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 on Petition 88-6-1-17 by McBell Management requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-1-17 be denied for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (2) That the proposed change of zoning would tend to isolate the existing abutting single family residential subdivision called Chaney and Bakewell's Plymouth Park because of the multiple family residential project located just west of and abutting the subdivision. (3) That the proposed change of zoning will permit uses which are in close proximity to several other similar uses existing or proposed in the general area of the subject property. 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. *ft' Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-1-18 by RPM Development requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from P.S. to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating there is no sanitary sewer readily available to service the site. In addition, there are no City-maintained storm sewer systems available for site drainage. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to change from P.S. to C-2 for what purpose? Mr. Jo Mainella, 13960 Berwick: Our first plan was to try to put 10,000 square foot retail space in there but I got a call from someone in City saying we could only put 7,000 square foot unit. We would like to get someone in there for whatever we plan to build. Mr. Vyhnalek: You mean one person take whole building. Mr. Mainella: Yes. 10256 Mr. Tent: What you are proposing is strip development. You have no tenants in mind. Mr. Mainella: No we own property now. Mr. Tent: How long have you owned property. *4111. Mr. Mainella: Two months. Mr. Tent: Are you aware that we have so many empty shopping centers. Why do you think that area would be successful. You must have some reason. Mr. Mainella: I feel we are far away from any shopping center in Livonia. We are on outskirts It looks like a very trafficable road. I felt there is a strip center next door which is very poorly designed. It is very old and I am surprised they even let them build something like that. I would like to upgrade area. Christopher Ziomek: I own property immediately south of proposed shopping center. I am opposed to the proposed rezoning from P.S. as it currently is zoned to C-2. Our firm is a funeral home and we are concerned with the traffic flow on Wayne Road. To add more retail would only encumber the road more than it already is. I would like to make one comment. The Levan & Plymouth Road shopping center which was built approximately when funeral home was built today stands at less than one-half occupancy. Another point of concern we have as the property owner next to proposed change is the sanitary sewer. It is our understanding they would have to tie into our present storm sewer to accomplish any drainage off their property. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, when was this made P.S.? Is that suppose to be a buffer? Mr. Nagy: It was a buffer. We tried to protect the residential neighborhood to the west. When the funeral home site was zoned P.S. the subject site with home would remain in a residential zoning classification. The Planning Commission therefore initiated a rezoning petition to the P.S. classification in 1983 to create the buffer. Tom Parent, 8854 Roslyn: I live directly behind it. I prefer not to see it go commercial. I think you would get a lot more traffic. I agree that we are overbuilt with shopping centers. Mr. Kluver: Just driving through City there are many strip centers that are vacant up to 70% to 50%. There is a viable market that is not being served. Consequently, we have a great deal of leasable space in centers so why continue to develop new. New is not always good. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-1-18 closed. On a motion made by Mr. Kluver , seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #7-117-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 on Petition 88-6-1-18 by RPM Development requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Wayne Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from P.S. to C-2, the City Planning 10257 Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-1-18 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would promote strip commercial development in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area particularly to the west and south. (3) There is no need for additional commercial facilities to serve this area of the City. (4) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to good planning practice which seeks to consolidate rather than spread out commercial development along Mile Roads. 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-5-2-24 by John J. Mahn requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing restaurant (Cloverdale) to another location within the Stark Plaza Shopping Center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Vyhnalek: We have been requested by the petitioner to table this petition until further notice. We will proceed with the public hearing since it has been published in the newspaper. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mrs. Stellafani: I own Cloverdale. I don't know why he has a waiver use since he does not own the restaurant. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is it still standing? Mrs. Stellafani: We are still going back and forth on it. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is in limbo but you are still open for business? Mrs. Stellafani: They started tearing up parking lot today. Mr. LaPine: I don't know what your problem is. I understand you are negotiating to move into this building but do you believe you will be able to move into one of the buildings? Mrs. Stellafani: We are negotiating the sale of our business. We haven't come to an agreement yet. Mr. LaPine: Are you selling your business to someone within the shopping center? Mrs. Stellafani: Directly to development. 10258 Mr. LaPine: Are you close to moving? Mrs. Stellafani: Two weeks ago he was prepared to close and they ran into another problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to continue negotiating? Mrs. Stellafani: Yes. Mr. Tent: If she is continuing to operate restaurant and they are tearing up structure, would that be kind of a health hazard? Mr. Vyhnalek: Are they tearing up the parking lot? Mrs. Stellafani: Yes they are doing that today. I think it is like a pressure tactic. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-5-2-24 closed. On a motion made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 on Petition 88-5-2-24 by John Mahn requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing restaurant (Cloverdale) to another location within the Stark Plaza Shopping Center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-5-2-24. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-2-25 by Schostak Brothers and Company requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing theater complex located within the Wonderland Mall at the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Michael Polsinelli, representing Schostak Brothers: As we presented to this Commission during our site plan approval process, we are requesting to amend an existing waiver use which currently is in operation at center adjacent to A. J. Foland building to new location as shown on map with an additional 7,000 square feet and only 12 additional seats. It essentially represents the same existing use as now in operation to a different location. Mr. Vyhnalek: When are you going to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Polsinelli: August 23. Mr. Vyhnalek: Whatever resolution we have tonight will be subject to that. `r. 10259 Art Blom, 29832 Orangelawn: We are opposed to this show they have existing in the complex. I am not opposed to it where they have it in the complex but when they have it down by the single families down by the back wall, we will have increased activity until 12:00. I have been living behind shopping center for 34 years. We would like to have a little bit of time in the evening and the theater at that point, you are going to have increased traffic and you are going to have noise so I am against it. They can put it in the front and we will not be bothered by the noise. I am not against movie just the location. Ron Parz, representing Plymouth Road Development Corporation: We own the property that is across the street. I want to say to Planning Commission that we are in favor of expansion and moving of theaters to accomodate the further development of the mall. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do you know what existing fence is behind the theater and what height? Mr. Nagy: Block wall - 5 feet. Mr. McCann: What is limitation? Mr. Nagy: No less than five feet, no higher than seven feet. Mr. McCann: Would it be a problem to increase along the back of facility to 7 feet to alleviate the traffic noise? Mr. Polsinelli: Off hand I don't think there would be a problem. Where you would want to specify we could work that out. Mr. Nagy: We could work that out. 'oar Mrs. Sobolewski: How far between movie theater and wall? Mr. Polsinelli: About 220 feet. Mrs. Sobolewski: Between that is the security building? Mr. Polsinelli: That is the maintenance building. Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding that all of the patrons that go in to theater will go through mall. No one standing outside. The only time there will be additional noise is when they are leaving theater to get their cars. Mr. McCann: You are developing the parking lot to the west of the maintenance building is that correct? Mr. Polsinelli: That is correct. Mr. McCann: Where is the entrance going to be? Mr. Polsinelli: There will be a mall entry. However, the entire mall would likely get used depending on time of day. 10260 Mr. McCann: After 9:00 it would be the back door. Mr. LaPine: What time would the last show let out approximately? Mr. Polsinelli: 11:00 - 1:00. Weekends is going to be the later date. Mr. LaPine: When you are going to construct new parking lot, I notice there is a street, and does that go through? Mr. Polsinelli: No. Mr. LaPine: No traffic can come out. Mr. Polsinelli: Correct. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-2-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #7-118-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 on Petition 88-6-2-25 by Schostak Brothers and Company requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing theater complex located within the Wonderland Mall at the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-2-25 be approved subject to favorable action by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a variance which would permit theaters with less than 400 seats and the following conditions: (1) That the site plan dated 5/23/88 prepared by Wah Yee Associates, 4rar Architects marked sheet P1319, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That the building elevation plan dated 5/4/88 prepared by Wah Yee Associates, Architects marked sheet P1319II which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That builder will increase the height of wall adjacent to south property line for a distance to be determined by Planning Department. for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standarda and requirements as 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 use. (3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (4) That there will be only a minor increase in the number of theater seats presently existing on the premises. 10261 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-2-26 by Instant Oil Change requesting waiver use approval to construct a fast oil change facility to be located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Inkster Road and Rensellor Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they note there is a proposed protective wall to be located along the centerline of the existing vacated alley at the rear of the proposed building. Please be advised that we would object to a wall installation at this location inasmuch as it conflicts with an existing 10" sanitary sewer along the approximate centerline of the original alley. It is recommended that either the wall be placed along the northerly limits of the original alley or that the wall be waived in its entirety. Robert Tamm, 25835 Southfield, Southfield: I represent Instant Oil Change. It is my understanding Instant Oil Change has been to Planning Commission before concerning other sites and we have three sites located in Livonia. We bring before you today a location where we want to take a different path and build a new structure. I have a rendering right here. (Shows rendering) Mr. Vyhnalek: You have to go before Zoning Board of Appeals. Do you have a date? *or Mr. Tamm: No we do not. We are looking for approval here and then we will go to Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Vyhnalek: If it is approved, it is subject to zoning variance. Mrs. Sobolewski: Does your landscaping meet ordinance? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it exceeds 15%. Harry Denoon, 27432 Long: I was not aware of what the waiver was all about. The gentleman explained to me he is here to get approval for site plan and anything pertaining to the property in relation to where it sits would be taken up with Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Vyhnalek: Yes and you will be notified if you live within 300 feet. Ralph Campbell, 27428 Long: The only thing I have. I looked at site plan. There was a question about masonry wall. When I looked at plan the sewer line ran along the alley way and the masonry wall and the gentleman told me they would be able to build a permanent structure and he mentioned there may be like a wooden fence or some type that would be permanent. I just want to make sure it will be a permanent masonry wall. 10262 Mr. Nagy: They cannot build on easement and if there is an easement then it is worked out with Engineering Division. In this case they propose a wall only to be a good neighbor not because it is required by the ordinance. In this case because of the conflict of the easement, Engineering will get involved. I think it is just going to be whatever we can do to solve the problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: I understand he does not have to put a wall in there but he is going to put up a wall and he will work it out with our Planning Department. Mr. Nagy: The purpose for the wall is to protect residential and residential is non-conforming use. Under the current zoning in this development, the petitioner is not required to build this wall. Mr. Campbell: We are two residential homes. Mr. Nagy: That is why the site plan incorporated a screening. We are not operating under the zoning requirement for a wall due to the extensive commercial zoning in the area but you will get the screening you will need for your protection. Mr. Vyhnalek: You will get a wall there. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-2-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was ##7-119-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 on Petition 88-6-2-26 by Instant Oil Change requesting waiver use approval to construct a fast oil change facility to be located on the south 'tim' side of Grand River Avenue between Inkster Road and Rensellor Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-2-26 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a deficient front building setback and the following additional conditions: (1) That the site plan marked Sheet 1 dated 6-1-88 prepared by Carne Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. (3) That the building elevation plan prepared by Walsh Bishop Associated, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (4) That there will be an unpierced masonry wall to separate the site from residential. for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use conditions and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. `rr.. 10263 (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. '4111. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McCann, Engebretson, Tent, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-3-1 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an existing city right-of-way west of Merriman Road north of the C & 0 Railway adjacent to Paragon Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to vacating this section of Industrial Road. We also have a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed vacating provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing right-of-way to protect our existing equipment. If the reservation of an easement is not desired, we hereby request that the vacation of the subject city right-of-way be postponed until the Detroit Edison Company has had the opportunity to arrange for relocation expenses with the property owner. Mr. LaPine: When it is vacated the property goes back to P.L.? Mr. Nagy: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #7-120-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-3-1 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an existing city right-of-way west of Merriman Road north of the C & 0 Railway adjacent to Paragon Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 be approved for the following reasons: (1) That existing road right-of-way is no longer needed for any public access purpose. (2) That the subject right-of-way has been replaced further south by Glendale Avenue which serves the Paragon Subdivision. 10264 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-7-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by extending Munger Avenue easterly approximately 1000 feet as situated south of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the subject street being added to the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Art Lewis, Lot 40, Bell Creek Estates: This road already extends to this point. I object to the new road because we have wildlife area back there and I am concerned because I want to know who is going to pay for this road. I don't have any access to that side because that is all flood plain area. The only thing road is going to do there is to bring more traffic behind my home. If it could be brought in from Henry Ruff rather than have a road behind our house if we have to pay for it. Mr. Vyhnalek: If that road is built there, do homeowners on both sides pay the assessment. Mr. Nagy: City Council in its Resolution 660-87 adopted a special assessment to extend and pay for it through a special assessment so those property owners sharing a special benefit as a result of the road construction would pay for the road. The determination of that is within City Ns' Council. The action of Planning Commission is merely to correct the City records. Mr. Lewis: I know they are talking about developing all those lots at the same time and there are no structures back there. I have no intention of letting Edison come through my woods because this is all a naturalized area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Those who benefit will be taxed. Russell Chernenkoff, 30830 Greenland: I am against roadway continuing through. I back up all the way through that part. It is all wooded. I feel it is a definite shame to tear up those woods. I am very concerned about who would be assessed and I would be concerned with traffic back there. Today I was back there looking at stakes that were out and trying to get back on to Merriman was almost impossible. I would like to leave it just natural back there. I am fairly new in area and I love it back there. Mr. Vyhnalek: We are acting on Council resolution. Mr. Lewis: In addition to what I said about traffic if proposed extension of Munger is so that those lots on north side could be developed. If road was extended from Henry Ruff side that road would be access to Six Mile and Middlebelt. 10265 Mr. Vyhnalek: It is prohibited because of flood plain. John Bartus, 30069 Munger: We are concerned also about them extending the road across Merriman to Middlebelt. We bought our home on a dead end street and have lived there for 17 years. I note that the people in my ,`, neighborhood are 100% against that road. Mr. Nagy: There are no plans to go through flood plain. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-7-1 closed. On a motion made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was #7-121-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on July 12, 1988 for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the same is hereby amended by extending Munger Avenue easterly approximately 1000 feet located south of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 for the following reasons: (1) The proposed amendment will reflect a planned extension of the subject road. (2) The proposed amendment will reflect the need for a minor street extension to serve landlocked properties. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further, that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-6-7-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by altering the location of Glendale Avenue west of Merriman, north of the C & 0 Railroad within the Paragon Subdivision and future extension westerly in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was r.. 10266 ##7-122-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on July 12, 1988 for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the same is hereby amended by altering the location of Glendale Avenue west of \r. Merriman, north of the C & 0 Railroad within the Paragon Subdivision and future extension westerly in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed amendment will reflect the new location of Glendale Avenue and its future extension westerly. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further, that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Vyhnalek, 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. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-5-2-20 by Westin Development, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 to July 19, 1988. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was ##7-123-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 559th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 7, 1988 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McCann, Engebretson, Sobolewski, Kluver, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tent ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10267 On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #7-124-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 360th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 14, 1988 are approved. ''` A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McCann, Sobolewski, Kluver, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Engebretson, Tent ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #7-125-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 560th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 21, 1988 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tent, Kluver ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. W. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #7-126-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-6-8-20 by Livonia Family "Y" for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the building located on the west side of Stark Road, north of Schoolcraft, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the site plan shown on Sheet 1 prepared by Kamp DiComo Associates dated 6/24/88 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (2) That building plans shown on Sheets 2, 3 and 4 prepared by Kamp DiComo Associates dated 6/24/88 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was RESOLVED that Revised Site Plans submitted in connection with Petition 87-11-2-53 by Ronald Parz for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping center on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26 be tabled until August 9, 1988. `rr. 10268 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Engebretson, Tent, Kluver NAYS: McCann, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was #E7-127-88 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council that Sign Permit Application by Jonna Construction Company for one wall and two directional signs on property located at 19910 Haggerty be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the wall sign shown on the plan prepared by Tower, Pinkster and Titus Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) That the two directional signs shown on the plan prepared by Cornellus Architectural Products, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was ##7-128-88 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council that Sign Permit Application by Westin Development for monument sign on property at Livonia Plaza Shopping Center located on Five Mile Road at Bainbridge be approved subject to the following condition. (1) That the monument sign shown on the plan for Livonia Plaza dated 6/6/88 by Michael A. Boggio Assoc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 561st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 12, 1988 was adjourned at 9:20. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION / Sue-Sobolewski, Acting Secretary ATTEST: ,.V A Donald Vyhnale ., Chairman jg