HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-08-16 10279
,/
MINUTES OF THE 563rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
No. HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 16, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 563rd 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 7:03 p.m. , with
approximately 60 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Jack Engebretson
William LaPine* Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow
Members absent: Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann
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. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
88-7-1-19 by S.E.M.M. Co. requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 3, from R-3A and R-7 to C-1.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to change this to C-1 for a small commercial shopping
center?
Mr. John Mahn, 34320 Seven Mile: Yes, I have a rendering. Mr. Mahn showed
Loveland Plaza rendering. We are proposing to continue this type of
building on the west side of the road servicing the senior citizens
and on other side to continue that type on the other side of the
road.
Mr. Tent: This zoning that you are trying to acquire now is C-1. This is for
strip commercial shopping center. My question is do you have tenants
that will occupy the building?
Mr. Mahn: On existing Loveland Plaza, which is on the lot right next to the
proposed rezoning we are leasing agents and we have a demand for
other tenants to move in.
r + 10280
Mr. Tent: We have just completed study of major shopping centers we have here
in Livonia and I was just surprised how many areas are looking for
+.,r. tenants. What have you there to attract tenants that the other
people have failed to attract tenants in other parts of the City?
Mr. Mahn: The type of building that we have designed for this is like existing
building in Loveland Plaza. It doesn't look like basic commercial
building. It looks like gable type house affect.
Mr. Tent: You own Loveland Plaza also?
Mr. Mahn: I am leasing agent.
Mr. Tent: Who are tenants?
Mr. Mahn: We have two reservations, subject to rezoning naturally. We have
tailor type of business and then we have shoe store.
Mr. Morrow: Is this S.E.M.M. Company current owner?
Mr. Mahn: No. We are representing owners of property.
Mr. Morrow: You have indicated you are leasing agent for Loveland development
next door. Were you involved with rezoning of that property?
Mr. Mahn: Somewhat.
Mr. Morrow: Because at that time one of the things that came out of hearing was
Nr further commercialization to the east would be against wishes of
Planning Commission and that was one of the comments that I made at
that time that we were going to stop the commercial development at
that time.
Mr. Kluver: Mr. Morrow made the same point I was going to. Mr. Mahn was involved
in Loveland Plaza and that was to be the extent of commercial.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Who owns R-9.
Mr. Nagy: Same owner who is building apartments to north, Alan Gottlieb and his
partner.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I could possibly go along with that little strip being C-1 to finish
off shopping center but big portion I would like to see R-9 or R-7.
Richard Lorenzetti, 32425 Seven Mile: This thing before was up like you said and I
understood that you also were going to stop the commercial property,
at that the time the road was not already set, and it was going to be
stopped by the road or shopping center. This looks deeper. I think
this should be zoned at least from the road east either R-7 or R-9.
I live on the edge of where this property ends at the east and I know
we have been through this a few times and I am against any property
being zoned commercial at least east of road.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-1-19 closed.
10281
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
r #8-140-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988 on Petition 88-7-1-19 by S.E.M.M. Co. requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A and R-7 to C-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 88-7-1-19 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed change of zoning would add to the potential for
more traffic problems in the subject area.
(2) That there already is an abundance of existing commercial facilities
currently in the area.
(3) That the proposed change of zoning would encourage further
encroachment of commercial zoning along the Seven Mile corridor to
the east.
(4) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use
Plan which recommends residential land use for the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-7-1-20 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located on
the east side of Merriman Road between Fargo and Pembroke in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-7.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan provides for an 86 ft. wide
right-of-way for Pembroke Avenue along the southerly limits of the
site in question. The above right-of-way should be taken into
account when preparing the final site plans for this project.
We also have a letter in our file from Clara Vincent stating this
petition came as a shock to her and stating her objections. Mrs.
Vincent also enclosed an article from the Livonia Observer dated July
21 entitled "Battle of the suburbs paints a bleak future".
Owen Cummings, Co-owner, 33900 Schoolcraft: I have owned property since 1970. We
acquired that property from real estate company. They had been
unable to sell property and we have owned it since that period of
time. We have had the particular parcel up for sale several times.
We have also entertained offers from various people who inquired
about purchasing it but none of the offers ever came to completion.
The only offers we have had lately are from people that desire to
develop it on some type of multiple bases.
`Now Mr. Vyhnalek: Has it been up for sale in last five years?
10282
Mr. Cummings: Yes, Hartford had it for a substantial number of years but we have
not spent money advertising in last five years.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to put in townhouses, apartments, condos?
Mr. Cummings: Condomoniums for sale.
Mr. Engebretson: Has that property ever been offered to commercial developers? Has
anyone ever laid that out for single family homes?
Mr. Cummings: When we first acquired the property we assumed the land contract from
a real estate company and they had it laid out for single family.
Mr. Engebretson: Why didn't that work?
Mr. Cummings: There were no purchasers for single family.
Mr. Engebretson: I have inspected site. It is nice neighborhood. Putting
multiple in single family homes area, I am going to oppose.
Mr. Tent: First of all I want to say that Mr. Roskelly does a fine job. You
would be surprised what he could do in 1/2 acre developments. If you
developed that as 1/2 acre developments, how many homes?
Mr. Cummings: 7 is maximum.
Mr. Tent: Maybe at that time there was nobody wanting for residential
developments but now there are many people looking for single family
residential. I think the location of this area is more favorable, I
411. would like to see 1/2 acre developments.
John Glatfelter, 19743 Merriman Ct. : As you see on this drawing, Pembroke and
Merriman Ct. , Pembroke does not go through at this point.
Furthermore on the northeast side we have this big apartment house
and now at Eight Mile we have another apartment. It has brought in a
large amount of traffic. We have had such traffic you cannot get out
on Seven Mile to the east or west. I feel with the congestion we
have, I truly feel this is inappropriate at this time. I would like
to see homes go in there.
Raymond Most: I have the second lot in. I am very familiar with Mr. McClorey's
organization and I am also very familiar with the letter that you
read. The lady is my neighbor and I want to say she is sincere. I
also want to say my thinking is in align with hers. Going back to
the time when I purchased my property, which was approximately 17
years ago, I did look at property across street. It was very
difficult to find out who owners were. There was nothing to indicate
that the people who owned it wanted to develop it into 1/2 acre
sites. I am opposed to multiple dwellings.
Linda Euashka, 19729 Merriman: I live in this nice little group of homes here
where you can't get in. We are locked into homes from 4:30 until
6:00. I was in car accident and was almost killed. I am not going to
lose my home because of traffic problems.
10283
Betsy Maxwell, 19985 Merriman: We own property across from Fargo. We also oppose
the development. We went and looked at the plan to see if we agreed
with plan and while the job that was done was a good job, we oppose
`,ftl, it. We would also like to be on record about water problems that we
already have in that area.
* 7:30 - Mr. LaPine entered meeting at this time.
Betty Fartuse, 19847 Merriman: I have lived there since 1971. Every morning I
compete with traffic to make left turn. The thought of having a
multi-complex across street, I would have to find another job heading
in another direction. I am in favor of single family homes.
Fred Janisse, 20060 Merriman: I understand the driveway would be right across from
my driveway and it would be hard to get into. I agree, I would like
to see it sold off into 1/2 acre lots.
Dick Fetner, 31069 Fargo: My property is that which is immediately east of
proposed site. I will be looking at 300 feet of carport. I have
petition from neighbors voicing their objection to proposed
development. I moved there three years ago knowing property was
zoned RUF and I had no reason to believe at that time there would be
anything but 1/2 acre parcels. I too am opposed to that type of
saturation. Merriman, except for the mile roads, is all residential
and I think it should stay that way. Back in May residents on Fargo
received letter from developer asking if we were interested in
selling rear portion of our property for proposed site to go in. I
do not know if it was this gentleman or someone else.
Nally Mr. Fetner then presented petition to Mr. Nagy for the record.
Bob Smith, 19790 Merriman: I think I talked to gentleman last week but to bring us
up to date when it was purchased it was RUFA. All the homes are 1/2
acre or greater. Now as we go along we have apartments at Seven Mile
and Merriman, they are putting in apartments behind Joe's Produce,
and cluster homes at Eight Mile and Merriman. We feel that the
Master Plan calls for low density housing in this area. We hope you
keep it this way.
John Maxwell, son of Betsy Maxwell, 19985 Merriman: I think if condominiums are
put into area across street, the wildlife will be spilling out into
street and we are going to have a lot of car accidents.
Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I live in that area not directly involved but
we have six apartment buildings within one square mile, we have three
senior citizens. I think we are getting saturated with apartments in
Section 2.
Mr. Morrow: Livonia is kind of primarily single family type of community. When I
came on this Commission I felt there was some multiple we were
lacking. I think this Commission has done some catching up but, as
it came out earlier, some of catching up was in this particular area
and I certainly respect Mr. Cummings right to petition but Livonia is
building up rapidly and we don't have very much vacant land left and
10284
we can't be too hasty to start changing property that is in single
family classification. Maybe in the future Mr. Cummings will realize
his land can be sold for single family residential not multiple.
That is why I will be voting against this petition.
*ft.
Mr. LaPine: When I went out and looked at this site and drove out Fargo I talked
with gentleman who lives directly behind property. As I drove
through immediate area and looked at apartments on Seven Mile,
apartments directly to the north plus new condos we approved, I came
to the conclusion that is bad location for apartments. I think in
the last couple of years there has been a saturation with apartments
and they all seem to be up at the north end of the City. I don't
think we need any more apartments in that area. I urge my fellow
members to vote no on this proposal.
Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly Road: One of the gentlemen suggested this be 1/2
acre lots coming off Merriman Road which is the only access we would
have. If that was true and the traffic is so horrendous at this
time, we are looking at 7 approaches that would be going onto
Merriman Road. If the condominiums we presented would be permitted,
which usually is a one or two car unit, possibly the 32 units would
not have much more traffic than seven individual homes. If you have
taken time to look at site plan, we have created an oasis and I
honestly believe it would be a credit to the community. A couple of
you gentlemen say they have enough apartments in this area. Do you
think possibly the next petition will be for a C-1, C-2 a P.S. I
personally cannot agree that this is an ideal location for single
family homes that have to entered and exited on Merriman Road.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
fir. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-1-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#8-141-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on August 16,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-7-1-20 by William L. Roskelly requesting to
rezone property located on the east side of Merriman Road between Fargo
and Pembroke in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-7 be
denied for the following reasons:
(1) That this area of the City is currently well served with existing or
proposed multiple family type developments.
(2) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use
Plan which recommends low density residential land use for the
subject property.
(3) That the subject property is of sufficient size and dimension to
support a single family residential subdivision.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10285
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-7-2-28 by R & M Clinic requesting waiver use approval to establish a
child care center within an existing building located on the east side of
Levan Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Drive in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 20.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Robert Davis, 1017 Greentree Road, Bloomfield Hills: My wife and I are sole owners
of R & M Clinic. We have located a tenant who is interested in
operating a day-care center and pre-school. We have had a number of
vacancies due to the increase of new buildings that have been built
in the area. We had a number of requests and some in depth as far as
requirements of having a nursery school. We feel it is good for our
business and good for community.
Mr. LaPine: The building is empty right now is that correct?
Mr. Davis: 50%.
Mr. LaPine: Is the day care going to take whole building? Is pharmacy going to
move out?
Mr. Davis: We are just into that now. We will be using portion of parking lot
for playground area. The State of Michigan requires us to go through
this procedure first before we go on and make our application.
Mr. LaPine: You are still going to own building and lease it to them?
Mr. Davis: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: What are they going to do with parking lot? How are they going to
play on asphalt? Are they going to rip that up.
Mr. Davis: Yes, there is a requirement by the City of Livonia of 5,000 square
feet of play area. We have in excess of 10,000 square feet. We
would remove asphalt and put down playing sand and carpeting top with
astro turf. They would have ample playing area.
Mr. LaPine: From the standpoint of where building is located and what you are
situated by, gas station and car wash, don't you honestly think this
is kind of a bad location to have small children running around. To
me it is a bad location for day-care center.
Mr. Davis: Your comments are taken sincerely but the environmental group
requires an excess of suggestions looking after care of children. We
have to do number of specialized things, creating an area to play,
creating an environment that is similar to the home regardless of where
you are located. It has been concern of State of Michigan as well as
Livonia. We are working with counsellors that say we meet all
requirements so we will be able to add all the things you are
suggesting.
10286
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Davis I assume you have done your homework relative to state
requirements. I would like to ask Mr. Nagy if they continue to
operate commercial tenants as well as day-care and if they convert
N,- parking lot, would they then be deficient for parking spaces for
remaining commercial enterprises.
Mr. Nagy: At this point in time since we do not have a site plan we cannot
evaluate which portion of parking lot will be taken up by the play
area. We will be unable to make that analysis right now. We lack
sufficient information.
Mr. Davis: I would like to add on. We do have ample parking at this time. We
have approximately 32 spaces on the west side of building. We have
additional spaces on opposite side. As I interpret it what we are
really looking for is how many stationery spots do we need. It is my
feeling we have in addition to the requirements of the City of
Livonia, an additional 8 spaces for everyone and anyone coming in.
Mr. Morrow: I would like to get something cleared up here. I think for us to
consider this waiver use, we have to have 50% of people within 400
foot radius consenting to this particular use. Do we have that
percentage tonight?
Mr. Davis: I have not been asked to furnish that.
Mr. Morrow: If we don't have that 55%, we can't consider this.
Mr. Engebretson: Where would 55% of residential be? How much of a radius. I
don't think there is any residential within 300 or 400 feet.
`+rr.
Mr. Nagy: There is a new subdivision, Rennolds Ravine. Our office did advise
the petitioner of that requirement. A lady that represented him that
was in the office.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You have to have 55% approval of residential.
Mr. Tent: There seems to be a lot of missing answers here in your petition.
Have you ever petitioned before for this type.
Mr. Davis: No.
Mr. Tent: We were asking about entire parcel. The pharmacy is in question.
Another thing that is missing is the site plan which is very
important. How many children? What the parking is to be. I think
you have not done your homework. I find nothing in here that would
get me to even consider. Everything is conjecture.
Mr. Davis: I have owned property for 15 years. We have had numerous vacancies.
I was approached for cooperation to start up nursing school. I went
over to Zoning Department and requested information in order to
receive occupancy permit. I was instructed I would need waiver to
get away from professional doctor's office. I was told I had to
present assortment of plans. At that time I requested how many
parking spaces and they related to me depending on amount of
Nowemployees, how many parking spots I had available etc. I did present
10287
16 copies of site plan including layout of play area, parking spaces,
turn around area. I think as far as existing tenants, I have no
leases with existing tenants. If we had long term leases with other
tenants, I wouldn t be here tonight.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, do you have site plan?
Mr. Nagy: No we do not. We have plan of existing site in term of existing
building and layout. We do not have it developed to show how the
playground and site will be redeveloped to accommodate this new
proposal. That is what we lack.
Mr. Morrow: Have we determined size of staff and number of children?
Mr. Shane: We did not talk to Mr. Davis. We talked to Pam, the lady who was
going to opeate nursery center. When we talked to her we told her of
other requirements so she is well aware of requirements. We talked
to her and not to Mr. Davis.
Mr. Morrow: So if we do not know size of staff, we cannot make decision. We
certainly want to consider your waiver use but we have nothing to go
on.
Mr. Davis: I think we are heading in right direction. Maybe I don't ask enough
questions. The City of Livonia has an ordinance which supercedes the
State of Michigan that relates to how many children you can have,
etc. I thought I had covered all the bases.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The site plan would have to be integral part of waiver and we don't
__ have approval of 55% of surrounding residents.
Mr. LaPine: As I understand it, without 55% of residential property we can't even
make any ruling on this case tonight. I would make suggestion that
we table this and he get back with Mr. Nagy to find out exactly what
you would have to present to us and how you go about getting 55% of
residential property owners' approval and then come back to us.
Thomas Brady, Attorney representing owner of pharmacy: He is objecting to this
number one. While it is true he does not have lease, he has never
been offered a lease. They are willing to sign one at any time. He
has been in there 25 years. He is all of a sudden being faced with
eviction on proposed plan for child care center. There is very heavy
traffic and a very dangerous intersection. I can't believe that
would be a appropriate area for a child care center. That particular
building has had a great deal of difficulties, in the last number of
years, for failure to maintain and several violations have been
issued. I would suggest Mr. Davis is having difficulty renting not
because of low demand but because he is not maintaining the building.
I don't think he will maintain as child care center. We stand ready
and willing to offer him a five-year lease at this time but I don't
think he wants one.
Mr. Davis: I made a comment earlier that all parties were presented a lease in
the areas they were interested in. They refused to sign lease. Due
to that I went on and I looked for another tenant. Because I located
another tenant, I have taken into consideration my financial
10288
position. I don't want to get into a dispute with anybody but I
think I do have right for myself. As far as location, I am not in
position to say what is good location. You go look at other
,,o, location, Six Mile and 275, I would rather have my children go to my
place. If I could meet with Mr. Nagy, I am sure we could work it
out.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
88-7-2-28 by R & M Clinic requesting waiver use approval to establish a
child care center within an existing building located on the east side of
Levan Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Drive in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
88-7-2-28.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy could you look into matter brought up by Mr. Brady that
there are deficiencies in that building that haven't been dealt with.
Mr. Tent: Will that include zoning ordinance violations? I would like to see
that as part of the report.
`401' Mr. Nagy: We will look into both.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-7-2-29 by U. S. Homes requesting waiver use approval to construct
single family cluster housing project on property located south of Eight
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 3.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Michael Downes, 26105 Orchard Lake Rd. , Farmington Hills, Architect for U. S.
Homes: This is a continuation of existing recently approved R-2
cluster housing development to west and south. In this particular
portion we acquired the rear end of industrial lot and wish to extend
our original cluster plan to include two more four-unit buildings
which will be incorporated with the back end of our particular
structure. These are condominium homes which will be exactly the
same as the ones recently approved in Lots 27a and 28a. In that
particular section of map, the portion we discussed at study session,
which is 34 feet to the north, which is zoned R-2, but still part of
property in industrial zone. In discussion which my client, Mr.
Gottlieb, had with owner of lot, he said he would not sell him that
lot until such time as we have ZBA approval, which is now September
1989. Mr. Nagy had a conversation with the owner and he suggested he
10289
may now be willing to sell it should board give us waiver use. When we
pick up additional 34 feet, which should be shortly, we could put up wall
which we intend to put up along lot line.
Mr. Engebretson: How secure an agreement do you have with that commercial owner to
sell you that 34 feet?
Mr. Downes: My client has been out of town for three or four days. As soon as he
gets back in town Thursday morning, he will contact owner
immediately. Previously he wasn't going to sell until September of
1989. Now if Mr. Nagy has put some pressure on him, we will be
willing to buy.
Mr. Engebretson: You do not have contract?
Mr. Downes: No.
Mr. Engebretson: As I recall from study meeting, he is using that for dumpster
right now?
Mr. Downes: That is up for ZBA in 1989. The City of Livonia has informed him
they will not renew.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It is my understanding that this project is your last phase and will
not take place until next summer and by that time the land situation
should be straightened out.
Mr. Downes: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: It is my opinion that as this waiver works its way through the
government, it will be taken care of.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Morrow pointed out what I was going to point out. We give you
the waiver and it will not be developed until such time as this
property is purchased. Do I understand right that we are sending a
letter to ZBA requesting them not to renew the variance.
Mr. Downes: Correct.
Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: We have been fighting along the industrial belt
since 1955, for 30 years and when we went before the Zoning Board and
tried to get the wall up there and they granted him a waiver use, he
more or less laughed at us and if he doesn't sell that to that man he
plans on using it for industrial. He will go before them and he will
say nobody wants to buy it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We are watching it real close.
Mr. Nagy: As Mr. Downes mentioned, I did talk to property owner and he advised
me they are removing dumpster now. The purpose for the dumpster was
for window replacement firm and tenant has moved out and he is in the
process of moving dumpster out. I think we are very close to working
it out.
10290
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-2-29 closed.
Now On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
#8-142-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-7-2-29 by U. S. Homes requesting waiver use
approval to construct single family cluster housing project on property
located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3 be approved subject to adherence to the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council in their
resolutions 6-101-88 and 643-88 respectively which approved the initial
cluster housing project under Petition 88-5-2-21 and the following
additional conditions:
(1) That the Site Plan dated 7/4 marked Sheet 2 prepared by Michael S.
Downes & Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered
to.
(2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 prepared by Michael
S. Downes & Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
(3) That the screen wall proposed to be erected on the north property
line shall be located approximately 34 feet further north so as to be
contiguous with the M-1 zoning line; and provided further, that the
wall shall be constructed no later than one year from the date of
this resolution.
for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards
and requirements set forth in Section 20.02A and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance 41543.
(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 the proposed use represents a minor extension of a previously
approved project.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
'Noy
10291
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-7-2-30 by Gary Mooney requesting waiver use approval to operate a
moving business and truck rental service with outdoor parking of vehicles
*ft, within a multi-tenant facility located on the south side of Schoolcraft
Road between Farmington and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 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.
Mickey Dash, Manager of Livonia Trade Center: We are requesting not to grant
waiver. When we leased this particular unit to them, they were not
U-Haul franchise. They had several trucks. They now take up
complete back and around corner. There are semi-trucks for
deliveries, pick ups cannot get around. He also has U-Haul trailers
and they are located up against the building. The other tenants'
cars cannot get through. As owners we are requesting that you not
approve.
Mr. Vyhnalek: They are asking only for ten spots. Do they use more than that?
Mrs. Dash: Yes. Their size is so large other trucks cannot get around corner.
Mr. Vhynalek: How many tenants?
Mrs. Dash: Probably about 20-25 tenants. The tenants in back building, that is
their only entrance and exit. If their delivery trucks come they
have to back up and go around.
v' Mr. Vyhnalek: They describe their trucks as straight trucks.
Mrs. Dash: It would not move a house but it would move an apartment.
Mr. LaPine: I am confused. You are manager of building so either you or owner
gave them a lease and they are there illegally to begin with. Who
gave them lease.
Mrs. Dash: We did but at that time they were not U-Haul.
Mr. LaPine: When they leased operation all they had was two trucks and you
assumed that was all they would have?
Mrs. Dash: Right, I hoped they would grow but not so many trucks.
Mr. LaPine: How long of a lease do they have there?
Mrs. Dash: They have two-year lease. After they signed lease is when they took
over U-Haul franchise.
Mr. LaPine: So if we deny their lease is no longer in effect?
Mrs. Dash: They are responsible for the lease, they signed it.
Mr. LaPine: So they would have to get rid of the other trucks.
Mr. Morrow: Can a tenant request waiver use on a piece of property they don't
own?
10292
Mr. Nagy: Our application requires both the owner's signature and applicants.
The applicant signed apparently for the owner.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If the owner is telling us they don't want the waiver, I think that
Near
is valuable input.
Mrs. Dash: He is good tenant. It is just the type of trucks.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You told him 10 trucks is too much?
Mrs. Dash: He said he did have to make a living. I did tell him I would be here
tonight.
Mr. Morrow: If this is really not legally before us, we don't have any action to
take.
Mr. LaPine: He has an application signed by two people, I think we could move on
it and deny after hearing the information.
Mr. Morrow: I would deny on basis owner doesn't want it.
Mr. Kluver: This has not been signed by owner. I think we should table it and
give petitioner a chance to withdraw.
Harold Weingarden, representing D & B Industries: It looks to me gentlemen that
the petitioner is intersecting Hubbard and proposed new industrial
road going through. I just took a look at it today. He would be
dead ending on that property and we in effect are against it so that
is the only comment I want to make plus I think there would be some
rr.• traffic problems and there would be a temporary facility in back
since nothing is going to be done anyway I just wanted to make this
comment.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-2-30 closed.
On a motion made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it
was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988, on Petition 88-7-2-30 by Gary Mooney requesting waiver use
approval to operate a moving business and truck rental service with
outdoor parking of vehicles within a multi-tenant facility located on the
south side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington and Merriman Roads in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby
table Petition 88-7-2-30 to give staff opportunity to contact petitioner
and request they withdraw petition. If petitioner does not withdraw
petition, then Planning Commission will bring petition back from table to
vote on it.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
•
10293
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-8-2-32 by Ronald Sesvold c/o Ramco-Gershenson requesting waiver use
approval to operate a video arcade within the Livonia Mall Shopping
`,, Center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are requesting a video arcade in portion of mall. According to
my notes, you have 50 x 50 area, 2500 square feet.
Ronald Sesvold, 27600 Northwestern Hwy, Southfield: 1738 as I recall.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want 55 machines?
Mr. Sesvold: Yes, I understand the ordinance permits 35.
Mr. Vyhnalek: 35 for 2500 square feet. Right Mr. Nagy.
Mr. Nagy: Correct.
Mr. Vyhnalek: So if you have 1738 square feet, you can have less than 30.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, didn't at one time someone else want to open an arcade and
wasn't it turned down by City Council. I thought it was denied at one
time.
Mr. Nagy: I remember a proposal for arcade. It was approved but for reasons of
their own they never implemented it.
Mr. Kluver: If ordinance allows you to have x amount of machines per square feet,
why are you going for excess?
Mr. Sesvold: You know my corporation, we have arcade in Wonderland. We have had
no problems in that area. My people know Mr. Shenkman quite well.
This is an area where it has not been successful in attracting a
tenant. It is important to us the design be appropriate for shopping
center. The problem with the number of games you requested it
enhances the difficulties that have plagued this particular. industry.
Namely, we do not allow any kind of drinking, smoking or eating in
our facility. If you were to put 25-30 games, you would have such
large open areas you are encouraging this type of behavior. There
are very few common open areas in which you can loiter. 77% of our
patrons are adults. 42% are women. The complexity of the games is
much different than what you recall like Pac-Man. We are catering to
a different market than once existed. We think we need that number.
Mr. Kluver: You realize that there is one machine for 60 square feet and if you
have 1760, that is 29 machines you are allowed and not one member of
the Commission can vote against the ordinance that we support.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Wonderland went before the ZBA and got the 60 approval?
,,�� Mr. Nagy: Yes.
10294
•
Mr. Vyhnalek: I stopped in there and it is a unique area and the machines were
above my capabilities but have you made an appointment yet for the
ZBA?
Mr. Sesvold: No, I was confused as to what to do.
Noy
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think after tonight it will end up being tabled. I think you
should get together with ZBA and they will grant you a certain number
of machines and then you can come back to us.
Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, on petition of this type has recommendation come in from
Police Department.
Mr. Nagy: We would have to make a special request of the Police Department for
that information. As I indicated earlier, we only have one piece of
correspondence and that is from our Engineering Department. We
routinely notify all departments without making a special effort from
Police Department, if they don't have any problems, they don't bother
to send us report.
Mr. Sesvold: Your City has juvenile officers in Police Department and we work
closely with that department and we post a copy of your ordinance
that we are in complete agreement. No child is allowed in place
during school hours. We work very closely with that department. We
ask kids to leave and if they don't leave we call juvenile department
and they come out and correct situation.
Mr. Morrow: If I were to consider this waiver I would certainly want it to
conform to ordinance as written by Planning Commission. I can see
where you are coming from. I don't see where it would encourage
New loitering. We like to create open space. I am comfortable with the
way the ordinance is written.
Mr. LaPine: I would say he is at the right place since without waiver use he
can't have machines. If he comes back here and we don't grant the
waiver petition he doesn't get anything. If we approve it for 29
machines and then he wants to go to ZBA and they want to give him
more, they are the ones to grant him a variance. I would like to see
layout, I think we need a little more information.
Mr. Sesvold: I think there may be operators out there who would be interested in
operating 29 - 30 games but the type of operation you would see would
be different with us.
Mr. LaPine: You have just one person that operates arcade?
Mr. Sesvold: I have a manager, an assistant manager and on weekends there are two
people on the floor at all times. This time of year that would vary.
Mr. Tent: These video machines, are these those noisy ones?
Mr. Sesvold: I would hope that we have them under control. They all have volume
controls.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-32 closed.
10295
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
approved, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988, on Petition 88-8-2-32 by Ronald Sesvold c/o Ramco-Gershenson
requesting waiver use approval to operate a video arcade within the
Livonia Mall Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Seven
Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-8-2-32.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-6-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate public walkways
adjacent to Lots 330, 317, 457, Windridge Village Subdivision #3 and Lot
570, Windridge Village Subdivision #5 located in the North 1/2 of Section
4.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from Patricia and Roger Flint and
Kathleen and James O'Connor, residents of Windridge Park #3,
proposing that no walkway or cyclone fence be constructed between
Lots 317 and 318 but that there would be sod put in and maintained by
the deed holders. We also have in our file a letter from Daniel
Rhodes, resident of Windridge Village Subdivision #E3 stating he is
opposed to the proposed construction of sidewalk between Lot 317 and
Lot 318 as contained within the original plan. There is also a
letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating because
there are existing utilities either within the public walkways in
Now question or crossing the existing dedicated right-of-way, it is
recommended that full width easements be retained over the area to be
vacated. They also stated they have no objections to this proposal.
Dan Rhodes, 20256 Pollyanna Dr. : That is Lot 317. I am in favor of the vacation of
the proposed sidewalk for several reasons. I feel it would be very
unsightly in that particular location. We reside at ravine lot and
there is no purpose for having sidewalk access to that area and it is
also unsafe to have access to creek. For those reasons we are
opposed to it.
Diane Stanbury, 20073 Stamford: I am adjacent to Lot 457. My husband and I are
opposed to walkway for several reasons. First of all there is no
bridge to connect other side. At times the creek area behind our
home during floods gets to 6 feet high and it really rushes through
there and I think it is a danger to any children there. Fences are
gaudy. We don't have fences in our subdivision at all. For security
reasons we object to it. We have had two break ins at our house
since we moved in 2 1/2 years ago and if there were a walkway, it
would be more accessible. The main thing that came to us was that
when we bought that piece of property the builder that we purchased
from explained to us that the walkway would never go in, even though
it was in the plan, unless the park area or flood plain did go in.
Mr. Morrow: If that was represented to you by the person who sold you the
property, if my information is correct, he has to post a bond before
err he completes subdivision. Is that correct?
10296
Mr. Nagy: That is correct.
Mr. Morrow: If he said it wouldn't go in there, he is wrong because he put up
money that says if he doesn't do it, the City will.
Nor
Mrs. Stanbury: We understand that.
Mr. Morrow: He represented that to you incorrectly.
Catherine Richard, 35163 Pembroke: I am concerned with the other one
Windridge #5. We feel our issue is a separate issue. I am the
President of Deer Creek Homeowners Association for Windridge #4, 5
and 6. It is unanimous decision of Board of Directors that easement
should go into Bicentennial Park. We discussed this easement in
length at our meeting and they were overwhelmingly in favor of this
access. When we purchased our lots that access was clearly spilled
out. We have many children, walkers, and joggers in our subdivision
who would have to go all the way around to gain access to
Bicentennial. Again, this was one of the selling features of our
lot. Part of the attractiveness of our sub is that it borders on
Bicentennial Park. All residents knew of this easement when we
bought there. On behalf of Board of Directors and residents, we
urge that this easement definitely not be waived.
Riley Richard: One of the other points here is we own Lot 573, which backs up to
park. Without that entrance we have been plagued with people cutting
into our backyard and we absolutely want that entrance there so we
can access to the park.
%ow. Linda Frechen, Lot 569: We bought that property, paid premium price for it, to be
near the park with an easement to park. We use the park a lot and
that really was one of the reasons we bought there. If the
subdivision didn't have an easement, we probably would have been
right in the middle and not on edge.
Ronald Bearer, 20155 Wayne Road: My children use that park quite often. If that
was to be eliminated, my children would have to go up to Seven Mile.
We had same problem in Laurel Park. When walkway went through, it
eliminated people walking across lawns.
Larry Fritz, 19899 Wayne: I want to echo same sentiments. We have had a lot of
problems with people who have been diverted from using that easement
because they want to get to park because they have that need to have
easy access to park. I think it is important that they do have that
access to park.
Sue Kolby, 20139 Edgewood: One of the reasons we bought in Deer Creek was the
walkway was shown. That is why we bought into sub so we would have
access to park.
Coleen Dickerson, 20186 Edgewood: I have three small children. We are in favor of
having access. It is impossible to get children on bikes into park
without going onto Seven Mile.
Larry Baber, 35223 Pembroke: I have question for Commission. When you say vacate
walkway, do you mean it will not be open to public access to walk
through.
10297
Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct, it would be assigned to property owners on both sides.
Mr. Baber: My only objection is having the ugly piece of concrete. I would
,— rather sod the area. Right now with woods you have poison ivy. If
the walkway was put through, is City proposing to build pathway
through woods?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Who owns woods?
Mr. Nagy: The City does. That want to put walkway in.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there chain link fence on both sides?
Mr. Nagy: That is what improvement plan calls for, not only 6 foot main
concrete walkway but to protect it from trespassing by the
construction of a chain link fence.
Mr. Baber: That would really spoil view. I realized walkway was there but sales
agent told me nothing would be put there. I could sod my half of
area and my neighbor could sod his half and people could walk
through. I do not like chain link fence and pavement. I am
concerned that late at night someone could pull up in cars and could
easily walk into subdivision and break into our houses.
Bob Feldhofer, 35255 Pembroke: There is a creek that runs through woods. Would
that mean they would be required to build bridge?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct.
• Mr. Feldhofer: It would make a place for loitering. I just want to bring that
point out. Also since we have been there we have seen several people
go through woods that were unstable.
John Hartmus, 20278 Pollyanna Dr. : I am not with Deer Creek group. I am in other
subdivision. I am Lot 316. There are two issues here. The first
part, when you are talking about Lots 330, 317 and 457 in Windridge
Subdivision #3, there is no park for us to go to. We are in favor of
vacating that.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We are of the same opinion.
Catherine Richards: We want a permanent walkway and we would be willing to
waive chain link fence but we do not want sod.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, can they alter that if they get together with Parks and
Recreation?
Mr. Nagy: If affected property owners don't want chain fences and want to risk
the trespassing that might occur as a result thereof, we have done
that in the past.
Mr. Morrow: I have seen wrought iron fence.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
,,� Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-6-3-2 closed.
• 10298
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted,
it was
V.. #8-143-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-6-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate
public walkways adjacent to Lots 330, 317, 457, Windridge Village
Subdivision #3 and Lot 570, Windridge Village Subdivision #5 located in
the North 1/2 of Section 4, be approved for that portion lying east of
Gill Road for the following reasons:
(1) That the easements located within Windridge Subdivision #3 do not
provide access to a developed City park site.
(2) That the easements located within Windridge Subdivision #3 can be
more advantageously used if privately owned and maintained.
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.
On a motion made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it
was
#8-144-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
August 16, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby withdraw that
Now portion of Petition 88-6-3-2 by the City Planning Commission in relation
to the vacating of the easement lying west of Gill Road between Lots 570
and 571 of Windridge Subdivision #5.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. . �
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to
amend Sections 9.02 and 9.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish
regulations to control general office uses within the P.S. Zoning
District.
Mr. Morrow: I think you should at least make parking requirements same as
professional.
Mr. Nagy: Off street parking requirement goes with particular use not with
district.
Mr. Morrow: I just wondered if we should have more parking. I am certainly in
favor of going on with the O.S. district, I just want to be very
careful in area of parking. When you have existing building and it
goes 1 to 200 then it won't fit. What I am saying is let us get a
little more parking.
_, Mr. Kluver: Why don't we address that as an additional item.
10299
Mr. Nagy: If you were to address the issue of parking, there is a separate
section of the ordinance that deals with off-street parking it is not
involved in the P.O. or P.S.
',"'r Mr. Morrow: Let's put that on the agenda this fall.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-2-6-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#i8-145-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 88-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend
Sections 9.02 and 9.03 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish
regulations to control general office uses within the P.S. zoning
district, be approved for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed amendment will provide more flexibility in the
development of office facilities in the City of Livonia.
(2) That the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide sufficient
and reaonable regulations concerning the development of office uses
within 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.
`oft.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Tent, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary
Plat approval for Fox Creek Meadows Subdivision proposed to be located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Department of Public Safety,
Division of Police, recommending: (1) No driveways be permitted onto
Seven Mile Road. (2) Sidewalks be provided along Seven Mile Road, as
well as the interior streets. (3) Street names be aligned with
existing street names. (4) Streets be 31' curb to curb with the
sidewalk separated from the pavement. (5) Dedicate the Seven Mile
Road right-of-way to conform to the Master Plan. (6) Provide
additional paving as a refuge and/or transition lane. (7) It "appears
doubtful that an elementary school will be built in Section 5. No
provisions for pedestrian ways have been provided in this plat, nor
in the adjoining plats. Therefore, it should be noted that all
school children will have to exit via Seven Mile Road and be bussed
or cross Seven Mile Road at some point. Unless bussed, the demand
may require the hiring of an additional school crossing guard by the
Police Department.
We also have a letter in our file from the Department of Public
''r" Safety, Division of Fire, stating they have no objection to its
development.
10300
Mr. LaPine: Did I understand the Police Department said they only wanted one
entrance off Seven Mile?
,,r, Mr. Nagy: They didn't make any reference to entrances. They are asking because
there are no schools north of Seven Mile, they may require them to
hire additional police as cross guards.
Mr. Engebretson: At the study meeting we discussed single entrance vs. two
entrances. You were going to have Mr. Roskelly see what he could do
to work that out.
Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, Redford: I am of the opinion that it appears to
me it is much more desirous to have two entrances than a loop system,
which this offers. Any curb cuts on Seven Mile will have to be
approved by Wayne County. I personally feel from police protection
and fire protection, in my 30 years experience, one entrance is
frowned upon especially by Police Department and Fire Department. If
there was a fire in one entrance and someone had a heart attack, how
will they get in. If it is your wish, we could certainly change this
but I plead with you this is a better layout.
Mr. Engebretson: I believe you said there were no nearby intersections.
Mr. Roskelly: What I said was that on the north side of Seven Mile, the county
mandates that another intersection not be more than 150 feet.
Mr. Engebretson: You have one not much more than 150 feet away and in addition you
have another one 250 feet further east. I am concerned about safety.
Not safety from the point of view that you described fire and heart
Nur attack, etc. , I am talking about getting onto Seven Mile. It is near
suicide now but adding another entrance within 400 feet appears to be
bad planning. If you observe what Mr. DiPonio did, they have twice
as many homes and single entrance.
Mr. Roskelly: I think that was his only choice. I would also like to address fact
that when we go to county roads for approval they will also insist
that we put in that slab and also wedge area and that will guide
traffic.
Mr. LaPine: Would it be possible to have one entrance?
Mr. Roskelly: One entrance could be provided but from the standpoint of good
planning, I have the preference of two entrances in any subdivision
with over 50 lots. We are not etched in stone.
Mr. Engebretson: It was our understanding at study meeting that you would be able
to work that out without sacrificing any lots. Have you confirmed
that?
Mr. Roskelly: I did not get into inventory of lots. I am only engineer but as far
as I am concerned, I will stick to my guns. I would like to have it
approved with two entrances.
• 10301
Michael Fandrei, 19578 Fitzgerald: I don't know where the Police Department is
coming from. The kids have always been picked up by a bus on
Fitzgerald and taken to Tyler. If they would have crossing guard I
sur don't know where they would cross to. As a resident in that area I
hate to say it but I think the gentleman has done a nice job of
laying out road. If I were to live in that subdivision, I would like
to have two roads coming out. We do have a tough job exiting in the
evening hours. I don't know if that would give us that much more of
a problem getting out onto Seven Mile. I have no complaint. I think
it is a nice job.
William Lute, 19357 Newburgh: I just want to know if gentleman is going to put up
a fence behind me.
Mr. Nagy: Unless you require it, the fencing generally tends to be the
responsibility of the property owners. If you felt compelled it was
in the best interests of all the homeowners, you could require it but
otherwise it is left to individual property owner.
Mr. Lute: I think the gentleman ought to have an exit on Seven Mile. You have
all that traffic on Newburgh. I think the exit should be on Seven
Mile.
Mr. Nagy: His subdivision is entirely devoid of taking any traffic onto
Newburgh. The way it is laid out all traffic will be directly from
Seven Mile nothing from Newburgh.
Brenda Lee Fandrei, 19578 Fitzgerald: As a realtor in the Livonia area for a
number of years, I would like to comment on layout. I have been in
` ow and out of similar subdivisions and find this layout would be much
better for the residents in that subdivision. You would have much
less congestion for ingress and egress.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Fox
Creek Meadows Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
adopted, it was
#8-146-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August
16, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the Preliminary Plat for Fox Creek Meadows Subdivision
proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 be
approved for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable
Regulations and Ordinances governing the platting of land within the
City of Livonia.
(2) That no reporting City Department has objected to the approval of the
proposed Preliminary Plat.
sow (3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good design solution
to the development of the subject land.
10302
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting
property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the
Now Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police
Department and Parks & Recreation Department.
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. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was
RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby remove from table
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
�u► On a motion duly made by Mr. Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
4#8-147-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council 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
denied for the following reasons:
(1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all the general waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning
Ordinance X1543.
(2) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and
encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate
an area with similar type uses as it is being proposed.
(3) That the petitioner has not demonstrated a need for the proposed use
to be located on the subject property given the ultimate size of
Wonderland Center and similar uses located in close proximity to the
subject site.
10303
(4) That the location and size of the proposed use, the nature and
intensity of the principle use, the site layout and its relation to
streets giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the
New site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly
conflict with the normal traffic flow of the area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine
NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-148-88 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Landscape
Plan submitted in connection with Petition 88-4-2-13 by Marvin Walkon for
waiver use approval to construct an automobile and truck rental facility
on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Priscilla Lane
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Landscape Plan #8810, Sheets L-1 and 2 dated 7-20-88
prepared by Christopher Davis Associates is hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
(2) That the approved landscaping shall be completely installed on site
Now prior to building occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy
condition.
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. Engebretson, it was
#8-149-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated August 3, 1988 from Fred J.
Armour, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that they approve a one-year extension of Petition 87-2-8-3 by
Fred J. Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47
of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a
commercial building on the north side of Seven Mile Road between
Shadyside and Farmington Road in Section 3, subject to the same
conditions as were set forth in the original approving Resolution
#2-44-87, adopted by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 1987
for the following reason:
(1) The petitioner has demonstrated that he fully intends to commence
construction on the site by next spring.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Morrow, LaPine
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
10304
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Nr.- On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#8-150-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Landscape
Plan submitted in connection with Petition 87-8-2-39 by Louis G. Redstone
Associates for waiver use approval to renovate and construct an addition
to the existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road
between Hubbard and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Landscape Plan #2610-01, Sheet L-1, dated 8/8/88 prepared by
Louis G. Redstone Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
(2) That the approved landscaping shall be completely installed on site
prior to occupancy of the new building addition and thereafter
maintained in a healthy condition.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#8-151-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
L. Plat for Stamford Acres Subdivision proposed to be located at the
northwest corner of Stamford and Clarita Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 9 for the following reasons:
(1) That the Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary
Plat.
(2) That the Engineering Department recommends approval of the Final
Plat.
(3) That all of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by
the City have been satisfied.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#8-152-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final
Plat for Mayflower Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east
side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 4 for the following reasons:
(1) The Final Plat conforms in every respect to the approved Preliminary
Plat.
rr..
10305
(2) The City Engineer has recommended approval of the Final Plat.
(3) All financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City
Norhave been satisfied.
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. Tent, it was
#8-153-88 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 562nd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on July 26, 1988 are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Kluver it was
#8-154-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition
88-7-8-22 by Westin Development, Inc. for approval of all plans required
by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
sow construct a retail shopping center located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Levan and Williams in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 for
the following reasons:
(1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with all the general waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and
encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate
an area with similar type uses as is being proposed.
(3) That the petitioner has not demonstrated a need for the proposed use
to be located on the subject property given the amount of existing
unused commercial space and similar uses located in close proximity
to the subject site.
(4) That the location and size of the proposed use, the nature and
intensity of the principle use will be such that traffic to and from
the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly
conflict with the normal traffic flow of the area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
•
10306
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
`. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved,
it was
#8-155-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-8-8-23 by John Goetz on behalf of Boron Oil Company for approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance 543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a "Gas-N-Go" Staqtion located on the southeast
corner of Eight Mile and Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That Site Plan #7246, Sheet 1 dated 8/15/88 prepared by Nowak and
Fraus is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building and Canopy Plan #7246 dated 7/27/88 prepared by Boron
Oil Company is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(3) That Landscape Plan #7246, Sheet 2 dated 7/27/88 prepared by Nowak
and Fraus is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(4) That the landscaping be installed on site prior to building occupancy
and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition.
(5) That the dumpster enclosure is to be masonry and shall match
building.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#8-156-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Holiday Inn for two wall
signs on property located on North Laurel Park Drive be denied for the
following reasons:
(1) That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need for a sign in
excess of the permitted area of 240 square feet.
(2) That the approval of this Sign Permit Application as presented would
be detrimental to the area and to the Master Plan of the City.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
10307
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously
adopted, it was
Lam„ #8-157-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Sign Permit Application by Johnstowne Offices for one
ground sign and one wall sign on property located at 16801 Newburgh be
approved subject to the following condition:
(1) That the Monument and Wall Signs shown on the plan prepared by J. D.
Dinan Company for Johnstowne Offices, 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 and seconded by Mr. Tent it was
#8-158-88 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission hold a public hearing on
whether or not to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile
Road between Levan and Williams in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 from
C-1 to P.S.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Morrow
ABSENT: McCann, Sobolewski
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 563rd Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on August 16, 1988 was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Raym6nd W. Tent, Acting Secretary
ATTEST: riak \)1 ite^Aht
Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman
jg