Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-01-25 6293 MINUTES OF THE 329th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA • On Tuesday, January 25, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia t held its 329th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:05 p..mwith approximately 80 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Joseph Falk William Scruggs Herman Kluver Jerome Zimmer Suzanne Wisler William DuBose . Members Absent: Judith Scurto* Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, and Robert Brzezinski, Assistant City Attorney, also were present. Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of vacating or rezoning of any property, this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Council and the City council, after holding their own Public Hearing, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied, and if a petition for a waiver of use request or a site plan is denied, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the Council for relief, otherwise the petition is terminated. II! Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda Petition 76-12-1-49 by Dimitrios Gotsis & Sylvia Gotsis to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUFB to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated January 24, 1977 from the Hammell Music Company being highly in favor of the rezoning of the property under question, signed William D. Abney, President, Hammell Music. Also, a letter dated December 27, 1976 from the Engineering Division indicating that the proposal meets with their approval, assuming that if ingress and egress is taken from Broadmoor Avenue it will be paved. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Rodney Kropf: Yes, I am here representing the petitioner. This particular piece of property zoned RUF lies between two.0-2 districts. My client is desirous of erecting a new restaurant in this area, which is to be a family-type restaurant containing 110 seats. I believe the plans submitted show the exterior design as well as the interior. We have allowed for parking far more than sufficient to meet the number of seats. At the present time, we have plans for the westerly portion of the property to be utilized for the restaurant operation. No plans as yet for the eastern end of property. We do plan on erecting a sufficient greenbelt to protect i the adjacent property owners. 3 t 6294 ItMr. Andrew: Are all three houses on this property to be removed? Mr. Kropf: Yes. I Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Scruggs: Is this property now owned by Mr. Gotsis? Mr. Kropf: He presently owns one parcel, and is in the process of obtaining the other two. He has owned this one parcel for two or three years. Mr. Kluver: As far as the property owned by the petitioner, does it include all that property from Sunnydale south to the last portion as outlined in red? Mr., Andrew: No, only that particular portion outlined in red is owned by the petitioner. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak either for or against this petition? *Judith Scurto. entered meeting at 8:10 p.m. Dorothy Bruce: I have a few questions to ask, as- an adjacent property owner. 29218 Broadmoor First, the three lots that this man owns, are all three lots' directly on Middlebelt? 1[0 Mr. Andrew: Just two. Mrs. Bruce: . Two on Middlebelt, and one on Broadmoor? Will the house on the lot on Broadmoor be torn down? Mr. Andrew: There is no requirement that the house be removed, but when you consider the development of this property, this structure might be removed from the site. Mrs. Bruce: If they were to get this property rezoned to C-2, they could put something else on it. We have been very careful in this area in putting in good zoning. We have gotten good business in the C-2 area, such as Hearthside. But there was something about putting in a car wash on that vacant lot adjacent. We have older homes in the area, as well as brand new ones. We feel you should conform • to the zoning in the area. , We want to stay here and not be pushed , into a corner. We enjoy our large lots and unpaved streets. Many of the people in this area are widows who couldn't afford a special assessment for the paving of their street. Personally, I think that if this zoning is changed, it should be changed to C-1 rather than C-2 to protect us. There are too many things that could be put in if it is changed to C-2. Our section between Five and Six Mile Roads is the best improved area in Livonia; the merchants have worked with us as to the type of buildings put in, no big sign at McDonald's, no picnic tables. Strictly opposed to C-2 zoning here. With a C-2 approval, that would open the door to a very bad situation. There are two convalescent homes across the street, the L.E.A.. building across the street. Must be very careful in how this is rezoned. Must see what is going in before approving rezoning. ' Mrs. Wisler: Mrs. Bruce, this petitioner could not apply for a waiver use request without an original request for rezoning. Have to request rezoning prior to waiver use request. Are you on Lot #238, 239 or 240? 6295 Mrs. Bruce: On Lot #240. Don't give them a blanket C-2 rezoning. Mr. Andrew: State Law requires a rezoning first without conditions, then a request for a waiver use approval can be submitted. Mrs. Friedrichs: Mrs. Bruce, were you listening to the letter from Mr. Abney, approving this petition. Mrs. Bruce: Mr. Abney has a great deal to gain by this rezoning. He has done a good job, and would want a business like that next to his. Mrs. Bruce: The rezoning should be followed through properly. . Mr. Andrew: We cannot condition zoning. Isn't that true, Mr. Brzezinski? • Mr. Brzezinski: No contract zoning Michigan. Mrs. Bruce: Well, we don't want trafficeoming out onto Broadmoor. They should exit out to Middlebelt. Don't want additional traffic coming down Broadmoor. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Bruce, the way I understand you, you are not really opposed to commercial zoning if you know exactly what i_, going in? Mrs. Bruce: I am not opposed to C-1 zoning under any conditions. 1[0 Mr. Falk: I have listened to Mrs. Bruce before regarding zoning along Middlebelt. Mrs. Bruce, I would just like to point out to you that Mr. Gotsis has been a most creditable business man in this town. I say you should judge a person on his past performances. We have got commercial zoning to the north of this property and to the south. There is no way in the world to doubt Mr. Gotsis' intentions. Evaluate his background. I am sure that he will do exactly as he says. He is proceeding according to the law, first Step #1, then Step #2. The only thing you could do to stop his request for rezoning would be to buy the property. We are holding this Public Hearing in order to make a good recommendation and then pass it on to Council. • Mrs. Bruce: You say that if you give him a C-2 zoning, he will put in a restaurant. I believe that we have to be very careful about that area. There must be restrictions in a blanket C-2 zoning. Mr. Falk: Any blanket C-2 zoning we are careful with. You and I have always had the same objectives, and we will carefully examine any waiver use request as well as site plan. Hartley House: The business community in this area has been done very well, but I 29229 Broadmoor am concerned with the rural farm community of which I am a member. We are located on property zoned Rural Urban Farm and we moved here because we like the rural atmosphere. We like the unpaved streets and the open spaces. We are opposed to a change to the C-2 zoning. It had been said that a green belt would be put in to protect us. I was assured that a green belt would put in here a (pointing to the map) . I am putting in this green belt at a great deal of expense and time. Evidently the City couldn't enforce the installation of a greenbelt because it has never been put in there. We do not need paved streets. We do not need that property to be changed to C-2. 6296 Mr. Falk: I would like to know who promised him a greenbelt, and then didn't follow through. i Mr. House: The Zoning Board of Appeals assured me of a greenbelt .when the building permits were issued. Mr. Andrew: Mr. House, I would suggest that you contact the Chief Building Inspector, Mr. Frank Kerby, and ask him about this greenbelt. Mr. Zimmer: How much frontage is involved along Middlebelt? Mr. Andrew: 200 feet. . Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Kropf, how soon do you anticipate to begin construction if your client does get the "go-ahead". Mr. Kropf: I would say they would probably start sometime this coming summer. Mrs. Scurto: Who owns Lot #6? Mr. Nagy: Mr. William M. Depa lives on Lot #6, 29270 Broadmoor. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Kropf, when you put in this building, what kind of fencing will you have, any shrubbery? Mr. Andrew: That will be discussed on the next item as that question is more in the area of site plan and use approval. 1[10 Mrs. Friedrichs: Can it be determined at this time whether or not the paving will be required only the depth of the restaurant lots? It seems the residents do not want Broadmoor paved. If it could be paved only adjacent to the restaurant property, that might discourage any . increase in traffic on Broadmoor. Mr. Nagy: Yes, there could be a condition of paving to do so only from the points of ingress and egress out to Middlebelt Road at the time the waiver use petition is before the Planning Commission. There was no one else wishing to be: heard on this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 76-12-1-49 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was #1-13-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 25,, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-49 by Dimitrios Gotsis and Sylvia Gotsis to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUFB to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-12-1-49 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is a logical, minor extension of a C-2 zoning classification which would provide for a uniform, commercial district in this immediate area. E (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for general commercial uses consistent with the established uses of the neighborhood as same relates to Middlebelt Road. - (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission. 6297 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/6/77, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power A . Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resultedin the following: AYES: Scruggs, Friedrichs, Falk, Kluver, Wisler, Scurto, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-12-2-26 by Dimitrios Gotsis and Sylvia Gotsis requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant on the east side of Middlebelt between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Shiels, would you like to make this presentation? Mr. Shiels: Yes, Mr. Gotsis intends to build a restaurant, which will be in the area outlined in black (pointing to mapl Cars will be entering the parking lot from both Middlebelt and Broadmoor. We have the required 60' setback from Middlebelt road. We will have more than adequate parking for our customers. The restaurant will have 3650 square feet and will seat 110 persons. This will be a family type restaurant, Colonial or Early American style, geared toward general family use. 4 We have an entrance from the -parking lot as well as an entrance at the rear of the building. There will be no foot traffic from either side, everyone should come in from the parking lot. The area in the back calls for a 5' masonry wall, and will be a simulated brick wall adjacent to the residential property. The property directly to the north is C-2 and there is no requirement for any walls at that location. We will be conforming with the Planning Commission's desires with regard . to the landscaping in this. area., No specific landscaping as yet, but we will be submitting that to the Planning Commission within 30 days. Have a small propane tank in the rear because of the energy situation these days. That generally covers what we are planning at this stage. There is no plan for any use of the property way in the back. We have some elevations of the building here tonight, but they are quite small at this time. " It is basically small, low-scaled Colonial design and would reflect an almost residential character rather than a strong commerciL design. Mr. Kropf: In connection with the Landscape Plan, we are hiring the Harold Thomas Nursery to prepare such a plan. You can be sure that we will adequately landscape this property. Mrs. Scurto: As I read these plans, I see a bar specified, and that would mean liquor is to be served. What are the hours of operation? Mr. Kropf: Probably between 6:00 a.m. and midnight. I understand the neighbors are concerned with traffic. Certainly, this is no fly-by-night operation, and we will conduct this business so that they can be prooud of us, too. Mr. Kluver: In the parking area in the back, I assume that the lights will be properly shielded. • Mr. Shield: Yes, they are, I will be glad to show you the design of the lights. Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Shiels, I notice on the drawing of the building you have a wood 4 panel shielding the mechanical equipment on the roof. Is that a solid panel or open? Mr. Shiels: That is a solid panel. We will be using the lowest possible equipment to be screened by what is required, no more than 3 1/2' to 4' high. Mr. Zimmer: Is there any reason architecturally that this building need be located where it is such that it almosts definitely requires a driveway onto Broadmoor? I would like to do away with that. Why can't all traffic go in and out on Middlebelt? Is there any reason why that can't be done? Mr. Shiels: The owner asked us to place the building as close to the corner as possible. There is very little,room for two driveways onto Middlebelt and just one driveway would not be adequate. Mr. Kropf: We also condisered that the exit from the parking lot onto Broadmoor might be designated "Exit Only". I am sure that if it were properly marked, that would certainly cut down the traffic on Broadmoor. Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Kropf, is there any reason why there can't be two driveways onto Middlebelt? Mr. Kropf: Yes, it is possible. Mr. Nagy: I think that with more than one point of ingress and egress onto Middlebelt, thatwould cause an excessive amount of turning movements. I feel it would do a great harm to traffic on Middlebelt. We should limit the points of ingress and egress, and take advantage of the side streets, such as Broadmoor with established points of intersection. Mr. Andrew: Anymore questions? What about the materials to be used on the exterior of the building? Mr. Shiels: It will be a brick building with colonial wood trim and asphalt shingled roof. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Shiels, is it your intention when you submit a landscape plan to include the height of the lights in the parking lot? Mr. Shiels: Yes, the height ofthe parking lights is already designated. Mrs. Scurto: Could someone please inform me how far this building is from the Church? Mr. Andrew: Which one? Mrs. Scurto: The one immediately to the north. Mr. Nagy: It appears to be slightly in excess of 500 feet. Mrs. Scurto: If the Church wanted to expand, and this proposed establishment were selling liquor, would that limit the church from expanding? Mr. Andrew: No. Anthony Katowski: Didn't you people recently rezone property directly west, across 29163 Broadmoor the street, on Wentworth fon church purposes? 6299 Mr. Andrew: No, a waiver, use petition was approved, however, that which fronts on Middlebelt, about 250' was not involved, but I don't want to talk about a liquor license at this time.' This hearing is being conducted solely for the purpose of whether or not we should grant a.waiver of use approval for restaurant purposes. Mr. Zimmer: I would like to get back to the paving problem on Broadmoor. Exactly what steps would have to be taken; how is that accomplished. Mr. Andrew: Through a special assessment procedure or we could require Mr. Gotsis to pay for this as a condition of waiver use approval; but you cannot take any action outside of a recommendation. • Mr. Zimmer: You mean make it a condition of the Site Plan or Waiver Use Approval? Mr. Andrew: Yes. ' Mr. Zimmer: Well, my first choice would be to do away with the driveway on Broadmoor, even though it may create more difficulties on Middlebelt. Or else only pave Broadmoor to the back end of this .particular property we are dealing with. Mr.' Andrew: What type of paving? . Mr. Zimmer: Well, I suppose asphalt or concrete, anything that would support the volume of traffic. Mr. House: I feel that this body is considering the interests of the business community in this area, as well as the petitioner. But won't you please consider the interests of those residents on Broadmoor. I feel that if Broadmoor were paved, it would destroy our farm-like community. Mr. Andrew: You are concerned with the traffic on Broadmoor? Mr. House: Yes, I am. Mrs. Wisler: You want this left undeveloped all the way to Middlebelt? Mr. House: There is quite a bit of through traffic now on Broadmoor. They are heading east on Broadmoor to Harrison in order to avoid the traffic light at Five Mile Road and Middlebelt. Dolores Pepin: I have a suggestion - why couldn't you move the restaurant 10' to the 29106 Broad- north and then have two entrances off of Middlebelt. With over 200' to moor work with, this should be able to be done. 'Mrs. Bruce: I would just like to say one more time that I am opposed to this petition for rezoning because of their intentions of putting in a bar. There was no one else wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 76-12-2-26 closed. eI. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs.. Scurto, it was #1-14-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on. January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-12-2-26 by Dimitrios Gotsis and Sylvia Gotsis requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant on the east side of Middlebelt between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Sec. 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-12-2-26 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on February 1, 1977. . 6300 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: ,jj AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Scruggs, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Falk ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. He then invited Mr. K.ropf and Mrs. Bruce to the study meeting if they desired. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-12-1-50 by Lawrence E. Beecher, O.D. , and Ned B: Grover, O.D. , to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Schoolcraft in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, from RUF to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the_file regarding this petition. Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Engineering Division indicating no • problems connected with proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Wm.P.Lindhout: Yes, I will be representing the petitioners, who are Drs. Beecher and Grover, who are presently located in Redford and are feeling the pinch of space in their existing building. They have been seeking property to permit the building of new facilities and expand their present t operation. They came upon this parcel, and feel that it is ideal for their circumstances. The building would be modest, less than 4,000 sq.ft. because of the physical size of the site, being only 100' x 210' . The modest house on the property would be replaced. The site does have some existing trees which would remain. Parking for the building will be relatively modest, but in excess of zoning requirements. Both Doctors are here tonight if you have any questions. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Lindhout, would you please indicate on the map the approximate location of the tree growth? Mr. Lindhout: There are some maple trees on the north boundary line, as well as on the south property line which would provide a considerable amount of greenery along the residential property line. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Falk: In trying to stay consistent with my previous position I feel that I should point out that across the street from this particular property, we had an intrusion, north of Schoolcraft of Research and Engineering zoning. That we did not like. Now once again, Mr. Lindhout comes in with more non-residential zoning. I feel that this too is an intrusion to the residents adjacent to this property. As a City Planning Commission member I an against the intrusion into a residential area. I think we would be setting an undesirable precedent to approve this request. t1o Mr. Kluver: Mr. Lindhout, I am curious, what type of method of approach, or what possible logic was used in choosing this particular site?, i i 6301 e. Mr. Lindhout: To a great extent, the Doctors felt that the proximity of the expressway would be most beneficial to their operation. They have quite a large number of patients coming out from Dearborn and other areas, and this seemed to be a particularly good spot in which to relocate. This particular spot was selected after we had received a plan from Mr. •Nagy's office outlining just about every possible P.S. property in this immediate area. We examined every available property zoned P,S, and none of them was physically adequate to suit their situation. They came upon this piece and found it most advantageous to their particular needs. Mr. Kluver: There is a considerable amount of P.S. property available in the southern part of the City, as well as along the north side of Schoolcraft Road itself. Mr. Lindhout: I can't recall the size of those parcels along Schoolcraft, but obviously, in the long run, the size of this particular lot was one important criteria used to decide on it. Mr. Scruggs: Isn't there' a home on it now? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, there is. Mr. Scruggs: Do you intend to remove it? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, we do. Mr., Scruggs: Are you planning on a building that will blend in with the residential area? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, very definitely. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, that parcel immediately to the south of this, is that an auto tune-up shop? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is located in a C-2 district. Mrs. Wisler: I Would say that this has been a very busy corner during the past few years. It is my hope that we can stop any. further commercial development here. Any more buildings here should be comparable in design to those homes presently located on Farmington Road. Mr. Zimmer: As far as I am concerned, I feel that they do not have a strong argument for requesting a rezoning in this area. The building there now is a substantial one, and would not have to be torn down. I cannot support this rezoning proposal. • Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Lindhout, I would like to ask you what the size of the building will be, and the number of parking spaces? Mr. Lindhout: It will be 3 to 4 thousand square feet. Considering the size of the property, the building will appear modest. With approximately 15 parking spaces.. 4 Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? • 6302 Elmer F. Sitler: My family and I have been living here for 12 years; about two 33159 Scone years ago that corner had three businesses - Mobile Oil Gas Station, a Total Gas Station and Shaw Electric. That wasn't too bad. Since then, they put up an office building, and we received no knowledge of any rezoning at that time. All of these businesses border on my property. I certainly don't want any more businesses on the other side of my property. I feel we are fighting a losing battle. Our valuations are going to drop, and we certainly don't want that. Mr. Andrew: Exactly, show us on .the map, where do you live? Mr. Siterlet then pointed to Lot 479 on the map. Ed Sloan: I attended one of these sessions last summer about another situation 14133 Westmore like this on Farmington Road. I am concerned about the vacant lot behind me. I certainly don't want any more commercial development on Farmington Road. • Norm Wallscheib: I am President of the Kimberly Oaks Civic Association, and I cannot 33051 Perth speak for this Association per se, but I would like to say that I have known Mr. and Mrs. Siterlet for some time, and they have been the most easy people to get along with, and if they have any ' objections to this rezoning, I would have to be opposed to it, too. • Albert Wyland: I just want to say that I am definitely against this petition. James Knack: I am the son of the principal owner of the property in question. 36757 Marler My, father has been a long time resident of Livonia. We have been renting this property for the past .ten years. As the people here have indicated, the house is in fairly decent shape, maintained well. We even had the exterior painted recently and there has been work done on the inside. When the opportunity presented itself to sell this property, I was concerned about what would go in. I felt that an Optical Clinic was one of the better things that could go in. With that knowledge, we signed the Purchase Agreement, subject to a change in zoning. We really think that this is one of the better uses in this area. And it really makes sense that there be this change in zoning. It is half -acre in size, with a small house containing two bedrooms and no basement. Its long term situation is questionable. I would encourage you to consider this rezoning very seriously. Mrs. Friedrichs: Mr. Lindhout, do you know the hours and days of operation planned by the Doctors? Mr. Lindhout: I can't quote them off hand, but I would say 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. five days a week, half-day on Saturday. Mrs. Friedrichs: No evening hours? One of the doctors: On Tuesday and. Thursady, the 1st,patient comes in at 7:00 p.m. Mrs. Friedrichs: Normally, then there would be no one using the building after 9. o'clock at night? /44?: Mr. Lindhout: No. Mrs. Siterlet: I have nothing against doctors, but I am against having business 33159 Scone men behind us. We now have Shaw Electric behind us, and they have done everything they said they would do. I would say that we have at least 30 to 40 trucks every day that drive.around in that parking lot. When I look at my back window, I see large garbage trucks,. parcel trucks, all kinds. I am sorry but I do not want to see these trucks driving around only 45' from our • property. I have eight children,. and my eight children and myself • have gone out there and cleared up our yard plus at least three feet of the property adjacent to ours. We have taken out weeds,. cleaned up trash strewn around, and have never once seen the owner of that property. I am sorry, but enough is enough. We are totally against any more commercial property. Janice Chapman: We live directly north of this property under discussion, and we 14030 Farmington are wondering if there is going to be a wall right next to the trees. Mr. Andrew: If this rezoning is approved, and a Site Plan is approved, a wall would be required along the northern boundary on the property - the exact location to be determined by our Engineering Division. Janice Chapman: What about lights? Mr. Andrew: That would be a condition of the Site Plan. I cannot definitely answer that right now. I can only answer your questions if they concern rezoning. t4o Mrs. Chapman: I am definitely opposed to the rezoning. We have small children. • Mr. Lindhout: My professionalism has been questioned and this I would like to respond. My point is that a Professional Office Building is the only possible use of this land worth considering. A Professional Office Building certainly would not down grade the value of the adjoining land. I could give you some examples of other properties along Farmington Road that have not lost their value because of business developments in the area. And I can assure you that this piece of property will be developed to be comparable to the adjacent residential area. Mr. Falk: Bill, about two years ago, I was thinking that the Total Gas Station there on that corner would be phasing out. I was wrong; after listening to what the lady with eight children had to say and based on my feelings of commercial property into residential, • I still will have to say "No". You're right, property in this town does not lose its value, but some people just might wait too long - that is the chance you have to take. I will have to take a stand against this rezoning. • There was no one else present wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 76-12-1-50 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #1-15-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-50 as submitted by Lawrence E. Beecher, O.D. , and 4 Ned B. Grover, O.D. , to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Schoolcraft in the southwest 1/4 of Section 22, from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-12-1-50 be denied for the following reasons: ' 6304 I . . (1) The proposed change of zoning 'which will convert residentially zoned lands to office will adversely affect the abutting residential area as it would tend to encourage the further expansion and conversion of residential properties as they relate to Farmington Road to other non-residential uses. (2) The proposed change of zoning will not promote the orderly growth and development of the area for residential purposes, but would tend to encourage the further expansion of office development in this area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is not needed in this area as there is already an over-abundance of undeveloped P.S. zoned land along the Farmington Road corridor in this area to provide for the intended use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/6/77, and notice of such a hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in- the following: AYES: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Falk, Scruggs NAYS: Friedrichs, Scurto, Wisler, Andrew ABSENT: None . - Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried the foregoing resolution adopted. i Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-11-3-9 by P.B. McCarthy requesting the vacating of an easement located south of Amrhein Road between Globe and Levan Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. At this time, Mr. Andrew stated that he would abstain from discussing or voting on this petition, and subsequently passed the gavel to the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Scruggs. Mr. Scruggs: Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated January 12, 1977 from the Contractors Steel Company, signed by Donald R. Simon, completely in support of this petition. Also, a letter from our Engineering Division, indicating no problems connected with proposal. We also have a letter dated January 19, 1977 from the Detroit Edison Company specifically objecting to proposal because of the presence of their equipment in this area. • Mr. Scruggs: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Falk: I direct my question to Mr. Brzezinski, regarding that letter from • Detroit Edison. Does the City of Livonia have the right to consider this vacating petition? '* Mr. Brzezinski: I think a lot would depend on who exactly owns this easement. I would have to check into this further before I give a definite opinion. Mr. Nagy: We did contact the Detroit Edison Company, requesting further clarifications regarding their objections. We are still waiting to hear from them. I 'would suggest that we table this matter until we can look into it further. 6305 Mr. Falk: The way I feel about the utility companies these days I feel they should have had a representative here tonight to explain this. I would entertain a tabling motion on the basis that Detroit Edison send a representative' to one of our future meetings. But let's face it, a precedent has already been made in this area. Mr. Scruggs: Is the petitioner present? Pat McCarthy: I own the property in question, and I have talked to Mr. Sullivan of 29746 Briarton the Detroit Edison Company, and he indicated to me that we would be Farmington rescinding this letter he directed to the City of Livonia. There is no conflict here at all. Mr. Scruggs: Will they be sending a letter to us to that effect? Mr. McCarthy: Yes. We have already applied for a building permit, but when we applied for a mortgage this situation came to light. Mr. Nagy: According to our records, this easement was established at a time when there were still homes on Amrhein Road. But now that this land has been converted to industrial uses, the industrial nature of this area conflicts with the utilities' easement. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. McCarthy, if we were to table this petition would that cause you any undue hardship in putting up your building? IC; Mr. McCarthy: No, as a matter of fact, the building is already there. 4 There was no one else present wishing to be heard, Mr. Scruggs, declared the public hearing on this petition closed. 110 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. DuBose, it was #1-15-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-11-3-9 as submitted by P.B. McCarthy requesting the :<i vacating of an easement located south of Amrhein Road between Globe and Levan in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-11-3-9 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on February 8, 1977. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Dubose, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Scruggs, Wisler NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Andrew Mr. Scruggs declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. He then passed the gavel back to the Chairman, Mr. Andrew. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-12-1-44 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #518-76 to rezone property located north and south of Fargo Avenue between Merriman Road and Sunset in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-3 and .R-5. Mr. Andrew: Is thereanyone in the sudience who wishes to speak either for or against this petition. ' 6306 Alan Silverston: We are definitely opposed to this petition. We enjoy our large 31061 Fargo lots and unpaved roads, and we do not want anyone to come in with a zoning for 80 x 120' lots. When we bought this land we were assured that it would remain as half-acre parcels. I have visited most of my neighbors, and no one is in favor of this petition. I have a petition with me indicating that these people are opposed to this petition. Mr. Andrew: This letter directed to the City Planning Commission states that these people are opposed to any rezoning in the Northwest Section of 2. I would say there are approximately 20-25 people who signed this petition. We will make this a matter of public record. . Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Silverston, what is the size of your lot? Mr. Silverston: 85'x 310' - approximately half acre. Gilford E. Gorker: I am recent property owner• in this area. I purchased the property 19281 Warrington about two years ago. We purchased this parcel with the intention Dr. , Detroit of building on it. We are in agreement with the other people who signed the petition, we would like to keep this area zoned for half acre or more lots. • Charles Hoff: ' My lot measures 106' x 135' and I am definitely opposed to any 30875 Fargo R-3 or R-5 zoning being put into this area. Enjoy rural atmosphere, but would like to say that right now we do get a lot .of traffic ILdown Fargo to Sears. I am definitely opposed to petition. t4o James Bartle: I own property along Sunset north of Fargo, about 100' x 150' in 20150 Sunset size. Cannot see any reason for rezoning this property unless someone has' future plans to develop this area. I see no good purpose for this petition. Mr. Andrew: The reason for this petition before us this evening is because the City Council of Livonia-has received a request for lot splits in this area. Any lot splits would not comply with the RUF zoning. Somebody ask;? the Council to split some lots into less than half-acre in size. if those people are here tonight,, I would like to see them. There is no one here tonight wanting this change? ' Paskel Combs: I purchased my property, containing almost 2 1/3 acres, with the intention 20179 Sunset of not cutting it all up. We like the country atmosphere, as well as the City conveniences here in Livonia. I have a tennis court for the kids and I don't want to see six homes put on it. Opposed to petition. Robert Smith: My property runs south along Pembroke, 360 x 95' fronts on Merriman. 19790 Merriman I think the man who owns this property might be the one who wants to cut it into 80'x 120' lots. There are Real Estate One signs on the • property now. I think it is 165' deep, almost 1 1/2 acres. Mr. Andrew: You say Real Estate One? Where are the signs? iiRobert Smith: On the first two lots east of Merriman. Gilford Gorker: The man who owns this particular piece of property resides in Florida, and maybe he does have other things in mind for it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing closed on Petition 76-12-1-44. - 6307 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, 4 it was #1-17-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to ,a Public Hearing having been held on January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-44 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #518-76 to rezone property located north and south of Fargo Avenue between Merriman Road and Sunset in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-3 and R-5, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-12-1-44 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted February 15, 1977. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion _carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-12-3-10 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate an easement located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 28. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division relative to the relocation of a storm sewer in this area. Other than that, the Engineering Division has no objections with regard to this petition.' Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate an easement in the Industrial. Belt. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak either for or against this petition. 11[1: There was no one wishing to speak on this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 76-12-3-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-18-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-12-3-10 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate an easement located on the west side of Stark Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-12-3-10 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject easement is no longer needed in its present location as a new easement has been provided adjacent to the established . property lines, thereby avoiding the conflict the present easement has with regard to the building expansion program. (2) By letter dated November 24, 1976, the Engineering Division of the City of Livonia supports the proposed easement vacating petition. (3) All reporting City departments have indicated their support of the proposed vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/6/77, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments -as listed in the Proof of Service. • Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopt( y 6308 Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-10-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by deleting the Livonia Mall Circle Drive proposed to be located within the perimeter of the Livonia Mall area in Section 1, 2, 11 and 12. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? . Jerome Pfeiffer: I am the President of Sunset Acres Civic Association, and I am concerned about the traffic situation on Seven Mile Road, as well as the entrances into our subdivision. It doesn't really matter which way this road goes around, it won't effectively alleviate the traffic problems we have in this area. We support your motion to do away with this loop road. Resident: I would like to speak for the residents in the northeast corner of 29120 St. that loop. We think the Planning Commission was moving in the right Martins direction when they made this drive-around proposal because we have a traffic problem, especially in this northeast corner. Before the Livonia Mall was built, we had a small amount of traffic, purely local. I live on St. Martins, and it is a gravel road. The traffic we had before was normal, had no problems with it. But since the Livonia Mall went in, the traffic congestion at Seven Mile and Middlebelt is 4 unbelieveable. Even since that, they have put in two office buildings and are talking about a very large Chatham supermarket going in. And during the Christmas season. . .when this congestion is most severe the people start using alternative roads, whether they are paved or not. Actually the situation is not getting any better, it's getting worse. . 1 We would like to see St. Martins made into a one-way street, because 4 we feel that the people are going to use our street any way, and if it were made into a one-way street, we would get only 50% of our present traffic. William Jacobs: • There is very little that I can add to what he said, except that 29138 St. Martins beginning in May we have a terrible dust problem on St. Martins. . . clouds of dust. Of course, you can pave it. Well just try and get it paved. We feel that if we get just 50% of our present traffic that would cut down the dust some. We don't care which way. . . . just one way. Steve Brown: I do business at the Mall, and I feel that the area is bad for traffic all over here. The parking lot is very poorly laid out, and if you are trying to head out west, that becomes bad at times. I usually park in back behind Sears, and trying to get through the whole parking lot to go west is a most difficult situation. Steve Gardner: I am here representing St. Priscilla's Church which is just west Rep. St. of the Mall, and I would like to know what will happen to this area Priscilla Church on the outside perimeter of this loop road? Mr. Andrew: You mean in the event it should develop? Steve Gardner: Yes, that is what I am wondering about. 4 t Mr. Nagy: You might find that some general office, or professional office uses, . might develop along this loop road, but any uses within the perimeter would probably be commercial. +. 6309 Mr. Gardner: The church property lies 200' to the west of the loop road. 4 What about all the traffic along this thoroughfare? 4-0 4 Mr. Nagy: The design along the: loop road would be three lane pavement within an improved road right-of-way. Mrs. Scurto: Personally, I would not like to see the whole idea of a loop road around the Mall abandoned. Possibly, there might be some way which we could implement at least the northern half in the 'near future. Mrs. Friedrichs: I would like to see St. Martins street converted into a one- way street as soon as possible. And couldn't something be done about keeping the road dust down in the dry westher? . Mr. Andrew: Yes, I would like to see the ring road idea kept open, at least perhaps north of Seven Mile and also check into the possibility • of making St. Martins St. one-way. Mr. Scruggs: I feel the same way. . . . I just hate to see this whole idea given up, and feel that further discussion on this matter should be given from a practical standpoint. There was no one else present wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 76-10-7-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, 4 it was #1-19-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-10-7-3 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by deleting the Livonia Mall Circle Drive proposed to be located within . the perimeter of the Livonia Mall area in Section 1, 2, 11 and 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-10-7-3 until a further Study Meeting to be conducted in March. • Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a Motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-20-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-43 as submitted by. Naomi R. Clark to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Fitzgerald in Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-12-1-43 be denied for the • following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning to the C-2, general commercial classification would provide for uses that would be incompatible to and unrelated to the surrounding residential uses of the neighborhood. 4 i (2) The proposed change of zoning to the general commercial classification would not promote the orderly and appropriate residential development of the neighboring area, but would tend to encourage the further conversion of residentially zoned lands to that of strip commercial. 6310 (3) The proposed change of zoning can be referred to as spot zoning as the site is of limited size and not contiguous to existing commercial development, but is surrounded on all sides by . residentially zoned lands. (4) The proposed change of zoning is not in the long-range best interest of the neighborhood or the general area as the area is predominently of .a residential character and general commercial uses are inappropriate to the continued long-range use of the general neighborhood. . (5) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia. (6) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the intent of Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 18,22 Nonconforming Use: Elimination. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/6/77, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and adopted, it was • #1-21-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-45 as submitted by the Rouge Valley Construction Company to rezone property located on the east side of Merriman between Bobrich and Bennett in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, from RUF and R-5 to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-12-1-45 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning as it applies to the area under petition will provide for residential development consistent with and compatible to the surrounding and abutting development of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning, so as to allow for the development of the property at an increase in density, will not adversely affect the surrounding residential areas, as the abutting lands to the north are owned by the Livonia Board of Education, are largely open in character and used for school purposes. The residential lots to the south are extremely deep in relation to their lot width, thereby assuring adequate separation between the proposed new development from that of the existing. • (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a logical extension of already established residential subdivision, and from a traffic planning standpoint, will not adversely affect the area as the site has direct access to a major thoroughfare. . 1 6311 ' (4) The established zoning classification of RUF is an unreasonable and impractical classification as it does not allow for the reasonable use and development of the property given the unique 4 shape and dimension of the property as with the proposed change 4 . of zoning, it would provide for a reasonable and appropriate development of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 12/23/76, ' . and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, ' .Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs., DuBose, Zimmer, Scruggs, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: 'Kluwer, Scurto, Falk ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, . it was #1-22-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Council. Resolution #691-76, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to reaffirm its action taken in Resolution #9-223-73, adopted on September 11, 1973, which recommends that Petition 73-5-1-21 by Mr. and Mrs. Enrico Canini requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Grandon Avenue and Dover Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, from P.S. to C-1 be denied, for the reasons contained therein. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, it was #1-23-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 11, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-48as submitted by Gerald C. May to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Road, west of Newburgh in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, from R-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-12-1-48 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is to have the Zoning Map corrected to reflect the established commercial use of the area. (2) With the proposed change of zoning, the non-complying status of the present use of the property with respect to the Zoning Ordinance will be removed. 1140 (3) The petitioner has indicated that his purpose for seeking the change o of zoning is to allow the redevelopment of the property for commercial purposes consistent with the established use of the property which will, in turn, upgrade the property and bring it into compliance with good site planning and building code requirements. h 31L f. t FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was published in the 4,1 official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 12/23/76, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A rollcall vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: DuBose, Zimmer, Wisler, Kluver, Falk, Scruggs, Andrew, Friedrichs NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-23-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-1-8-1 by Ralls, Hamill, Becker & Carne, Inc. , Architects for the City of Livonia, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a Civic Center Municipal Building on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Farmingtoriin Section 11140 22, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan, Project No. 75-415, prepared by Ralls, Hamill, Becker & Carne, Inc., Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevation Plan dated 1/25/77, prepared by Ralls, Hamill, Becker & Carne, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That a separate, detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval before project completion. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, the 329th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 25, 1977 was adjourned at 12:15 a.m. January 26, 1977. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION .pier Est er Friedrichs, Secretary ATTEST: / / Daniel R. 'ndrew, Chairman 441