HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-05-03 6363
MINUTES OF THE 334th REGULAR MEETING
I[: AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 3, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held
its 334th 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.m. , with approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew William F. Scruggs Esther Friedrichs
Jerome Zimmer Joseph Falk Suzanne Wisler
William DuBose - arrived 8:10 p.m.
Herman Kluver - arrived 8:22 p.m.
Judith Scurto - arrived 8:50 p.m.
Members Absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning,Director; H G Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and RobertM. Feinberg, 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 any property, this Commission only
4 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 use request or site plan
is denied, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the
Council.
Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary, then announced the first item on the Agenda as
Rehearing of Petition 76-4-1-12 by John Kanakis requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Middle-
belt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from P and R-7 to C-2.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding petition?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Engineering Division indicating
that there appears to be no storm sewer in this area to service
the site. . . etc. Also, a letter from Ab-Ro Realty Company
requesting that action be taken on Petition 76-4-1-12 . . .etc.
Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present?
John Kanakis: Yes.
26230 Meadow-
brook Way,
Southfield,Mi.
to Mr. Andrew: Mr. Kanakis, according to the background information we have, you
are no longer interested in this petition. Is that true? It is
up to Mrs. Slater to continue this petition now? Do you have
any financial interest in this at all?
Mr. Kanakis: Yes, I have an interest if we can get the zoning changed from parking.
6364
IL Mr. Andrew: Mr. Feinberg, at this point in time, do you understand that
Mr. Kanakis is just a representative of Mrs. Slater's on
this petition, or just how does he fit into this?
Mr. Feinberg: Well, the way I understand this, there has been no definite
petition signed by at least 50% of the property owners within
the area of the zoning change.
Mr. Andrew: Well then, what petition are we acting on?
Mr. Nagy: We are asked to act on a Rehearing of Petition 76-4-1-12 filed
on April 5, 1976, with the owner of the property being shown
as Albert J. Slater, 31195 Schoolcraft and the petitioner being
John Kanakis.
Mr. Andrew: On the original petition, is there anything to indicate that
Mr. Kanakis no longer has any financial interest in this property?
Mr. Nagy: .We have a letter dated January 6, 1977, addressed to the Livonia
Planning Commission . . . "Please take action on Petition 76-4-1-12"
signed Helen M. Slater, 31195 Schoolcraft, Livonia. A representative
of Ab-Ro Realty indicated to us that Mr. Kanakis was no longer •
. pursuing this petition. The Planning Commission was then instructed
to determine whether or not Mrs. Slater Could pursue a petition
filedby John Kanakis. The Law Department informs us that Mr.
Kanakis had to consent to Mrs. Slater's pursuing this petition.
li:
• Mr. Kanakis has now sought to reactivate his own petition.
Jeffrey Ishbia: It is my understanding that the final sale of this property
Attorney for has not been completed. It appears there was a contingency
J.Kanakis involved in the purchase of this land depending upon the rezoning
of the property. If the petition was denied, the funds were to
be returned. The present Offer to Purchase is based on whether
or not the property is rezoned in the future. I believe Mr.
Abraham will confirm this. We are still very much interested in
purchasing this property if it is rezoned.
Mr. Andrew: This determination will be made if a• valid Agreement of Sale exists.
If it does not exist, then I would say Mr. Kanakis has no financial
interest in this petition. I feel we should find out exactly where
he stands.
Jeff Ishbia: My client has paid the taxes on this property during the past couple
of years. A reasonable amount of money has passed.
Mr. Falk: It appears to me that Mrs. Slater is still the sole owner. No land
contract exists. In the letter of January 6, 1977 she is the one
desirous of pursuing the petition. There is nothing to indicate
that she doesn't want to pursue this petition.
Mr. Nagy: (He read •again the letter from Ab-Ro Realty dated 1-6-77) .
Mr. Falk: You can see that this letter was written long after the
original petition was filed.
W. Abraham: May I speak on this petition? (he then identified himself.)
Ab-Ro Realty
6365
Mr. Andrew: Do you want to speak from a brokerage standpoint?
ILMr. Abraham: I wish to speak as a representative of Mrs. Slater; I have an
office directly across the street from this property.
Mr. Andrew: Does Mr. Kanakis have any financial consideration in this property?
•
Mr. Falk: An unusual situation where the purchaser pays the taxes prior
to the consumation of a deal.
Mr. Abraham: Mr. Kanakis has paid the filing fee. That is why he has an
interest in it.
Mr. Falk: Whether or not the owner wishes to pursue it, I would say that
the issue is still very much alive. Have you had any conversation
lately with Mrs. Slater?
Mr. Abraham: Obviously, she wishes to pursue the petition.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Kanakis, the original purpose for the rezoning of this
property was to construct a restaurant on the property. Our
primary concern here is the possible rezoning of the R-7 piece
of land to the immediate north. The C-2 zoning would be needed
to accommodate a restaurant, but I would prefer to see the
presently zoned R-7 land landscaped in order to prevent access
by your patrons to Lancaster Avenue, which is a residential street.
Mr. Kanakis: We would only use this particular piece of land for parking.
I
Mr. Andrew: The width of the presently zoned R-7 land is 20' x 140' . Tell me,
if this 20' were not rezoned to C-2, could you still proceed
with your proposed restaurant development?
Mr. Kanakis: What would I do with the 20'?
• Mr. Andrew: Why not landscape it? Assuming that the waiver use request and
• the site plan approvals were obtained, the Planning Department
could assist you in coming up with adequate -landscaping.
•
Mr. Kanakis: OK, I guess I could landscape' it. I suppose I could live with it.
Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience
wishing to speak further on this petition?
W. Abraham: This piece of property on the west side, the existing building
29127 5 Mi. Loeffler Hardware, which is 50' x 100' was constructed before
Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543 was adopted. Now the Zoning Ordinance calls for
60' setback, which is unreasonable. This Zoning Ordinance was set
up for shopping centers, but not for something already existing.
Mr. Andrew: I think that you are aware that if these parties involved are
successful in obtaining the rezoning, and successful in their
ILapplication for a waiver use approval, they still have to go
before the Zoning Board of Appeals in relation to the setback
required. There is relief from the present situation.
Mr. Abraham: But that might take anywhere from 90 days to six months. Why
dont you either approve it or deny -it.
• 6366
Jeff Ishbia: I just want to reiterate that Mr. Kanakis has no objections
• whatsoever to landscaping the 20' presently zoned R-7.
Mr. Zimmer: If Mr. Kanakis were to get relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals
and got permission to build on that property that is presently
zoned parking, couldn't he also use that same property for
restaurant parking purposes only?
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, do you concur?
Mr. Nagy: If the size of the building, the size of the restaurant remains
consistent with the same building he first planned to put up,
yes the property already zoned C-2 is sufficient to accommodate
the restaurant building.
Mr. Zimmer: If he puts the restaurant on that property petitioned for C-2
possibly he need not get parking rezoning for that portion of
the property up front. Merely go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Also, the depth of that C-2 portion of the
property is 100' . With the building being 40' x 100' it would
run parallel with Five Mile Road the long way and not even be
in conflict with the front yard setback.
Mr. Abraham: I talked to Harry Tatigian, City Attorney, in reference to filing
this petition. He said that the Parking would have to be changed
to C-2 before he could go to the Council.
° Mr. Nagy: Let me read from the files, Opinion #76-4, dated May 26, 1976,
from the Law Department, SUBJECT: Parking District Regulations,
as follows: Therefore, you can satisfy off_street parking
for restaurant use even if •the area is presently zoned Parking,
doesn't have to be rezoned to C-2.
Mr. Abraham: Well, I was told that couldn't be taken up with Council until
it was rezoned.
Mr. Nagy: We asked Mr. Kanakis to prepare two site plans based on the property
as it is presently zoned. The plan that was preferred would have to
be worked out with the Zoning Board of Appeals as it proposed a
building in relation to the established building line and therefore
encroached into the front yard setback.
Mr. Abraham: First I ever heard of that.
Mrs. Wisler: We have looked at this petition a number of times regarding the
•
rezoning of the property presently zoned Parking. I feel the
commercial use would be acceptable, but what about the R-7 in the
rear. There definitely would be an increase in traffic on the
residential street if this were opened up. I feel there should be
some screening for the residential property owners. I feel the
property should be rezoned to C-2 in order to give the petitioner
enough room to develop the site, but let's protect that area in the
rear from traffic.
There was no one else wishing to speak further on this petition and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the Public Rehearing on Petition 76-4-1-12 closed.
Mrs. Wisler: I would like to offer both an approving and a denying resolution ,
:approve the rezoning of. P to C-2, but deny the R-7 to C-2.
6367
Mr. Zimmer: Support.
IL Mr. Andrew: Mr. Ishbia, would you have any objections to amending your
client's petition by filing a letter with the City Clerk's
office tomorrow- simply deleting the R-7 portion of the land
from this petition? What is it - 20' x 100'?
Mr. Ishbia: We have no objections whatsoever to filing a letter indicating
that we will delete that portion that you so desire. We will
amend our petition to eliminate the R-7, 20' x 140' piece of.
land, located at the extreme north end of the property.
Mr. Feinberg: Mrs. Slater, have you seen the letter written by Mr. Abraham?
Mrs. Slater: We just came in. We don't know exactly what you are talking about.
31195 School-
craft
Mr. Andrew: We have just asked the Attorney for Mr. Kanakis whether or not
he would be in agreement to amend the rezoning petition to
eliminate that piece of land, 20' x 140' from his petition.
Do you have any objection if we just leave it R-7?
Mrs. Slater: No, we have no objections.
Mr. Andrew: The motion is to approve Petition 76-4-1-12 as amended, which
will simply change the land presently zoned P to C-2, and delete
the R-7 portion entirely.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. .Zimmer, it was
#5-80-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Rehearing having been held on May 3, .
1977 on Petitidn 76-4-1-12 as submitted by John Kanakis requesting to
rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from P and R-7 to
C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 76-4-1-12 as amended by letter dated May 4, 1977 from
Jeffrey A. Ishbia, Attorney for John Kanakis and on behalf of Helen
Slater, so as to request a change of zoning from P to C-2, be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) It is a logical, minor extension of the established C-2 zone.
(2) It is consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan.
(3) It would facilitate an improved site development.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/14/77,
and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company,
Consumer Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service. •
1110
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Falk, Scruggs, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver
ARGENT: Scurto
6368
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
(0 adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-3-1-3 by Tom's
Northwood Market, Inc. , to rezone property located on the northwest
corner of Middlebelt and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
from C-1 and R-5 to C-2.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in file regarding petition?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated March 18, 1977 from the Engineering
Division indicating that this petition meets with the approval
of their office, except for the fact that they feel Clarita
Avenue should be improved . . .etc.
Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present?
Norman Hyman: Yes, I will be representing Tom's Northwood Market, which is the
owner of this property, as well as the petitioner. I have with
me Mr. William Hines of Pizza Hut, Kalamazoo; Mr. Larson of the
M.E.Arden Co. ; and Mr. Tom Zoedes, Architect. Between us, we hope
. we can answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Andrew: ' I would like to confine this discussion as much as possible to the
rezoning of this land rather than any site plans.
Mr. Hyman: This sketch here will be the extent of any site plan tonight but
I would like to point out to you the attractiveness of the restaurant
i especially with the landscaping of the berms .to screen the development.
You have before you a booklet outlining the history of Pizza Hut
Restaurants. And Pizza Hut is making one of the first attempts
to utilize this land. 'Mr. Larson of the M.E. Arden Company has
made numerous attempts to sell this land for C-1 use. . As you know,
he is a most qualified broker in this area. And he has had possibly
as many as 100 prospective buyers for this land, but not one of them
is interested in the land as it is presently zoned. I have here
an outline of Mr. Larson's activities with regard to selling this
land. The Pizza Hut Company is very much interested in this property,
and you know that it is one of the leading restaurant chains in the
United States. We feel that virtually all our business would come
from within a two-mile radius of the restaurant. It is strictly
family-oriented-sit-down dining room with a full menu, for middle-
income families. Do you know that 47% of Americans today eat 50% of
their meals in restaurants? In another 10 years, that figure could
rise to about 70%: More statistics: 51% of Pizza Hut customers
are from 18 to 49 years of age; another 11% are over 50; and 26% are
from infancy to 12. Clearly, it is a family-oriented restaurant with
full-range dining facilities. We have no special carry-out arrange-
ments. Every effort is made to encourage eating the meal at the
place of business. Attractive environment - would be consistent
to the area. All food is prepared on the premises - pleasing
and acceptable - in fact, they are presently com&ng up with a new
idea: Italian Smorgasbord at $2.19 per head.
Mr. Falk: Let's keep the subject germane to the rezoning. No more talk about the
t
menu or site plan. Just want to hear reasons for requesting the
rezoning.
Mr. Hyman: Just want to stress the fact that constant attempts have been made
to sell this land with the C-1 zoning with complete failnr! . Nn one
6363
wants to buy it as it is presently zoned.
Mr. Andrew: When did Tom's Northwood Markets acquire ownership?
Mr. Hyman:. I'm really not certain of the particular period of time when
they purchased. They own the whole corner.
Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Hyman; what are you contemplating the restaurant hours to be?
Mr. Hyman: 11:30 a.m. to Midnight every day, except Friday and Saturday when
it will remain open until 1:00 a.m.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Hyman, where is the nearest pizza hut to this location?
• Mr. Hyman: On Eight Mile Road, between Beech Daly and Grand River.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Hyman, this property was zoned C-1 in 1971. Did your client own
the property at that time?
Mr. Hyman: Yes, I believe they did.
Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission?
Mrs. Wisler: Mr. ` yman, have you looked at any other property in the City
presently zoned C-2 in terms of placing your restaurant?
1[0 Mr. Hyman: Yes, we have been looking at more than one site.
Mr. Larson: Basically, there are certain avenues to explore as far as land
M.E.Arden Co. such as this is conerned. We have been trying to either sell
or lease this parcel for the past couple of years. Probably, one of
the difficulties has been because of the closeness of this parcel
to one of the larger malls in the area. There are so many stores
in the Mall. Smaller businesses prefer to be enclosed in the Mall.
We talked to quite a number of people that would fit into the C-1
zoning of this property, but no one was interested. We have been
managing the Shopping Center directly to the north for about 12 years.
These stores are not only competing with those in the Mall, but
also are competing with themselves.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Larson, could you tell me why you think no one is particularly
interested in developing this property?
Mr. Larson: The cost of acquiring and developing this property at this time is
terribly high.
Mrs. Wisler: Well, generally speaking, I am opposed to a Cg2 zoning in this area.
I have a great fear of a C-2 zoning interfering with the residents
nearby. I realize that Middlebelt Road is heavily travelled now,
and I feel another restaurant would only increase the traffic more.
I am very much opposed to changing that corner to C-2.
Mr. Kluver: My only comment is that I feel it is extremely diffcult to support
a C-2 zoning in that area. Good planning calls for consistency
4 in a particular area, and a C-2 zoning here does not meet standards
of good planning.
Mrs. Scurto: • I personally would like to echo these comments. I feel that there
is sufficient C-2 land in this town that would allow this business
to operate elsewhere.
6370
Mr. Zimmer: The property immediately to the north, as well as the vacant
property to the west, does the petitioner own either one of these
pieces of land?
Mr. Hyman: The petitioner owns the property to the west zoned R-5; as well
as the commercial corner on the north.
Mr. Andrew: You have indicated that your client still owns the R-5 property
on the west - how much?
Mr. Hyman: Two lots to the west - approximately two acres.
Mr. Andrew: Any more comments from the audience?
Dale Anderson: As you can see, this particular corner is sparsely populated -
38036 Lyndon only two houses on Clarita — quite a ways before any more houses.
These houses on the corner are tenant-occupied - have not been owner
occupied for the past 20 to 30 years. Well maintained. Property
probably won't remain residential too much longer, but we feel
that commercial property in this location as proposed will provide
some degree of security. $3,000 was taken out of one couple's
houses not too long ago. I am not opposed to commercial development
to the north.
Mrs. Friedrichs: Mr. Andrew, I have a certain concern about having a good viable
business going in there. The corner does need upgrading, this
business is quite successful, and I am sympathetic to the owner
who has tried to market this area for some length of time. It's
' true - there are similar type restaurants in this area, but after
hearing the owner across the street not being opposed osed to this
commercial development, I am more in favor of letting this happen.
Mr. Andrew: Any further. comments?
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Anderson, do you live in one of the houses on that piece of
property across the street?
Mr. Anderson: No, I do not. I only manage it.
Mrs. Friedrichs: Were your tenants notified of this Public Hearing being held tonight?
Mr. Anderson: No, they were not.
Mrs. Friedrichs: I wish we could talk to some of the residents immediately adjacent.
I would like to hear what they have to say.
Mr. Andrew: I am sure the residents are aware of the possible zoning around them.
Mr. Falk: Mr. Anderson, do you own this property as well as manage it:
Mr. Anderson: Yes, I do.
Mr. Falk: Well, traffic has been one of our major concerns along Middlebelt.
Other restaurants have attemptedto locatein this area, and we have
4 denied their requests for one reason or another. I feel that we are
flooding this area with restaurants. I would like to see them locate
somewhere else in the City.
There was no one else wishing to be heard on this item, Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared
the Public tic,;lrinq on Peti I c,n 77-3-1-3 closed.
6371
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, it was
#5-81-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on •
May 3, 1977 on Petition 77-3-1-3 as submitted by Tom's Northwood
Market, Inc. , to rezone property located on the northwest corner
of Middlebelt Road and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11,
from C-1 and R-5 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to. the City Council that Petition 77-3-1-3 be denied for
the following reasons:
(1) The proposed change,of zoning which would allow for greater
intensity commercial development would be detrimental to the
surrounding residential uses located to the south and west.
(2) The proposed change of zoning would adversely impact upon the
area and tend to lead to the further conversion of residential
lands to that of commercial development.
(3) It is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's goals and
policies for development in that the C-1 zoning provides for a
reasonable transition buffer between residential and commercial
areas, and the C-2 would bring high intensity commercial development
immediately adjacent to residential' uses.
• (4)' It would adversely affect the area from a traffic standpoint
that area of the proposed rezoning abuts a local residential
street, and having access to that local street would increase
the traffic volume along the street which would adversely affect
tin
the street and the neighboring area as it is an unimproved residential
street.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/14/77,
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Scruggs, Wisler
NAYS: Friedrichs, DuBose, Andrew •
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Andrew then advised the petitioner that this recommendation will be sent to the
City Council for their Public Hearing and final decision.
•
i
63 /2
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next itrm on the agenda Petition 77-3-1-6 by the
City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #254-77 to
rezone property located on the west side of Knolson Avenue, south of
J
Ann Arbor Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, from C-1 to'R-1.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in file regarding petition?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated April 29, 1977 from Michael Vorgitch,
38645 Ann Arbor Road, Livonia, as follows: I protest the rezoning
of this property since I have obtained a building permit to retain
this as commercial. . .
Mr. Andrew: This is a petition instituted by the Planning Commission to rezone
the portion of the acreage parcel, the south 70' thereof. This is
to be rezoned from C-1 to R-1 in Order to bring the land in
consistency with the Future Land Use Plan. Is there anyone in the .
audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition?
D. Lawrence: Yes, I am here for the Southwest Home Owners Association, and
would like to say that our Association is in support of the re-
zoning of this petition. The property in question has been owned by
this same owner for quite some time, and we have had some serious
maintenance problems with the parcel on the east side of Knolson.
We feel that any new development in this area would result in the
same thing again. We also support this petition because of the
boundary line with the residential property being what it is.
li:
Any more commercial development might create a safety hazard.
Washington Elementary School is right close by, and we are concerned
about the safety of the children going to and from school in this
area. We feel any future commercial development would encroach
on the homeowners there. If they were to develop this corner any
more, an additional commercial sign would be right on the residential
street. Also, the whole idea would depreciate the residential area.
. Let's face it, this particular parcel is too small to develop any
further commercially.
Mr. Andrew: Any further comments from the Commission or the audience?
There was no one else present wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared
the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-1-6 closed.
ON a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted,
it was .
#5-82-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 3,
1977 on Petition 77-3-1-6 as submitted by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Council Resolution #254-77 to rezone property located on the
west side of -Knolson Avenue, south of Ann Arbor Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 31, from C-1 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-1-6 be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed change of zoning would bring the commercial district
IL
boundary lines into conformance with the developed commercial
properties of the area and, in turn, reduce the intrusion of this
commercial district into the adjoining residential area.
6373
(2) It is in conformance with the recommendations as set forth on
IL the Future Land Use Plan.
(3) It will effect the development plan as submitted by the property
owner in connection with the development of the balance of the
parcel as zoned commercial.
(4) By this change of zoning, it will remove the potential traffic
hazard that would be placed upon Knolson Avenue if the subject.
area were to be ultimately developed in a commercial classification,
as the subject area faces directly onto Knolson Avenue, a local
residential street that serves the adjoining residential subdivisions
of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/14/77,
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 declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-3-1-7 by
Samuel Zawideh to rezone property located on the west side of Middle-
. belt Road between St. Martin and Bretton in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
2, from P.S. to C-1.
IL Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in file regarding the petition?
Mr. Nagy: ' We have a letter from the Engineering Division indicating that there
are no city maintained storm sewers in this area . . . . etc.
•
Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present?
Sam Zawideh: The main reason I came here is because of the taxes. I have had this
3117 Parkland property for about 10 years. The taxes have always been about $500
W.Bloomfield a year, but for the past two years they have gone up to $1900. So
I tried to buy the property on either side of me in order to put
up some strip stores - maybe three or four. But neither side would
sell. I would like this rezoned just as a matter of economics.
Mr. Andrew: It appears there is a house on the property.
Sam Zawideh: No house.
Mr. Andrew: House has been torn down?
S.Zawideh: Yes. But I would consider it if the land could be rezoned to
Residential. That might bring down the taxes to $500 or $600 a
li.,
year, the way it used to be.
Mr. Scruggs: Sam, are there homes to the north and south of you? Generally
speaking, I feel that the same reasoning exists here as it did in
the previous petition. We just don't like commercial development in
a residential area. But I suppose it could go back to a residential
zoning.
6374
S.Zawideh: Across the street there is commercial development, as well as two
dilapidated houses.
Mr. Scruggs: But there are homes directly west of you.
Mrs. Friedrichs: ,
I can certainly understand why the P.S. zoning here might be
a drag on the market. But I also feel that there are too
_many mini stores in this area; don't want to put in any more.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Zawideh, what particular use did you have planned to go into
this area.
S.Zawideh: Well, I was thinking about putting in a liquor store.
Mr. Andrew: Do you feel that you would have a better chance of developing this
property if the land on the north and south of you also were zoned
P.S.?
S.Zawideh: Nb, I do not.
Mr. Andrew: Any more comments?
There was no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing
on Petition 77-3-1-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-83-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on, May 3,
1!:
1977 on Petition 77-3-1-7 as submitted by Samuel Zawideh to rezone
property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between St. Martin
and Bretton in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, from P.S. to C-1, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 77-3-1-7 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Future
• Land Use Plan as adopted by the Planning Commission which recommends
office usage for this area.
(2) It is inconsistent with the adopted land use goals of the
Planning Commission which recommends that office uses should
provide the transitional and buffer zone to protect residential
neighborhood from the adverse effects of heavily travelled roads
and/or major commercial business centers.
(3) It would not promote the orderly growth and development of this
area, but would tend to encourage the further conversion of office
or residential uses to that of commercial and lead to the further
strip commercial development of the neighboring area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such Public Hearing was sent to
the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/14/77
t 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.
I
6375
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-3-1-8 by Republic
Development Company to rezone property located on the south side of
Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Freeway in the West
1/2 of Section 18, from M-1 to R-2, R-7 and C-2.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Police
Dept. , indicating that improvements of roads in that area would
be necessary due to the increased volume of traffic . . . etc. As
well as a letter from the Fire Department.
Mr. Andrew: Is there any firm date as to when the proposed construction might
take place?
Mr. Nagy: No firm date.
Mr. Andrew: Is there a representative of the petitioner present?
Kenneth Hale: Yes, I would like to represent the Republic Development Company.
Hale & Free- We have developed quitea number of subdivisions here in Livonia.
man As the Rose-Hill Building Company, we established Castle Gardens,
15195 Farming- Tiffany Park(about 2000 units) , and possibly 20,000 units in
ton Metropolitan Detroit. We have also done business in the Wonderland
Shopping Center. Have been involved in the City of Livonia for a long
time. We are asking for approval to rezone this particular piece of
E
property, which is roughly between Haggerty Road and the I-275
Freeway. There is approximately 131 acres there, and it is presently
zoned M-1, which mightinclude light manufacturing, warehouses, etc.
Rev. Adams of the Trinity Baptist Church is proposing to put up a
convalescent home on his ten acres on the north side of Six Mile Road,
and the heavier industrial facilities under the M-1 zoning would not
be compatible to that facility. We are asking that property be
divided into two sections: single family residences will take up
approximately 107 acres, small amount for R-7 and the remaining small
amount for C-2. We are proposing slightly less than 12 acres for the
C-2 zoning, something that will not be in conflict with the proposed
Laurel Park development. The R-7 would include approximately 12
acres, possibly two-story building encompassing 130-140 units. The
R-2 district would invlove the construction of larger type homes,
1500 sq. ft. or better, 2 1/2 homes per acres, 70' lots, selling
price to be approximately in excess of $50,000. The surrounding
area is residential, and we do have a letter from the school system,
indicating no objections on their partto the residential development
of this land as they feel they have plenty of room to accommodate the
children. I believe the overall plan will contribute favorably to
the area, and feel confident that the fire and water problems mentioned
by Engineering can be worked out. The M-1 zoning certainly is not
compatible to the area.
Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission?
6376
Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Hale, you do realize that this proposal is contrary to the
Future Land Use Plan of the City, and I am sure your commercial
development could in no way be comparable to Laurel Park. Presently,
E
there is a shopping center on the corner of Newburgh and Six Mile
which occupies about 10 acres. You say your proposal would occupy
about 12 acres. When we had the Laurel Park development people
here we really made the owners do a number of things for the City.
I suppose I could say that this section will become quite a jewel
in the City. With the proposed landscaping of the berms, as well
as a boulevard along Six Mile Road, I am sure that this would be
quite enough for that part of the City. The letter from the
Engineering Division indicates that improvements in your area would
be quite costly.
Mr. Hale: I think that it would simply be unadvisable to try to construct
any stores that would compete with Laurel Park. That doesn't
make any sense. We are thinking about a theater, possibly a
bowling alley, anything that would not be located in the other
two areas in the vicinity. My client is aware of engineering
problems involved, but it is nothing too formidable.
Mr. Scruggs: Well, I would like to see something a little more definite with
regard to the particular layout of your proposal.
Mr. Andrew: Any more comments?
Mr. Kluver: I have looked very closely at this petition, and I feel that this
proposed development lacks anything unique about it. It appears
to me to be a very standard type of development. I am not ready
to accept that type of development for that particular parcel. It
is one of the last areas in the City to be developed. I feel it
should have a little creativity, something a little more unique,
especially due to the proximity of the expressway. I am not ready to
vote on this issue at this time; and feel it should be tabled until
a later date. Possibly, they could then come up with something
just a little bit different - better than what it is now.
Mr. Hale: Things that are unique are not always feasible. We wanted something
unique too. Appreciate your comments.
Mr. Falk: Would you be willing to go to R-3 instead of R-2? What you will have
across the way are on R-3 lots. I think we should study this further.
Mr. Hale: The builder feels that houses on R-2 lots would be more saiable.
Houses on R-3 lots would be more expensive.
Mr. Falk: If you are planning on developing in an R-7 district, why not change
the R-2 to R-3?
Mr. Hale: My client would like to speak.
Howard Binkow: Multiple financing is available today. We feel that this area
tj Republic Dev. is in a good market area for R-7 units. As to the R-2 zoning
Company versus the R-3, this is a very unusual piece of land. We feel
we can get approximately 3.3 houses to the acre with an R-2, but
only 3 to the acre with an R-3. With an R-2-C zoning, our houses
would be at least comparable size-wise to those presently located
in an R-3-B district. In fact, square footage of the house would
be a little bit higher.
6377
Mr. Andrew: Has the R-2-C designation been cited on the petition?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Lyle Adams:
14800 Middle-
I am here to speak on behalf of the petition. We are contemplating
putting up a health-care rest home in that area. Have been planning
belt this for some time. The Trinity Baptist Church owns 12 acres
-Trinity Baptist immediately across from the proposed R-7 district. We have two
Church, 38900 W. acres with frontage directly on Six Mile .Road. The church building
Six Mi. Rd. is a historical ciurch site. Then we have 10 acres set aside for
our health care facility. We hope to begin construction this.
summer. Again, we feel that this development across Six Mile
is compatible with what we are proposing.
Mr. Andrew: Rev. Adams, the cemetery adjacent to your church, is that owned
by the Church?
Rev. Adams: The frame church building on the cemetery is actually owned by
by the United Cemetery Association. We have papers in writing
from the officers of the old United Cemetery Association to the
effect that as long as we intend to service and maintain the property
it is alright to use this for church services. The title is with
the United Church Association.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Binkow, one of our Commissioners mentioned the possibility
of a boulevard section on Six Mile Road, which would require
additional right-of-way. Do you have any conflicting feelings
regarding this type of construction along Six Mile Road?
Mr. Binkow: Even if we had the change of zoning today, there are vario s concerns
we would have to work out with the City. One of the problems
is the road way. But I am sure thebe can be solved with the
various City departments.
We feel we have a good solid proposal that the City would be
happy with. Presently, across Haggerty Road in Northville
Township, there is a gas station. We know what is up there,
and we know how to develop it further to the best advantage
for all concerned. Ford Lanes is interested in putting a bowling
alley, as well as a major theater owner in the area is interested.
Mrs. Scurto: When the particular piece of land Newburgh Plaza is constructed on
was zoned commercial, we were stuck with the possibility of taking
that zoning away. I feel that is what is happening here. Certainly,
you would not be in competition with Laurel Park or Newburgh Plaza,
but personally I would love to see this land zoned residential.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, didn't the Livonia School Board direct a letter to us
indicating that 350 units in this area would. develop 385 students.
Does that include the R-7 district also?
Mr. Nagy: The School Superintendent merely indicated 350 units developing
385 students - did not distinguish between single and multiple units.
There was no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public
Hearing on Petition 77-3-1-8 closed.
6378
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-84-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 3, 1977 on Petition 77-3-1-8 as submitted by the Republic
Development Company to rezone property located on the south side
of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Freeway in
the West 1/2 of Section 18, from M-1 to R-2, R-7 and C-2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-3-1-8
until the next Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on May 24, 1977.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on Agenda as Petition 77-3-3-3 by the City
Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #277-77 to vacate
that portion of the right-of-way of Henry Ruff Road located west of
Oporto, south of Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in file regarding the petition?
Mr. Nagy: Detroit Edison indicates no objection to this vacating as they
have no equipment involved. Engineering Division notes that with
the vacating of this property, a full width easement should be
maintained.
Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by. the City Planning Commission for
IL the following basic reasons: 1) This would eliminate any possibility
of commercial traffic flowing to and from Vargo's going south to
Munger; 2) the Master Thoroughfare Plan does not provide for its
extension onto Six Mile Road, and 3) it would free up additional
land for residential development. Is there anyone in the audience
wishing to speak either for or against this petition?
Mrs. Brandt: We have a definite problem here. The creek comes north in front
30175 Munger of my home and we are flooded. We need a piece of theright-of-way
west of my home.
Mr. Andrew: We are talking about vacating Henry Ruff north from Munger Road.
I don't see how the vacating of Henry Ruff would affect your home
south of Munger.
Mr. Nagy: Mrs. Brandt, we are talking about Henry Ruff Road north of your home.
Your house is not affected by this petition. There never was any
development of Henry Ruff from Munger Street leading into Vargo's
property. Your area, platted as Livrance Estates, has Henry Ruff
Road as the half-mile road.
Mrs. Brandt: Well, I think something should be done about the flooding along this
road. Munger could be washed right away, which it has been.
Mr. Andrew: I believe that is a problem for the Engineering Division to take
care of. Possibly they could enclose that drain in a pipe. Has
I: a timetable been established for that.
Mr. Nagy: Nothing in the letter from Engineering indicates anything to that
effect. However, road improvements in that area have nothing to
do with this petition. It has not as yet been decided if there
even should be a roadway from Munger up to the restaurant. And
Engineering will handle the problem of drainage when and if this
nro iect i., Qvc'r devel raped.
I
6379
G.Eisenstein: Mr. Chairman, you alluded to the fact that if this petition goes
16581 Henry through, that section of Henry Ruff will be vacated, indicating
Ruff a possibility of a future development in that area. Well, some
of the residents in that area have already received notice of a
meeting two weeks from now about a certain land company wanting
to come in and build homes. This letter also indicates that the
land has already been vacated.
Mr. Andrew: Well, I don't understand that - only the Council can vacate land.
Mr.Eisenstein: Well, it appears the head of Don Vargo has risen again. At the
last meeting he attended with the City Council, he was allowed to put
an addition on a non-conforming building provided that there would
be no more development in the area. Now it looks like two weeks from
now, Mr. Vargo will again get his cake and eat it too. When we
moved out to this area, the zoning was such that it was to'remain
rural. More or less a sanctuary type of area. If the zoning were
to be changed, it would be disruptive of the whole place. Three
years I have lived there near Bell Creek, and every year the creek
gets higher especially after a storm. More development - more water.
I also have a couple of pictures here showing what it looks like
after a rain. I only ask that you people sitting on this Board
consider those of us who live there and deny this petition.
Mr. Andrew: Anyone else?
14.dRobert King: I live right next door to the property under petition. I wish to
30445 Six Mi. speak strictly about vacating Henry Ruff Road. The flooding off the
Road, plus the paving across the street, plus the subdivision north.
That is something I think Engineering should take into consideration.
This flooding is really getting bad. It certainly affects our garden.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. King, are you opposed to vacating Henry Ruff Road?
Mr. King: Personally, it doesn't make any difference to me. The only thing
I guess is that I was under the impression that Mr. Vargo would
change this to RUF. I guess you could say that I am in favor of
vacating Henry Ruff Road. I would like to keep this residential.
Mrs. Scurto: Mr. King, does your property go all the way down to Munger?
Mr. King: Yes, it does.
Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Eisenstein, I think it would be to your advantage if this property
were vacated, so that nobody could travel out of Vargo's down to
Munger, prohibiting traffic in your residential area. If it were not
vacated, it could possibily be used in that way.
Mr.Eisenstein: I know that it would be impossible to put a road down through all
those trees on this property. But I suppose a house could be built
there with access on to Munger.
Mrs. King: Why couldn't we just table this whole subject until the next meeting
two weeks from now?
6380
Mrs. Friedrichs: What advantage would a developer gain if we were to vacate
1[00
this road?
Mr. Andrew: Flexibility of development, otherwise the developer would be
restricted to a 43' right-of-way.
Mrs. Friedrichs: You mean we would be giving the developer 43' additional feet
in the development of this land?
Mr. Nagy: That would still be better than reverting back to public
ownership. He would be paying additional taxes on the land attaching
to his property. The public would not have to maintain a right-
of-way that is unused and not needed by the public.
Mrs. Friedrichs: Yes, I guess it would encourage his ability to develop it as
a subdivision. Another question I would have for Engineering
and that is when would they go in there and do something about
the flood plain? What about the wild life in that area? Would
enclosing the creek have any effect on the wild life? Also, .
looks like a lot of trees. If you enclose the creek, the whole
ecological balance of nature would be upset. I feel an impact
study should be done on this subject.
There was no one else wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the
Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-3-3 closed.
11 4 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and adopted, it was
#5-85-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 3,
1977 on Petition 77-3-3-3 as submitted by the City Planning Commission
pursuant to Council Resolution #277-77 to vacate that portion of the
right-of-way of Henry Ruff Road located west of Oporto, south of Six
Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 77-3-3-3 until the next study
meeting scheduled to be conducted on May 24, 1977.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Scurto, Scruggs, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver, Zimmer, Falk
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-3-6-5 by the
City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #172-77 to
amend Section 25.05, Waiver Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, by adding paragraph (c)' to provide
for Class C Liquor Licensed establishments as waiver uses in C-4 Districts.
Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to amend
1110 the present Zoning Ordinance. Anyone wishing to be heard on this
petition?
There was no one present wishing to be heard on this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman
declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-6-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted,
it was
6381
IL #5-86-77 Resolved that; pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 3, 1977 on Petition 77-3-6-5 as submitted by the City Planning
Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #172-77 to amend Section
25 .05, Waiver Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the .
City of Livonia, by adding paragraph (c) to provide for Class C
Liquor Licensed establishments as waiver uses in C-4 Districts, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 77-3-6-5 be approved for the following reason:
(1) The waiver use requirements. will afford the City greater control
over the location and nature of establishments desiring liquor
licenses.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of 4/14/77 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 declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-3-7-2 by the
City Planning to amend Part III of the Master Plan of the City of
. Livonia, the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, so as to establish
controls relative to lots abutting major thoroughfares in Section 9.01,
9.03 and 9.08.
Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission to amend
' the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the Master Plan of the City
of Livonia. Anyone wishing to speak on this petition?
There was no one wishing to be heard on this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman,
declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-7-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-87-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts
of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the
City of Livonia having duly held a Public Hearing May 3, 1977 for the
purpose of amending Part III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia,
Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the same is hereby amended so as to
establish controls relative to lots abutting major thoroughfares in
Sections 9.01, 9.03 and 9.08 for the following reasons:
(1) The Subdivision Rules and Regulations as currently written
contain very little guidance and no standards regarding
the establishment of greenbelt easements.
(2) The lots abutting major thoroughfares require special screening
to protect residents from noise and to afford them maximum privacy.
t , AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285
of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning
Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Plan
of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the
6382
same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission,
with all amendments thereto. and further that this amendment shall be
filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission;
and a copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the
County of Wayne with the following certification contained thereon.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mrs. Friedrichs announced the last item on the agenda Petition for Preliminary Plat
approval for Windridge Village Subdivision proposed to be located on the
north side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Farmington Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
M::. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition?
Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division advises that following improvements would have
to be made. . .etc. Inspection Department advises lots as shown
exceed minimum requirement - no problems. Fire Department requires
specific location for hydrants . . . Police Department advises single
access into and out of subdivision could pose a problem if entrance
ever were to become blocked . . .etc. Also, we have a lette_^ from -
the Livonia Urban Farms Civic Association opposing the establishment
of this proposed subdivision.
Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present?
G.Frankli.n: Yes, T will be representing the Biltmore Development Company. This
Biltmore Pro- is merely a Preliminary Plan in an R-1 district. All lots are a
perties,Troy minimum of 70' wide which is 10' greater than the minimum required
under your Zoning Ordinance. As far as the comment from your
Police Department regarding only one access into and out of this
subdivision, there will be a boulevard at this point because of
the limited frontage on Seven Mile .Road.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any reason why Engineering does not show ease-
ments on the Preliminary Plans any more?
Mr. Nagy: Easements will be shown on all plans following the detailed layout
by their engineering for the public utilities.
Mr. Andrew: Then, we could call- this a pre-preliminary plat. When will this
Commission have the opportunity to see any easements - on a Final
Plat Plan?
Mr. Nagy: Easements are shown as far as the major drainage systems, and the
major greenbelt.._areas are shown, otherwise we let Engineering Division
work those out with the developer at the time of final plat preparation.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Franklin, it appears that you are not planning this plat unbr
your ownership. Is there any particular reason why you are not
planning on owning this property? .
Mr. Franklin: We are in the process of acquiring the land to the east. We are
also hoping for a rezoning of all adjacent land included in the
overall plan.
Mr. Andrew: What about that area to the north?
Mr. Franklin: We are hoping to acquire that land also.
6383
•
•
Mr. Andrew: With the acquisition of all this property, I am becoming
more concerned about the lack of an ingress and egress point
on Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Franklin: We will provide additional driveways into the subdivision when the
land is acquired.
Mr. Andrew: Does your overall plan show this?
Mr. Franklin: Yes, it does.
Mr. Nagy: I would say that it would be appropriate to table this petition so
that we might review the overall plan. Is that alright with you,
Mr.. Franklin?
Mr. Franklin: We were hopeful that we could move right along. with the first
phase. The longer we delay we might miss this development year,
but I do understand your concern. I would like to proceed with
as much speed as possible.
Mr. Andrew: We could table this until next Tuesday - that wouldn't be too
much of a delay. Is there anyone 4.n the audience wishing to speak
either for or against this petition?
Dino Thomas: What about a sewer line. I have owned this property for about 10
29570 Gil- or 11 years. All I ever hear is talk. I wahted to build a house
Christ, Farming- here 10 years ago, and they wanted to turn it into commercial or
ton Hills light manufacturing.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Thomas, you are welcome to attend our Study Session next Tuesday.
Anyone else?
Phil Barrett: I own this lot marked HH362. This subdivision is starting to be a
19630 Gill Rd. problem, and I want to first say that I just recently signed a petition
for the people who live on Gill Road, and also Norfolk which property
has been under the RUF zoning for the last 20 years. RUF zoning
allows us to keep animals. The Council allowed rezoning the property
on the south, east and west to an R-1 classification. I feel there
might be a tremendous conflict with these people when my pigs start
getting in the _r way. I feel that they stole the RUF atmosphere
right away from us, and they should give more consideration to
those people who live in that area before they start, platting future
subdivisions. Sure we could benefit by the development of this
property - sewers, streets, easements, cyclone fences, etc. There
should be a definite separation between our RUF land and the R-1
zoning. I would like to come to your study session next week, and
you should put our subject first on the agenda. We have waited
all night for this to come up, and we want to be first next week.
Mr. Andrew: Anyone else?
Susan Clark: I am in full agreement with Mr. Barrett. We don't want any new
34600 Gill subdivisions to deprive us of our rural zoning.
There was no further discussion on this petition, Mr. Andrew, declared the Public
Hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Windridge Village Subdivision closed.
6384
4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, :seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously,
adopted, it was
#5-88-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
May 3, 1977 on Preliminary Plat approval for Windridge Village
Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Seven
Mile Road between Gill and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table said Preliminary Plat until the Study Session scheduled
to be conducted on May 10, 1977.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-89-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
remove from the table Petition 77-2-2-3 by James P. Heffner, Jr. ,
requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for auto rust-
proofing on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and
Schoolcraft Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was
#5-90-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-2-2-3 as submitted by James P. Heffner,
Jr. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for auto
rustproofing on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and
Schoolcraft Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 77-2-2-3 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) that Site Plan #7703, revised date 3/17/77, which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to;
(2) that building elevations as shown on the approved Site Plan
which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to except that
where block is used, it shall be painted a color compatible
to the brick proposed for the front building elevation; and
(3) that a detailed landscaped plan shall be submitted for Planning
Commission approval within thirty (30) days of this approval;
for the following reasons:
(1) the proposed use complies with Section 11.03(a) of Zoning
Ordinance #543. •
(2) The Industrial Development Coordinator recommends approval of the
proposed use.
44 (3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding established
uses of the area as based upon evidence gathered by the Industrial
Development Coordinator and upon the findings of the Commission.
6385
4 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Scruggs, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto, Falk
ABSENT: None
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent
to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner 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 Mr. Kluve , seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-91-77 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01 (b)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, does hereby establish and order that apublic hearing be held
to determine whether or not the unimproved portion of Melvin Avenue
right-of-way located between Fairfax and Bretton Roads in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 2, should be vacated.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, nctice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report
I[: and recommendation submitted to the City Council.
•
Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Scruggs, it was
#5-92-77 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the. 333rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on April 5, 1977 be approved.
A rollcall vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
. AYES: Andrew, Scruggs, Friedrichs, DuBose, Kluver, Scurto, Wisler, Falk
Nays: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Zimmer
Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr.. Scruggs, it was
#5-93-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated April 27, 1977 from Kenneth
Soble requesting to place a temporary 10" block letter sign on an
existing building located within the shopping center at the southwest corner
of Farmington and Eight Mile Roads, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to approve this request for a period of four months,
t , at which time an approved illuminated sign will be erected.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
•
AYES: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Scruggs, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: Friedrichs, Scurto, Falk
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing re-cul ut i on adopted.
6386
e
4
(00
On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 334th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearing held by the Livonia City Planning Commission on
May 3, 1977 was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
(;?Le-elif..4,-470
s er -rie richs, Secretary
(// -Gi
ATTEST: 1
Daniel R. .ndrew, Chairman