Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-07-12 z 6429 MINUTES OF TI- 337th REGULAR MEETING LAND PUBLIC HETRINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COM'4ISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 12, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 337th 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 100 interested citizens in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Sue Wisler Jerome Zimmer Lee Morrow William DuBose Judith Scurto Joseph Falk Herman Kluver . Members Absent: Esther Friedrichs (vacation) Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and David Stoker, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Andrew advised the Commission and sudience that Mr. R. Lee Morrow had recently been appointed by the Mayor, and confirmed by the City Council as a member " of the • Planning Commission. He then asked Mr. Morrow if he had taken his oath of office as yet, and Mr. Morrow advised that he had. Mr. Andrew then informed the Commission and audience that henceforth Mr. Morrow would be voting on all future petitions 10 as a member of the Livonia Planning Commission. Mr.' Andrew informed the audience that if 'a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of vacating or rezoning any property, this Commission only makes a recommendation 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. Mr. Andrew announced that Mrs. Wisler is the current Vice-Chairman due to the resignation of Mr. William Scruggs and also will be acting as Secretary for tonight's meeting in the absence of Mrs. Friedrichs. Mrs. Wisler announced the first item on the Agenda is Petition 77-5-1-13 by Dr. Michael K. Nicola to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft Road and Ellen Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. Mr. Andrew; Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering'Division, dated May 23, 1977, indicating no engineering problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Ed.T.Butris: Yes, I will be representing the petitioner, Dr. Nicola. We are requestin t_ie 3155 Big that this lot, 120' x 150' be rezoned from residential to professional Beaver,Troy services. It is our feeling that this rezoning would be compatible to adjacent property as it does front on the expressway. As you know, the south side of the expressway is zoned M-1, " and we would like to put in a low-profile type professional service office building on the north side We feel that this small building will generate very little traffic in the area, and would actually be an extension of the single family dwellin in the area. Between Merriman and Farmington kf,ads along the expreq ;way, hero -it t` 1 t1,',. 6430 professional service building:; on the north side, and these developments are all quite larger than what we are proposing. Physically, we are contemplating a building with only 4500 square feet on this property. Dr. Nicola will occupy only one-third of the office space available, and the balance will be used as general offices. In this way, we feel our plan is in conformance with the ordinance. ' We have submitted a Site Plan as well as an artist's sketch of what the building will look like. We will, of course, follow your wishes with regard to the landscaping. We also feel that you should be aware that there are no subdivision regulations that would not allow us to proceed. I would like to present the artist's sketch of the proposed building, the architect being Chuck Newbrick. Mr. Andrew: I have no objection to the presenting of a sketch, but will only permit a limited discussion of the site plan. Mr. Butris: Yes, we understand. Chuck Newbrick: I believe you people on the Commission have a picture of the proposed building submitted earlier. It will have an exterior of residential brick, similar to that used on Detroit Bank and Trust buildings. The metal work around the window frames would be dark bronze,' with obscure glass - perhaps bronze glass. The profile would be quite low, with landscaping very residentiallooking. There will be a screen alongside the side drive - an audio screen as well as a visual screen. Mr. Andrew: Do you have some sort of drawing to show to the audience? At this time, Mr. Bakewell erected a drawing on the easel facing the audience. ' Mr. Andrew: I presume Dr. Nicola has an option to purchase this property in the event the petition is granted. Who owns the fee title on this property? Mr. Butris: Yes, two of the original owners are here tonight. Messrs. Tucker and Morris Friedman. Mr.Friedman: We have been putting up buildings in Livonia for quite some time. This land here we got about 16 or 17 years ago. Kept paying taxes for a long time. I see a high-rise office building go up only 700' from us. Would appreciate permission to sell this land so we can stop paying taxes for nothing. Feel that this doctor's clinic would be a real benefit for the people living around that section. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, I am concerned about the entrance markers currently on the corner of this subdivision in question. At the time this property was subdivided, were entrance markers required? Mr. Nagy: Off-hand, I am not too sure about that, but I think that entrance markers were not required at that time. It has only been the last few years that this Commission amended the Subdivision Rules and Regulations that called for entrance markers. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Mr. Butris, M•r. Friedman has made reference to the change in land uses along the north side of Schoolcraft Road, This Commission, over a period of years, has been fairly successful in stopping any commercial development from Stark Road to I-275. We have instructed the Planning Staff to make a study of existing land uses along Schoolcraft Road, and make specific recommendatioi with regard to future land uses in this area. For that reason, I would , 6431 suggest to this Commission that we undErtake a tabling resolution in order to allow time to make that study, and thus be it a better position to make a decision than we are tonight. IL Mr. Butris: I would like to point out that we do have a limited time period in in which to carry out this project, and we do feel that we have provided you with as much information as possible. Mr. Andrew: What kind of time limit? Mr. Butris: If the rezoning is granted, we have a Purchase Agreement that must be finalized within 60 days. How long do you think such a study would take? Mr. Nagy: 60 days. Mr. Andrew: The Chair is open to suggestions from any of the Commissioners. Mr. Falk: Mr. Chairman, are there any people here from the Civic Association in that area? No one has expressed any desire to speak. Mr. Nagy, did you get any calls from any residents in the .subdivision? Mr. Nagy: No, I received no calls personally. Mr. Falk: The people were notified? Mr. Nagy: Everyone who lives within 500' of this property received notification 1[00 of this meeting. , Mr. Falk: Well, I don't feel that we can make any decision if the Civic Association there was not advised. If time is of the essence, I would offer a denying resolution. I would only acquiese to a tabling motion. I feel this is an intrusion of commercial development into a residential area, and we are going to have other taxpayers coming in and objecting I feel these people should know what is going on. Mr. Andrew: All residents who live within 500' of this property were notified; if the President of the Civic Association lives within this 500' , he was so notified. Any other comments? Mrs. Wisler: As we all know, there are two activites going on in this area - more residential construction, as well as continued work on the freeway. I have mixed emotions on this issue. Perhaps the study could be made only on the north side of the freeway. Mr. Butris: When could we come back and have something meaningful? Mr. Andrew: I am sure the Planning staff could have something for us by August 1st. I would suggest that this item be set up on the agenda for August 2nd. Mr. Butris: Could we have a resolution to that effect? We can wait. toThere was no one else wishing to be heard on this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-5-1-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was 643<. #7-133-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 , on Petition 77-5-1-13 as submitted by Dr. Michael K. Nicola to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft Road and Ellen Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-5-1-13 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on August 2, 1977. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the, foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-5-1-14 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located between Five and Six Mile Roads and between Newburgh Road and the I-275 Freeway in Section 18, from R-2-A and R-3-B to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Other than a letter from Engineering advising no objections, there is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to reflect public ownership of the property as shown on the screen. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Jack Gibbons: It has always been my impression that this land was owned by the 37664 Kingsbury school. Mr. Andrew: We are talking about that land which is enclosed in the heavy black outline. It is owned by the City of Livonia; there, it must be designated as Public Land. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this petition? There was no one else wishing to be heard for or against this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-5-1-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-134-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-5-1-14 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located between Five and Six Mile Roads and between Newburgh Road and the I-275 Freeway in Section 18, from R-2-A and R-3- to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-5-1-14 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having all public lands zoned in the Public Lands classification. (2) With the proposed change of zoning, the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia will reflect the public ownership and use of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/23/77 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone CompEny, Consumers Power Company, and all City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6433 1[1; Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-5-1-15 by Kenneth T. and Mary E. Owen to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of .Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUFA to C-1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division, dated May 31, 1977 stating there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Mary Owen: Yes. 33599 W. 7 Mi. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Owen, what is your reason for requesting this rezoning? Mrs. Owen: We own all this land, even the front portion. It has always been divided into two zoning classifications. Any way, we feel it is time now to have this changed from RUF to commercial so that it will match up with the rest of the property. Mr. Andrew: You own the property where the greenhouse is? Mrs. Owen: Yes, we own it, but it is being rented right now. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mrs. Scurto: If the rezoning is granted, does that mean the house will be removed? Mrs. Owen: Not at this time. The rent we get helps pay the taxes. Mr. Andrew: Any other questions? Mr. Zimmer: That house, does it not come through onto the property under question? Mrs. Owen: The home is on this piece of propertyright here zoned RUF and the driveway runs thru the commercial zone. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against. this petition? There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-5-1-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and adopted, it was #7-135-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public. Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-5-1-15 by Kenneth T. and Mary E. Owen to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUFA to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-4-1-15 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The petition represents a minor extension of .a C-1 zoning district already occuring on a portion of the subject property. (2) This change in zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (3) The change in zoning will provide for one uniform zoning classification for the.parcel of record. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/23/77 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Comp•_ny, Consumers Power Company and all City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Andrew, Falk, Kluver, Dubose, Zimmer, Wisler, Morrow NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: Friedrichs Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-5-1-16 by Edwin Weinstein to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt between Roycroft and Five Mile Road in the South- west 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? 1[4, Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from Engineering indicating no prob'_ems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Ed.Weinstein; Yes. 15378 Middle- belt Mr. Andrew: What is your reason for this rezoning request? E.Weinstein: I understand that all new buildings on Middlebelt Road have to have a 60' set back. In this particular case, 60' would encroach upon the RUF zoning because the backend of the property will be used for parking. I want to put an addition of 10,000 sq. ft. on the existing building, and needing the extra 60' along with landscaping, it would cut into that property now zoned RUF. In order to conform to these new standards, I would petition that this land be zoned C-2 so that we can do the job as it should be done. Mr. Andrew: The frontage is presently zoned C-2, but the rest of it is zoned RUF, Is that correct? Mr. Weinstein: Yes. Mr. Andrew: And you are saying that this building addition with the proper setback will also improve the parking situation at this location? Mr. Weinstein: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? nt 1 TA); t ,. n nn ?lir• 4r'-• 4 I n � \1 t 11r ' SC'RY east, I see a piece of r•,operty with two separate buildings on it. .Mr. Weinstein: Yes, there are two buildings there. Also, an unoccupied road - unimproved alley, which we will just leave as it is. We have 1[ 10 nothing to do with that. Mrs. Scurto: Other than the main building, it is your intent to put in an additional 10,000 sq. ft.? You mean one building out of all three buildings? Mr. Weinstein: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any other questions? Mr. Falk: John, are you satisfied with the planning part of this if the rezoning is approved? • Mr. Nagy: From a zoning standpoint, this parcel is split zoned and should be made into one complete zoning district. The matter of site plan improvement will have to be made at the proper time. But from a zoning standpoint we have no problems with the change of zoning. • Mr. Zimmer: That small building to the east of the main building - is that a storage building or what? Mr. Weinstein: Yes, that is a concrete block building. It has been re-done and re-built many times, and it is used for storage. It has heating and electricity in it, and will become part of the entire complex. 1 Will have to come up to the standards of the City. Mr. Zimmer: But will it tolerate renovation? Mr. Weinstein: Yes, will have a new roof, etc. Mr. Zimmer: To the north of the property in question, I see two residential lots with buildings. Will there be a wall alongside this property lining up to the C-2 land? • Mr. Nagy: Yes, there is a requirement for a portion of his north property line to be walled1if his petition for a rezoning is approved. The requirement calls for a wall between property zoned residential and commercial. Mr. Weinstein: I am in agreement to putting up this wall, as well as all landscaping as required by the City. Mr. Andrew: That will be covered under the Site Plan approval. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Alice Hosback: Yes, I am here along with my sister, Jean. We own the property in 15518 Middle- question, and as Mr. Weinstein has told you, he has made an offer to belt purchase this land dependent upon the change in zoning in back of the property. The City rezoned the front half many years ago on its own motion. We simply left the remaining RUF. We just want to go on record that we are agreeable to this change. We sincerely hope that it will be changed as the petitioner has requested. . 6436 • Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wi ;'iing, to speak on this petition? There was no one else wishing to speak on this petition and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-5-1-16 closed. i 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, g1[0 it was #7-136-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-5-L-16 by Edwin Weinstein to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Roycroft and Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-5-1-16 be approved for the following. reasons: (1) The petition represents a minor extension of a commercial zone currently occurring on the front portion of the subject property. (2) This change in zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (3) This change in zoning will provide for full utilization of the parcel in question in one uniform zoning classification. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/23/77, and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company Chesapeake & Ohio Railway. Company, Consumers Power Company and Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. i Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10 Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-6-1-17 by Curtis Building Company & Goray Development Company to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, south of Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF and R-7 to R-1-A. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the pc ;_tion? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division, dated June 7, 1977 advising that development of this site will be predicated upon the installation of a storm sewer extending to Farmington Road. We also have a letter from a Mr. T. A. and Beulah Jones, 33680 Orangelawn, advising that they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? G.Goray: Yes, I am George Goray of the Goray Development Company, and we have 1.8713 Glenwood two reasons for requesting this change in zoning. This property, Lathrup Village presently zoned R-7, would permit construction of 136 apartment units. We would like to have this rezoned from R-7 to R-1-A in order to put in 65 single family lots. This would make this land only half as dense as the present zoning would permit. Secondly, our proposed single family development, with 60' lots, would represent a good transition between the C-2 zoning on the north and the RUF on the south. Because of present market conditions and economics involved, we feel that the development of single family lots would be a most feasible use of such land. That is why we are requesting this rezoning. Mr. Andrew: Thank you, Mr. Goray. Tell me, i, all the prpert.y covered by thi.� 6437 Mr. Goray: Yes, it is. 1100 Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the •Commission. Mrs. Scurto: I have received many, many phone calls today regarding low-income housing in this area. Rumors are spreading that this will be turned into a low-income housing project. Mr. Goray, could you please tell me what the price range will be on these homes? Mr. Goray: Well, I would say that due to present construction costs, as well as the size requirement in an R-1-A district, the prices of these homes will probably bea minimum of $45,00, maybe even approach $50,000. Mrs. Scruto: I would venture to say that that is high low-income housing. Thank you, Mr. Goray. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments from the Commission? lYlr. Zimmer: I see that one road goes out to Orangelawn. Is it your intention to have this road go out that way? Mr. Goray: Present plans provide an emergency exit over that parcel of land until such time as the land to the east is developed and a second means of ingress and egress to this subdivision is provided. As you will note, in the proposed subdivision plan, we have provided many cul-de-sacs. We would hope that we would only have to use that land for emergency uses. IL Mr. Andrew: John, do you have a mounted Preliminary Plat that we could show to the audience? Although we are not discussing Preliminary Plat approval, perhaps we could discuss this better if we could see what we are talking about. Mr. Goray: As you can see, Stark Road lies to the west of this area. This. proposed subdivision extends easterly, and will be developed into 65 single family lots, with a major portion of them measuring 60 x 120, or 7200 sq. ft. Further more, we have been able to divide this land so as to provide several cul-de=sacs and winding roads so it wouldn't become a tract development in appearance. We are trying to come up with an attractive subdivision and still maintain a rural character compatible to the large lots in the surrounding subdivisions. Many of our proposed lots exceed minimum size requirements for the zoning district we are requesting. In the future, when the land to the east is developed, we trust the road will be extended and a second method of getting in and out will be provided. This will only be a temporary means of getting in and out. It isour hope that this road will not be used for general traffic, but would only be used for emergency purposes. Mr. Andrew: Thank you, Mr. Goray. Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Does the R-1-A zoning require a larger house size than R-1 zoning? Mr. Nagy: Yes, R-1-A calls for a minimum of 1150 sq. ft. , whereas R-1 calls for a minimum of 1000 sq. ft. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Goray, would you please tell this Commission and the audience what other subdivisions in this City have been developed by Curtis Building Comp-Illy?. 6438 • Mr. Goray: They are presently working on Wildwood Forest, south of Five Mile Road, west of Farmington, 85 lots, ranging in price from $60,000 to $70,000. Also, Nottingham Woods near Merriman off of Six Mile 4 Road; Nottingham West, Sheffield Estates, which I am sure you will 116; agree are all quality homes. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Agnes Randazzo: We own property here along Plymouth Road, and I beleive it is right 26214 Morton DR here marked C-2. And I am just wondering if we will be expected to put Dearborn Hgts. up a brick wall here by the parking lot? And what about the drainage back there? Itis quite bad. Mr. Andrew: The drainage is an Engineering problem, and yes, you will be expected to put up a wall dividing your parking area from the residential lots to the south. Clarence Pisula: About 1 1/2 or 2 years ago, I was told by this Commission that I 33971 Plymouth would not have to put up any wall behind my property, so I spent approximately $3,000 on other landscape improvements. Mr. Andrew: I believe you have some other agency of the City in mind. The Zoning Board of Appeals is the only Board that can waive any provisions outlined in the Ordinance. If I recall correctly, it is all commercial property that fronts there along Plymouth Road, and the Ordinance 16, does call for a wall between residential and commercial properties. ' Mr. Nagy: In some cases, the Zoning Board of Appeals did grant a temporary waiver of the Ordinance regarding walls in this area, possibly maybe for three or four years. But each owner was to come back before them so they could evaluate the situation again in lieu of the current development of the area. Mr. Pisula: Does that mean I have to come back before the Planning Commission? Mr. Nagy: You will have to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals if you wish a waiver of the Ordinance. Mr. Andrew: Sir, you will have to erect that wall along the southern boundary line unless the Zoning Board of Appeals does grant you a waiver. John Welch: I live three lots from this so-called emergency exit. You said this 33767 Orange- builder is currently building Wildwood Forest up on Five Mile Road lawn I would like to know the size of the lots up there and the price of those homes. Mr. Goray: The smallest lot is 70' wide, and they are priced from approximately $59,000 to $75,000. Mr. Welch: On your proposed area of 65 lots, you must have some idea of what the size of these homes will be. li7 Mr. Goray: We feel that the ranch home will have approximately 1150 sq. ft. in it 4 and the colonial will have close to 1350 sq.ft. , maybe a little larger. ILW R-1-A classification dictates larger homes rather than smaller. Mr. Welch: Well, my prime concern in asking about size and price of these houses is that people who live in this area now don't want to be invaded by people . 6439 housing development. Also, all the residents who now live on Orangelawn are opposed to this "emergency exit" on their street. It will just create more traffic. . D.Barton We live just west of the property in question - on lots 156 and 157. IL 34080 I am not against any single family dwellings here, but I am against Orangelawn them putting this street through to Orangelawn. That would make the traffic worse for the children who play there. I just recently came to what I thought was a quiet town, and. I'want it to remain that way. Mr. Andrew: The record will show that you are against this street, but street locations have nothing to do with a rezoning request. Mr. Barton: Will we be notified when that comes up? Did not receive a notice of tonight's meeting - just heard it from my neighbors. Mr. Andrew: All abutting property owners will be notified of the meeting on preliminary plat approval. Mr. Barton: Our property abuts the land under question. Mr. Andrew: There are several reasons perhaps why you did not receive a notice of tonight's meeting. The tax rolls of the City, which the Planning Department uses, are approximately one year old or older and/or you could be purchasing this property on land contract in which case the . tax rolls would still indicate the original owner. Mr. Barton: We bought this property on a land contract. Mr. -Nagy: The holder of the land contract would receive the notice, but we will be happy to notify you personally of any future meetings regarding this 1[0 property. Mrs. Scurto: Isn't Orangelawn in this particular area an unimproved road. A gravel road? How can it be a dangerous road? Mr. Barton: I have seen cars travelling down that road 70 to 80 mile per hour even though that area is still zoned RUF. D.Arthur: I am definitely against any street coming out to Orangelawn. They 33988 Orange- mentioned expansion to the east. That's just speculation. He says. lawn street will be temporary. Sometimes temporary lasts a long time. Mr. Andrew: Predicated upon the Preliminary Plat Plan, we look to see how the site looks not so much as the particular property in question, but also all property to the north, south, east and west. His comments, as I recall, indicated that they would provide this access temporarily and remove it if the property to the east is developed. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Menuck, do you have something you would like to say? Mr. J.Menuck I just want to say that we are not going to be selling these homes l 're'l Builder to people with a low-income status. Our main object in going in there is to put in 65 new homes at a moderate price range. There are no new single family houses in Livonia at this time that even newly-weds -could buy. Certainly a home priced $70,000 would be far too high. I do not feel that our buyers will be coming from out of the City. Most of them will be coming from the City of Livonia, just looking to find a moderate priced home in a good neighborhood. 6440 Dennis Leland: I don't see how they ca.i make this an emergency exit. How can 33684 Orange- they stop people from using it? And as far as young couples being lawnit able to afford $35 to $50,000 homes, no way. I am definitely opposed to the whole thing. Eileen Darrow: We live directly south of the land under petition and we feel 34034 Orange- that this kind of development is not in keeping with what is there lawn now. We also strongly object to a road coming out onto Orangelawn Also, we feel that in the future even our lots will be rezoned from RUF to R-l. That would probably mean paving the street. That is the kind of thing that the residents do not want to have to pay for. I feel they really do not know what they are going to do here - no ' definite committment as to the type of houses. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Darow, we have indicated that the petitioner, should his request- for -rezoning be granted, has definitely stated the minimum square footage of the houses to be built. A ranch will contain at least 1150 sq. ft. , and a colonial atleast 1380 sq. ft. These measurements are covered by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, and must be followed. Mrs. Darow: Well, why did they decide to change their plans from apartments to residential? Mr. Goray: We feel that there is a much better market for single family homes than there is for apartments. Also, with the cost of building apartments being as high as it is, we feel that the cost of renting one of these apa.rtment.s would be between $350 and $375 a month. We don't think the location would carry that type of rental. We feel 1['' that 65 single family homes would be much better also, than 156 apartments, as far as traffic is concerned. Less people - less cars. Mrs. Darow: How close will the houses be to the property line in the back yard? Mr. Nagy: The minimum for a rear yard setback in an R-lA district is 30' . Mr. Goray: As you will see, these lots are 145' deep, so with 30' in the front plus approximately ' 0' depth of the house, there would be a 75' rear yard. Mrs. Darow: Well, I am still opposed to the whole thing. Alice Welch: I am opposed to this whole project. And as far as people paying 33767 Orange $350 to $375 a month for the apartments, payments on a single family lawn home would be almost the same. If this is approved, how will we know whehter or not that road will` be put in there? Mr. Andrew: The abutting property owners will be notified. We will keep in touch with them. Mr. Nagy: The general public is always invited to all Public Hearings. Publication Irlwof all public hearings is in the local newspaper. That way everyone is given notice. You are more than welcome to attend any Public Hearing. $ Dennis Leland: I really don't like that access out to Orangelawn. We will probably have 300 million people going 200 mph down that road. Have made numerous calls to the Livonia Police Department. These people will end up' in a ditch, going much too fast. I am definitely against this road being used as an emergency exit. ��ydl 1;4 Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Goray, orginally yc. planned to develop this property in the R-7 district with apartments. At the time you decided not to proceed a with the apartment idea, I am wondering why you felt you had to acquire another 15 lots to the south of the original R-7 land. Why did you feel you had to go south of this land? Mr. Goray: That land had been acquired before we decided to seek rezoning. With the lots being as they are, this was the best way to utilize this land. Mr. Zimmer: Well, is it really necessary to have this street going out onto Orange- lawn? Mr. Andrew: He is planning this street following the recommendations of the Fire Marshall and the Police Department. Mr. Nagy: It is always desirable to have more than one means of ingress and egress in a subdivision for public safety reasons in the event of blockage there would be another means of ingress and egress to the area. • Mrs. Scurto: Why not put in a boulevard entrance to the subdivision? Mr. Nagy: That is an alternate solution. There was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-6-1-17 closed. a Mrs. •Scurto: I would like to offer an approving motion on this petition. Mr. Dubose Support. Mr. Andrew: Any discussion? Mr. Zimmer: I would like to pursue the possibility with the petitioner of deleting the southern portion of the plan and stick with the R-7 in this area only for rezoning. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was ' RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-17 as submitted by the Curtis Building Company & Goray Development Company to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, south of Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF and R-7 to R-1-a. The City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-6-1-17 . A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Falk NAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Scurto, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew ABSENT: Friedrichb ' Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion fails for lack of support. 4 4 Mr. Zimmer: I really am opposed to this proposal from the viewpoint of the south portion - not really knowing how things to come might affect that area. . Cannot personally accept the whole package. Feel that we should look into alternatives to the petition. 6442 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto arl seconded by Mr. DuBose, it was #7-137-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-17 as submitted by the Curtis Building & Goray Development Company to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, south of Plymouth Road in the North- east 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF and R-7 to R-1-a, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-6-1-17 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The change in zoning will provide fcr residential development at a density consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (2) The change in zoning will contribute to the orderly and appropriate development of the surrounding neighborhood. (3) The change in zoning will provide for additional housing on lots appropr!ate to the character of the adjacent neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/23/77 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, DuBose, Scurto, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Falk ABSENT: Friedrichs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and .the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-6-1-19 by Raymond Chopp to rezone property located on the north side of Parkdale between Raleigh and Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division advises no problems connected with this proposal. Also, a letter from Mrs. Charlotte Mahoney, 36525 Parkdale, opposing the petition. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? D. Ashley: Yes, I will be representing the petitioner Lindhout Assoc. Mr. Andrew: What are your reasons for requesting this rezoning? Mr. Ashley: We are considering adding to the store and service stalls at the Akron Tire Company, and feel that we need additional storage. Mr. Andrew: Well, how does your building expansion relate to this petition? Mr. Ashley: Well, we have a Preliminary Plan. Mr. Andrew: Put it on the easel, please. 6443 Mr., Ashley: The existing bui'.ding is right here. The additional design of the 1[4: . building will extend 35' at this point, and at this point will extend 128' . • Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the' Commission? Mrs. Scurto: I can see the 35' on the eastern part, but what is directly west of the building? Mr. Ashley: All parking - paved parking. Mr. Zimmer: Are there any houses facing Raleigh? Mr. Ashley: There is no house whatsoever on Lot 16. Mrs. Wisler: I am a little concerned about the maintenance problems existing in this area. Will they be leaving this-area not to be developed in its natural state? What kind of problems might occur because of this? Mr. Nagy: Petitioner is required and has indicated his willingness to maintain grounds. Cannot say exactly at this time what he plans to do other than earth berming and landscaping. Mrs. Wisler: What about a wall - no wall required because of the abutting street? 1[0 Mr. Nagy:. Wall will be required along the west line if the adjoining property is not rezoned. Mr. Zimmer: Will he not be deficient as far as building size is relative to property size? Mr. Nagy: Not necessarily deficient. I really didn't have a chance to evaluate his site plans. He may have a problem with the yard requirement off of Parkdale, but adding storage and inventory space doesn't necessitate additional parking space. We will have to see the Site Plan first. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? H.W.Porter: I live on Lot #21. I have here with me a petition signed by 24 concerned residents of Shaffmaster's Parkside Estates Subdivision. I would like to ask a question of the petitioner as to the depth of the land he desires, and why they are enlarging this as the Tire Company has always before been a good neighbor. The back portion of this lot, proposed for the rezoning, has not been used by them except fol the parking of about 18 trucks per day that I assume are using the restaurant to the west. I don't know if there is that much increase in business for the tire company. The unattractiveness of all those trucks is quite a sight. There is a sign at Raleigh NO THRU TRAFFIC, but I tg o have yet to see a police car stop anyone going through there. ' Mr. Andrew: Mr. Ashley, would you please indicate again to the Commission what the uses of the existing and the new building will be. Mr. Ashley: The existing building will be designated as the office, with restrooms service stalls, etc. The new addition will be used for warehousing. 6444 Raymond Chopp: When I first opened the Akron Tire Store, I had many trucks parking in the median in front, of the store. But these trucks have nothing to do with my store . They are mostly there during the lunch hour. I do not like them hiding the front of my store either. But with the addition to my building, there will be no room for the trucks to park there anymore. . Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? • Leo LaMay We own Lots #11, 12, and 13 which is the Roller Rink. Also, Lots #25 21845 Cumber- and #26 on Parkdale. We have no objection to the change in zoning land Dr. Would actually be moreattractive than it is now. We certainly Northville do have problems with the trucks, and the restaurant in particular. Should help alleviate the truck problems. Mr. Porter: I can appreciate Mr: Lemay's support on this. He is the petitioner on No. 9 of tonight's agenda. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.' Mike Firestone: I live on Lot #9. And we have been getting a lot of traffic around this subdivision. This Raleigh is about half, maybe three-fourths black top, dust, chuck holes, and Parkdale is not a good street - so • called black top. If there is going to be an increase in ,traffic why don't they improve the roads. Orangelawn is the same way. Pretty funny it never seems to get done. Raymond Chopp: I would like to get rid of these trucks justas much as anyone else. i Mr. Zimmer: Where does Parkdale end? Mr. Andrew: Going right into the Hines Park Motel. There is a wall right there • where it ends. Raymond Chopp: There is very little traffic going down these two streets - Raleigh or Van Court. Joseph Barr: How would you people like it if you had all this business going 36555 Parkdale on directly across the street from your home? Mr. Andrew: I guess we would be a little bit upset. Mrs. Barr: I feel sorry for the tire people here with all those trucks using their property. But they don't have anyplace else to park. Maybe they could come up with some sort of compromise. Raymond Chopp: I want to get rid of those trucks just as much as the residents. There was no one else wishing to speak on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-6-1-19 closed. Mrs. Scurto: I would like to offer a denying motion. Mr. Falk: Support. Mr. Andrew: Any discussion? Mrs. Wisler: I am not prepared to decide on this right now. I would like to lookto . into it a little closer to see what we can do. I feel that the subject should be tabled. . 6445 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on . July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-19 as submitted by Raymond Chopp to rezone property located on the north side of Parkdale between Raleigh and Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition ' 77-6-1-19. A roll call vote on the foregoing resoultion resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Falk, Zimmer ABSENT: Friedrichs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #7-138-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-19 as submitted by Raymond Chopp to rezone property located on the north side of Parkdale between Raleigh and Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-6-1-19 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would be determental .to the surrounding uses of the area. tile . (2) The proposed change in zoning would not be compatible to the adjoining residential uses of area and commercial use are not compatible to single family neighborhoods. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Liw nia Observer, under date of 6/23/77, and that 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: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Wisler ABSENT: Friedrichs Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-5-3-4 by Raymond H. Pietryka requesting the vacating of a public alley located south of Seven Mile Road between Hillcrest and Flamingo in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, and correspondence in the file regarding the petition? 41 Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Detroit Edison indicating no objection as long as a full width easement is retained to protect existing equipment in the area. Also, a letter from Michigan Bell outlining no objection if full wi rlkh easement i ; reati n ,1. (lux i I ., r'ml i nor,rs in-iii F1111 6446 Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner preseit? Mrs. Wisler: Perhaps we should table this petition until the petitioner is able to make a meeting. ' i Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-5-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-5-3-4 as submitted by Raymond H. Pietryka_requesting the vacating of a public alley located south of Seven Mile Road between Hillcrest and Flamingo in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-5-3-4. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Falk, Wisler,., Andrew NAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Morrow ABSENT: Friedrichs Itii Mr. Andrew declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, 4 it was #7-139-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-5-3-4 as submitted by Raymond H. Pietryka requesting the vacating of a public alley- located south of Seven Mile Road between Hillcrest and Flamingo in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-5-3-4 be approved subject to the retention of a full width easement for the following reasons: (1) The alley has never been developed and no abutting property relies on the use of the alley area for access purposes. (2) The Engineering Division has indicated they have no objection to the vacating provided a full-width easement is retained for the existing sanitary sewer facilities. (3) It is in the best interests of the City of Livonia and the area residents where there is no need for alleys to vacate same so that the subject land area may then be utilized and maintained directly in connection with adjacent uses and placed back on the tax rolls. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/2/377, 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. • 6447 Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on !.he agenda is Petition 77-5-3-6 by McKeon, Inc. for Janet Hartman requesting the vacating of that portion of a 6' wide easement located on Angeline Circle between Lots 74 and 75, north of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Angeline Circle in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division advises no objection to vacating this property as well as Detroit Edison voices no objection. We have a letter from Mrs. Hartman, dated May 25, 1977, advising that she has moved to Arizona, and has requested Jim McKeon of McKeon Inc. , Real Estate to assist her in vacating property under petition. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions or comments from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to speak on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-5-3-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-140-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-5-3-6 as submitted by McKeon, Inc. , for Janet Hartman requesting the vacating of that portion of a 6' wide easement located on Angeline Circle between Lots 74 and 75, north of Ann Arbor Trail, west 16: of Angeline Circle in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-5-3-6 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The easement serves no useful purpose. (2) The Engineering Division recommends approval of the petition. (3) No objections have been received from any utility companies. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/2/377, and that 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: Morrow, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Wisler, Andrew, Kluver NAYS: None ABSENT: Friedrichs, Falk Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-6-1-18 by Lionel E. LeMay to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32., from RUF to C-2 and P. L.LeMay I think the people here really ought to see what we intend to do. I have a 36635 copy of a blue print. Lots #11, 12, and 13 are already paved. The building Plymouth 6448 presently encroaches into the RUE approximately 25' . We would like to have 40' zoned C-2 so we could put in a small addition and an outside lobby. It would be only 13• x 30 - very small. This would be on the ' back of the building - entrances to the lobby. We wish to move all entrances to the rear because that is where the parking is located. We also want to use lots 25 and 26 for parking - we certainly need additional parking spaces. We plan a very small addition on the outside. But we do . plan to revamp the whole inside area. Parkdale does end at the brick wall. Intend to put in green plants in the front. Decorate up front redo the whole building. Mr. Andrew: Mr. LeMay, how long have you owned Lots 25 and 26? Mr. LeMay: My parents have owned these lots for over 20 years. They have owned the roller rink almost 36 years. Mr. Andrew: To the best of your knowledge, are there any deed restrictions that run with the Shaffmaster Subdivision prohibiting using that land for parking purposes? Mr. LeMay: None Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mrs. Scurto: In my opionion, this would only be adding town already disastrous situation. I have been appalled by the appearance of this particular site. •Not at all kept up, and those entrances to Plymouth Road off of Ann Arbor Road are a disgrace. Just unbelieveable. . .until this gentleman has some concrete beautification and maintainence program, I am definitely opposed to any change in the zoning in this area. Mr. LeMay, as a businessman, you have an obligation to maintain and keep up your property in the same relationship as other businesses there. Mr. LeMay: I would like to introduce my Architect to the Commission - Bud Corey. Bud Corey: We do propose alterations to the front. We will be closing off the Westland front doors and replacing with decorative panels. We plan a greenbelt along Plymouth Road, There is a small green belt there now, but more appropriate landscaping will be installed. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence on this petition? Nr. Nagy: Just the letter from Charlotte Mahoney objecting to the petition, as well as a suggestion from the Engineering Division to vacate a portion of Parkdale Avenue to provide a means by which traffic would be prevented from using Parkdale to and from the parking area. Mr. LeMay: I thought the letter stated there would be an elimination of open space to the tire store. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Mahoney is primarily concerned with the loss of open space in that location. Mr. Falk: I would like to determine for sure if there are any restrictions in the Shaffmaster Subdivision as to whether or not they can come in with plans to establish a parking area. We cannot divorce this petition from that of Raymond Chopp. As far as that Hines Park Motel on Plymouth Road, 4 there have been no improvements along that roadway either. They seem to always want to come in with new plans, with no consideration for the people who live there. I could not vote for this reaoning when we have already denied Mr. Chopp. 6449 Mrs. Wisler: I think this is a probl3m area, and would like to have more time to look at it. I am not prepared to approve or deny this petition. Mike Firestone: If he moves his entrance to the rear, there is only one way into that 36460 Parkdale entrance. . .right down Parkdale. I have nothing against the skating 1[0 rink. . .my wife and I were there last week. But the traffic down Parkdale now goes whish. . .whish. . .whish. I have yet to see any policeman go down Parkdale. They could make their monthly wages if they only would pass out some tickets here. This road into the parking lot is not adequate to handle all that traffic. Totally against it. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. LeMay, is there no driveway between you and the building to the east? Mr. LeMay: There are driveways on both sides of the building. Mrs. Wisler: Is it possible to make a left turn out of your driveway and go west on Plymouth Road? Mr. LeMay: It is possible, but not very favorable. Mr. Andrew: To the architect, what kind of dimensions are there between the west property line and the western edge of the building? Mr. Corey: Approxmately 7' . It is simply a driveway. . .really encroaches over the land as it is shown on the survey. Driveway on the west of the property edge does encroach on the motel property. Mr. Andrew: Sure does. Mr. Zimmer: On the east side of the building, is the driveway wide enough for two cars to pass? Mr. Corey: There is approximately 15' there. H.W.Porter: I would like to ask one question onthe greenbelt that is going to be 36551 Parkdale put in the front on Plymouth Road. Won't that eliminate some parking in the front as well as any ingress and egress to the parking area in the back. Mr. Andrew: Would not eliminate existing greenbelt. Will have to continue to maintain that. Mr. Porter: Then it will remain the way it is now. Would not increase the width of the driveways. I am strongly opposed to this along with that other petition. Let's face it the traffic will increase on our street, along with the beer cans, beer bottles, trash. I would like the Commission to check with the Livonia Police on the number of calls they get to this place. . I know there is drinking going on inside. . .they are getting high on something or another. It is pretty bad when you have to put up with this in your own front yard. 4 t Mr. Lemay: We are not planning to change the ingress and egress to our parking lot. We already have a paved parking lot, and we have our customers park there And we do not allow any drinking or drugs. There was no one else wishing to speak further on the matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-6-1-18 closed. 6450 Mrs. Scurto: I would offer a denying motion. j `Mr. Falk: Support. Mr. Zimmer: Obviously, some of this land is already being used for parking, and I would think that there are some legitimate alternatives as to the use of Parkdale Avenue by this man's customers. In light of Engineering' suggestion regarding this residential street, I would offer a tabling resolution in order to study this matter more closely. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and adopted, it was #7-14 -77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-18 as submitted by Lionel E. LeMay to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to C-2 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-6-1-18 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on July 19, 1977. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Wisler NAYS: DuBose, Falk, Andrew ABSENT: Friedrichs . Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. At this time, Mr. Andrew passed the gavel to Mrs. Wisler, Vice-Chairman, with Mrs. IL Scurto then acting as Secretary. Mr. Andrew: I Would like to offer a motion to reconsider that denying resolution on Petition 77-6-1-19. In all fairness to Mr. Chopp, I feel that his petition should also be re-evaluated at the Study Meeting of July 19, 1977. On a motion duly made by Mr. Andrew, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-1.42-77 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission reconsider the denying motion on Petition 77-6-1-19 by Raymond Chopp to rezone property located on the north side of Parkdale Avenue between Raleigh and Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to C-2. Mrs. Wisler, Vice-Chairman declared the motion' carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Andrew, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously approved, it was #7-143-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-19 as submitted by Raymond Chopp to rezone property located on the north side of Parkdale Avenue between Raleigh and Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-6-1-19 until the. Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on July 19, 1977. Mrs. Wisler, Vice Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. She then passed the gavel back to Mr. Andrew. b451 Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on The agenda Petition 77-6-1-20 by Gabriele Paciocco to rezone property located on the north side of Curtis Road between Farmington Road and Filmore in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3 to R-7. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? 11r. Nagy: Engineering advises that Legal Description meets with approval of their office. Filmore Avenue is presently an unimproved road , and improve- ments definitely are recommended. Curtis is being improved with the development of Francavilla Subdivision. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Bob Paciocco: My name is Bob Paciocco, and I live at 36776 Vargo, Livonia, Would like to rezone this property from R-3 to R-7 in order to put up a two-stc building with approximately 80 to 90 units. There is a drain going through the property right now. We are improving the drain right now - still have more work to do. It is on the north side of Curtis. Mr. Mr. Andrew: If this rezoning is accomplished, would it be your intention to enclose the drain? Mr. Paciocco: Yes, I would like to enclose it. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Paciocco, supposing in the event you were required not to enclose the drain, leave it as an open water course, would that have any impact of the number of units you wish to put in? Have you given any thought to leaving it as an open water course? 3 Mr. Paciocco: It would be more expensive to enclose it, but I think a lot of people would want it enclosed. Mr. Andrew: Are you familiar with the drop-off? Mr. Paciocco: Yes, I believe it is 8 1/2' . Mr, Andrew: Mr. Nagy, Mr. Paciocco indicated somewhere between 80 and 90 units Under our Zoning Ordinance, what would the maximum number of units be? Mr. Nagy: If you average 50% of the units one-bedroom, and 50% two-bedroom, it would come to approximately 79.2 or 80 units. Mr. Andrew: Any comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: What is the highest this building can be? Mr. Nagy: Not to exceed 35' . Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Paciocco, would you give any consideration to developing this as R-3? Mr. Paciocco: That would not be favorable because it has an extensive flood plain area. i Mrs. Wisler: Should you be required, through the Site Plan, to leave that drain open, would that preclude you from developing? Mr. Paciocco: I don't think so. I could still maintain a low elevation and leave 6452 the property in a natuxil state. I think enclosing it would destroy some of the natural area. Enclosing it or not, some of the foliage would come down. t Mr. Andrew: Where would the accesses to the building be? Off of Farmington or off of Curtis? Mr. Paciocco: Off of Farmington might need one access off of Curtis? Mr. Andrew: Not off Filmore Avenue? Mr. Paciocco: No. Mr. Andrew: Do you own the property to the north? Mr. Paciocco: No. - Mrs. Scurto: What property here do you own? Mr. Paciocco: The triangular piece. topo Mrs. Wisler: If as you say the / will remain the same, then the ravine will remain I know that you will try to save the trees, Is that correct? Mr. Paciocco: Correct. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Newell Bentley: I want to know why homes can't be put in there? ! 18280 Westmore Mr.Paciocco: Homes cannot be put in a flood plain area. Enclosing the drain will cost $100,000. We could only put in about 10 or 12 lots. Economically unfeasible to put in homes. It will take at least another $20,000 to enclose the rest of the drain as it is now. Mr.Bentley: Well, I am here representing some people in the audience. I have a signed petition here that shows that we are violently opposed to putting in apartments. We have already been before the City Council, and I guess we will be going back there again. Mr. Andrew: What area do these signatures cover? Mr.Bentley: Most addresses are located directly west and northeast of petitioned land. I guess we will have to go through the usual reasons why we don't want any more apartments. This gentleman has built many houses here that will increase the traffic. Next, there will be a traffic light at Farmington and Curtis. With 80 or 90 more units, that will just compound the situation. And there are 140 peoples names on this petition that agree with me. I thought it was the policy of the City Council not to allow apartments in a residential area. R.Matheny: I have just come out here from the inner city, and I have seen what 18347 Myron happens to high rise dwellings, even three level dwelling. . .after about 10 or 15 years, utter deterioration takes place. Land development then goes back into the hands of the receivership. This gentleman • 6453 110 here is building homes Lhat are selling in the neighborhood of $75,000. I am talking about the Francavilla Sub. Those homes in the Stamford Estates Sub, are selling for $65,000. And that leads me to wonder if all the prospective buyers of these homes were informed of this idea of putting up an apartment here. Leasers or renters are not solid citizens, and I don't care if you resent my statement. I feel this would set a precedent in the community. Bill Bogen: My wife and I just bought a house here in what we thought was a most 18289 Irving desirable area. We have woods, dirt road, rural feeling, and we are not looking forward to having a lot of people nearby. Strongly object to apartments. Mrs.Scurto: I find it quite definitive that Mr. Paciocco is one of the few petitioners who comes before us and give us his home address. You can be sure he is not a "fly by night" businessman. He gives his home address and it is in Livonia. Tom Rice: I have been living in Livonia for three years now. I have been 18346 Westmore to these meetings before and I have heard this man say he wanted to build homes with a rural atmosphere. Low and behold, he is again wanting to build apartments. I don't understand why we are going through this all over again. Mr. Andrew: Property owners always have a right to request a change in zoning. (111: Mr. Falk: I live in a subdivision near Six Mile Road, and I have heard a lot of builders come in here with one design or another. This man's track record is established in the City of Livonia, and it is good. We have talked about multiple dwellings here before, and this gentleman had the whole idea laid out. He had high hopes. We turned his whole plan around, and he never onece argued. I feel this man has a good reputation in this town. Mrs. Wisler: I live in this area on Norwich. And we have been very concerned about how it would be developed. We have watched the apartments up on Seven Mile Road near the K-Mart center. I believe that property owners have a right to develop their property as they see fit, if it doesn't interfere too much. There is a lot of residential building going into this section, and I really feel that the City needs apartments You may disagree with me. I certainly wouldn't want to see any more professional services go in there. I feel I would support apartments in this area. Ms. Goodman: I sell real estate here in Livonia, and I know that people are looking for more single family homes here in Livonia than apartments. One of the most asked for sections of the City is this northwestern part. I know the Future Land Use Plan calls for medium density, and I am wondering if 4 to 14 persons per acre is considered low or medium? Mr. Andrew: Medium. IL Ms.Goodman: Well you know that an 80' lot in an R-3 District can support a pretty expensive home. What about those people moving into Francavilla - are they aware of these apartments directly across the street from some of them? There are no apartments at all along Six or Seven Mile Road, between Merriman and Newburgh. 6454 Mr. Andrew: We support apartments oil small parcels of land.. Small pockets of apartments do not necessarily have a detrimental effect on the immediate area. to:' Resident: I just want to say that I deliverpackages for United Parcel. And 18980 Norwich I see a lot of fine people here in Livonia, and I see a lot, of not so fine people who live in apartments. This just isn't the spot for apartments. Roberty I agree with this gentleman. Let's not have any apartments here - childr' Matheny go right down this street to school. What about more traffic? 18347 Myron: Mr. Andrew: Don't you think traffic will develop along Farmington Road in spite of these apartments? Mr. Matheny: Not as much as it will if there are more people here. . .living in apartments. Mr. Andrew: Farmington Road is a major thoroughfare. It was designed to move heavy traffic. Greg Zimmer: I wasn't here when K-Mart was being built, but I have noticed that a 18240 Norwich lot of the green space here in Livonia has disappeared. Still a little bit next to Stevenson High School. This is one of the few places left. I am adamantly opposed to these apartments. Tom Rice: I know a man has a right to develop his land, but I feel there would be too much destruction of the greenery if he put them here. Also I am concerned about the safety of the children in this neighborhood. This type of development is in the wrong place. Shouldn't take place along Farmington Road. It's impossible to cross it now. Extreme amount of cars going up and down. Eldin Harris: I have been living here when it was still a township. Since 1950. So 1.8244 Westmore I have seen development in Livonia. At one time, there was a Master Plan. And one of the things it said was that everything in a residential neighborhood should be compatible, including schools. Office buildings not compatible with a residential neighborhood. But what about all those . office buildings on Farmington Road. We certainly can't turn left onto Farmington Road from Curtis. How would another 80 or 90 apartment units affect that? We argued with the Traffic Commission. They said that a traffic light at that corner would back up traffic all the way back down to Six Mile Road. I have seen traffic stopped at Curtis backed down from the traffic light at Seven Mile Road. 80 or 90 apartment units would certainly increase the traffic. This is not the right place for apartments. These kind of people don't have an $80,000 or even a $40,000investment to take care of. There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-6-1.-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and 'seconded by Mr. Falk, it was 4 1 #7-144-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 12, 1977 on Petition 77-6-1-20 as submitted by Gabriele Paciocco to rezone property located on the north side of Curtis Road between Farmington Road and Filmore in the northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3 to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 1 ---)(' }�,, -i,•!, ,-,.-nd fnt- , 1.,. f, 11,,..i„ . - 6455 (1)_ The zoning change is colsistent with the Future Land Use Plan • and the Planning Commission's adopted goals and policies for the location of medium density projects. (2) The zoning change will provide for a small, medium density project with good direct access to the improved abutting primary and secondary roads. (3) The zoning change will provide for a use that will provide protection and insulation for adjoining single family development from adverse affects of Farmington Road traffic. (4) The zoning change will provide for the development of needed housing facilities which may take maximum advantage of the natural open drainage course as a natural buffer and as an aesthetic attraction. (5) The zoning change will provide for project of such limited size as to render it completely compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above Public Hearing was published n the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 6/27/77, and that 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, DuBose, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Morrow ABSENT: Friedrichs Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-145-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for the Tiffany Square Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Wayne Road between Seven Mile Road and Curtis in Section 8, for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Engineering Division recommends approval. (3) The Final Plat conforms to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Zoning Ordinance #543 of the City of Livonia. (4) All of the financial assurances imposedupon the proprietor by Council Resolution #141-77 have'been complied with. Mr. Andrew declared above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. DuBose, it was I ` 6456 #7-146-77 RESOLVED that, the minutes of. the 317th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 28, 1977 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Dubose, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: Friedrichs ABSTAIN: Kluver, Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was. RESOLVED that, the City Planning commission does hereby determine that Petition 77-6-8-12 by the Rowe. Sign Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, submitted in connection with a proposal to erect three wall signs on an existing building located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Fitzgerald in Section 17, be denied. No roll call vote was taken. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler and seconded by Mr. Dubose, it was ' #7-147-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine that Petition 77-6-8-12 by the Rowe Sign Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, submitted in connection with a proposal to erect three wall signs on an existing building located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Fitzgerald in Section 17, be tabled until the Regular Meeting of 7/26/77. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: . AYES: Kluver, DuBose, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk ABSENT: Friedrichs. . Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr: Morrow, it was #7-148-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 77-6-8-13P as submitted by Carlo & Agnes Randazzo requesting approval of all plans submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in.Section 33, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Plan dated 6/27/77 prepared by .Rodrick E. Warren, Architect, '1( shall be adhered to. ' (2) That the owner upgrade and maintain the landscaping as originally approved on Plan #172-212, dated 10/17/72, maintainance and upgrading to be completed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition. 6457 (4110 A roll call vote on the foregoing resoultion resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Dubose, Zimmer, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Scurto, Falk ABSENT: Friedrichs Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-149-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinanc3 #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 77-7-8-14 as submitted by James, Scheible, Zaccagni, Galayda, Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection, with a proposal to construct a one-story building for Monaghan K of C on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in Section 4, be approved, subjectto the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan 77.121, Sheets CEI 7 CE2, dated 7/22/77, by James Schieble, Zaccagni, Galayda Inc. , Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. (2) That building elevations as shown on Plan 77.121, Sheet A3, by James, Scheible, Zaccagni, Galayda, Inc. , Architects are hereby Ill:: approved and shall be adhered to. (3) That Landscape Plan 77.121, Sheet LA1, by James, Scheible, Zaccagni, Galayda Inc. , Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. (4) That all landscaping shall be installed before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reasons: (1) The site plan is well designed and layout fully complies with the C-2 zoning district regulations to which the land is zoned. (2) The site plan incorporates site landscaping, greenbelt screening and related site amenities which will provide for an attractive facility. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing reso7ution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously approved, the 337th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 12, 1977 were adjourned at 12:30 a.m. - July 13, 1977. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: /, -« �C / S e Wisler, Acting Secretary Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman