Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1980-11-18 • 7449 MINUTES OF THE 401st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 18, 1980 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 401st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 IF, Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:00 p.m. with approximately eighty five persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J . Falk C. Russell Smith Robert L. Morrow Jerome Zimmer Sue Sobolewski Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: *Herman Kluver * Judith Scurto Messrs. John J . Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present . Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on tonight 's agenda involves a question of rezoning , this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Council and the City Council , after holding a public hearing, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. If a petition for a waiver of use is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the Council . If the item on the agenda is a vacating petition and the Planning Commission recommends approval , no public hearing is held by the City Council . Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 80-8-1-28 by 1[00 the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, from P.L. to P. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this item? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated October 6, 1980 from the Division of Engineer- ing stating there are no engineering problems connected with the peti- tion. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone this property from P.L. to P. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for or against this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-10-1-28 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #11-256-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-10-1-28 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road , west of Inkster 1110 Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12, from P.L. to P, the City . 7450 • Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-10-1-28 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning would be compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent uses in the area. (2) The proposed zoning represents a logical , minor extension of the adjacent zoning district. (3) The proposed zoning will provide for a land use which represents a continuation of adjacent uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Publc Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of November 3, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-10-1-29 by Livonia Trade Center to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Terrence in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to P.S. IMr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there appear to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal . Mr. Josephson, 27595 Schoolcraft, Livonia; petitioner: We are requesting this change of zoning to allow us to construct offices on the property which we will lease. We also intend to request a waiver to allow us to lease the buildings for general office and professional office uses. Mr. Andrew: Do you own all the property under petition? Mr. Josephson: We have an option on Lot 336a. Mr. Morrow: I assume you mean professional service offices. Mr. Josephson: We intend to develop something a little nicer than the average office building. Mr. Andrew: You would have to come back for a waiver use for general offices. Mr. Zimmer: Is Elaine Powers your property? Mr. Josephson: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: Do you have any other property in Livonia. On Eight Mile Road? Mr. Josephson: Yes, on Eight Mile Road, east of Middlebelt. Mr. Zimmer:1 Mr. Josephson: Are those buildings fully occupied? ;Mr. Josephson: Yes. . 7451 [ Perry Sutfin, 29366 Terrence: I would like to suggest that at least 200' of Lot 336a be left in RUE so we won 't have a parking lot across from us. We already have commercial right next to us. Mr. Andrew: You live on the north side of Terrence; is the width of your properties 200' . Mr. Sutfin: Mr. Kline's is 70' and mine is 110' . I don't think they need that much for the development. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, the 440' , is that to the centerline? Mr. Nagy: No, it isn't. That is net. Mr. Sutfin: Terrence Corners has less there and have plenty of parking. Donald J. Kline, 29210 Terrence: I agree with what Mr. Sutfin has proposed to you. Mr. Andrew: Do you think there is any room for compromise? Mr. Kline: We bought these homes with ravine lots. We have Terrence Corners behind and 'left of us with a cement wall . Now we will have a new wall in front of us? Mr. Andrew: Did Terrence Corners try to waive the wall ? IlLAudience: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the depth of Elaine Powers ' property? Mr. Nagy: The buildings on the C-1 and the lot to the north, 333a1 which is also part of Elaine Powers and provides for offstreet parking, is 440' , the same as is under petition here. On the south it is approximately 385' . There is an offset in the east property line. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Josephson, have you developed a site plan yet? Mr. Josephson: We could put a green area in there. We plan a good building. Mr. Andrew: A wall is not required on Terrence. Mr. Josephson: I am talking about the property behind. I can't control across the street. We can put a green area in the portion you are speaking of. Mr. Vyhnalek: The driveway would be closer to Middlebelt? Mr. Josephson: Yes. Mr. Falk: Earlier the Chairman asked about a site plan; if you know what type of building you will put up. You said a good building. You are certain how much parking you need but you are not definite about the type of building you want to put up? 1[0,Mr. Josephson: Once we get the zoning we will come up with a working drawing. 3 7452 Mr. Falk: The Chairman asked Mr. Kline if there is any give on his part. Are you willing to give up some? 4Mr. Josephson: No, but we can plant a green area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you accept an area where there were trees to block off the parking 1[0 lot? A good greenbelt with large enough trees? Mr. Sutfin: How wide? Mr. Vyhnalek: We would have to discuss that with the site plan. Mr. Sutfin: I would like to see a working drawing. Mr. Smith: I can support the petition and I think you make a very good point. I am sure when the petitioner brings the site plan to the Planning Com- mission, we will look heavily at a greenbelt or berm to make it very attractive. I object to cutting into any amount of that property. Mr. Josephson: We would like to come up with a blueprint but at this particular time I can't do it. We don 't have the zoning. You will have an opportunity to review the site plan when we bring it in. Mr. Smith: I support the change of zoning to P.S. When he comes back in, at that time I think we can do a good job in the back facing those homes with a landscaped area rather than at this time to say we don 't want the 200' included in the rezoning. 1[10 Rex Welby, 6243 Kinyon Drive, Brighton, was present representing the owner of Lot 336a. I am the representative and a relative of Mrs . Anna Schmittlings, the owner of Lot 336a. She has owned this property for fifty years so she did not buy it as speculative property. We would appreciate very much favorable consideration by the Commission with respect to the zoning for the Livonia Trade Center for their purposes based on the fact that the present owner is 92 years old and lived here for many years. She no longer lives on the property. We tried to sell the property as resi- dential but people have felt it not in their best interest to purchase the property as such. This is the best opportunity we have had for selling it; for this use. Mr. Morrow: This is in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan, is it not? Mr. Andrew: Yes, it is. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion on Petition 80-10-1-29 closed. *Mr. Kluver arrived at 8:25 p.m. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was #11-257-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-10-1-29 as submitted by Livonia Trade Center to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Terrence in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to P.S. , the City IL Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that • 7453 1E0 Petition 80-10-1-29 be approved for the following reasons: (1 ) The proposed change of zoning is in conformance with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission. (2) The uses permitted by the proposed zoning district are compatible to and in harmony with the adjoining uses of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning which would permit office uses will provide for good buffer and transitional uses to protect the residential neighborhood to the east from the adverse effects of the heavily travelled Middlebelt Road. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of November 3, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers 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, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Zimmer, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver 1[00 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Sutfin, I would suggest that you contact the City Clerk's office or the Council Secretary and advise them that you would like to be notified when this item is on the Council ' s agenda and they will probably do so. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-10-2-26 by Andrew Myrold requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: The Division of Engineering has a letter in the file stating there are no engineering problems connection with this proposal . Mr. Selesny, 29201 Telegraph, Southfield, representing the petitioners : This building was built as a restaurant. The people who constructed it had a difference of opinion and the matter is in Wayne County Circuit Court and this will have to be approved by the Court. We propose to use a former license as a subsidiary of Lums which was closed through bankruptcy. The petitioners are in the restaurant business, in fact Mr. Myrold is presently a bar- tender at another restaurant. This will be a Grecian restaurant. This building was built in 1974 and there are 108 seats at this point . We are redesigning it for 105 seats. The plans before you are plans as the building is now. We are ready to open . The Council has tabled the matter of the license pending this waiver use action. • 7454 Mr. Andrew: John, I assume the parking shown on the revised site plan conforms ILto the Ordinance. Any violations? Mr. Nagy: No. Mrs. Sobolewski : Have there been any significant changes at all in the site itself; the building, the landscaping, the surroundings? Mr. Selesny: Absolutely not, and I believe we will use the same type of signage. Mr. Smith: Mr. Nagy, does this restaurant fall into the plan that we discussed for Plymouth Road landscaping and beautification? Mr. Nagy: The site when first developed was developed in conformance with the Plymouth Road Beautification Plan. Over the years, the landscaping has tended to deteriorate. What it needs is upgrading and rehabilitating rather than replacing. Mr. Smith: You intend to bring the landscaped portion in the front up? Mr. Selesny: I would like to dress it up in conformance with what it was supposed to be. It has been vacant for two years now. Mr. Smith: Are you aware of the Plymouth Road Beautfication Plan and are you willing to work with us on that? Mr. Selesny: Yes, we are. ILTheodore Manolakas, 33729 Plymouth Road : I am located on Plymouth Road, west of Farm- ington Road. If you issue a liquor license for this, I would like one too. I don 't think it would be fair if one person can have one and not us. I would like to have one if I apply for it otherwise it wouldn't be fair. Mr. Andrew: You have tried to petition for a liquor license? Mr. Manolakas : I did but they turned me down. They want me to build a new building. How can I make money' to build if I can 't have the license? Mr. Andrew: You could come in any day during working hours and talk with any of our Planners and they will offer you any help you may need with a building. If you file a petition, we will show you the steps to go through to get a liquor license. We didn 't turn you down, the Council did. I would like the record to show that this petition tonight is not for a new Class C Liquor License but a transfer. Mr. Zimmer: While I consider Plymouth Road to have an abundance of restaurants and not in need of any more, I feel we really have an eyesore regarding this building with no other possible use and I reluctantly move to approve the petition. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted , IL it was X#11-258-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-10-2-26 as submitted by Andrew Myrold request- ing waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in • 7455 connection with an existing restaurant located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recom- IL, mend to the City Council that Petition 80-10-2-26 be approved sub- ject to the waiver by the City Council of the 1 ,000' Ordinance re- quirement as set forth in Section 11 .03(h) of Zoning Ordinance #543, and subject also to the following conditions: (1 ) that Site Plan prepared by John W. Loizon, Architect, dated 11/17/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that Building Elevation Plan, Sheet 3, prepared by Michael A. Boggio, Jr. , Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1 ) The site has the capacity to support the proposed use. (2) The proposed use is complimentary to and compatible with the principal use of the building and site which is for dining and restaurant purposes. (3) The approval of the proposed use will facilitate the reopen - of of this business which has been vacant for many years and 1[ will put the building and site to use thereby having a positive and beneficial affect upon the adjoining and neighbor- ing area. 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 is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-9-3-5 initiated by Council Resolution #775-80 to vacate portions of Pembroke Avenue and Louise Avenue located between Melvin Avenue and Middlebelt Road, north of Bretton Road in the East 1/2 of Section 2. Mr. Nagy: A letter from the Division of Engineering dated October 10, 1980 states that there are no engineering problems connected with the petition and it is recommended that full-width easements for public utilities be re- tained over the street right-of-way to be vacated. We also have a letter dated November 18, 1980 from David B. McDowell , Superintendent of Schools for the Clarenceville School District trans- mitting a resolution adopted by the Board which states they have no objection to the vacating of these portions of Pembroke Avenue. Mr. Andrew:1[10 The Engineering Division is asking for a retention of easements and the Clarencevill School District has no problem with vacating Pembroke between Melvina and Louise. Is that correct. 7456 Mr. Nagy: Yes. IL Kenneth Vickery, 19830 Louise: This area is used in an undesirable way. It is wooded and dark. I have lived there for 25 years on the southeast corner lot. I have used the area for a driveway. I should hope that you do approve this. Betty Hellen, 29549 Bretton: I would like to know what they want to put there. Mr. Andrew: Nothing. It is right now public right-of-way. We want to vacate that right-of-way and give fee title to the property owners and retain an easement there because of the sewers. Title would revert back to property owners and it would no longer be a public street. Mr. Vickery: Is Engineering planning on barricading that area south of the park? Mr. Andrew: I don't think they are planning on doing anything right now. We would be happy to suggest to the Department of Public Works that they look into that possibility. Mr. Zimmer: The north half of Pembroke then becomes part of the park. Mr. Vickery: The City would get the 30' down the middle. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #11-259-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-9-3-5 initiated by City Council Resolution #775-80 to vacate portions of Pembroke Avenue and Louise Avenue located between Melvin Avenue and Middlebelt Road, north of Bretton Road in the East 1/2 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-9-3-5 be approved subject to the retention of full-width easements for public utilities over the street rights-of-way, for the follow- ing reasons: (1 ) The portions of Pembroke lying east of Louise Avenue and Louise Avenue lying north of Pembroke are no longer needed for public access purposes. (2) The Engineering Divsiion has no objection to the vacating of the subject rights-of-way. (3) The subject rights-of-way can best be used when attached to adjacent properties. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of November 3, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 1[L ,w Mr. Andrew: We are recommending the vacating of all easements as shown subject to retention of easements for engineering purposes. Do you care to comment on this, John? 7457 Mr. Nagy: No, not since the Board of Education commented and has no objection . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-9-3-8 by Walter B. Hamilton requesting the vacating of a public walkway located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Nagy: A petition has been submitted containing signaturesof residents object- to this petition. There is a letter from the Livonia Public Schools stating that the sidewalk is no longer necessary for school purposes. There is also a letter from the Division of Engineering stating that there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal and that it would be the responsibility of the property owners to remove the existing concrete sidewalk as well as relocating existing fences to the newly established property lines. Mr. Andrew: 'I would like clarification. Should the vacating be successful , 5' of the easement would then attach itself to Lot 98 and part to 99 for the entire length of the easement? Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: By the working of the law, that would be the case. Mr. Andrew: So the property owner who petitioned for this vacating would enjoy no benefit? Mr. Nagy: Not by way of additional property but by avoiding what he calls a nuisance; the pedestrial traffic flow in the area. Mr. Andrew: So the expense of the lots would be on 98 and 99? Mr. Nagy: According to Engineering, that is correct. Mr. Andrew: Is Mr. Hamilton, the petitioner, present? Mr. Hamilton, the petitioner, was not present. Mr. William Kesling, 36720 Pinetree: I am one of the original residents and I enjoy access to the park twelve months of the year. Two years ago we had access from the other end of the block. Now this is the only access. The alternative is to go up Ann Arbor Trail and Newburgh but there are no sidewalks. I respectfully request that you turn this petition down. Mr. Vyhnalek: Where does Mr. Hamilton live? Mr. Andrew: On the southeast corner. Mr. Kesling: There has been verbal harassment in the area by people going through there. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are the Lot 98 and 99 residents here? Mr. Kesling: I don 't believe so. Also, there are a number of residents who walk to Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail to the store. It is more convenient to use Ann Arbor Road because the walk is larger. 7458 <, Mr. Zimmer: We have two reasons for the walkway; one to get to the park between Lots 98 and 99. Do you have to go all the way to the corner to get into the park? Mr. Kesling: In the winter time you can go through it but not in the summer time. There is heavy growth. Children try to get their bikes through, too. Mr. Zimmer: The second reason is to get to the store. You need access all the way to the corner if pedestrians have a desire to get to the store. We have to vacate the whole thing to give Mr. Hamilton what he wants. Carol Favors, 36829 Angeline Circle: I have two boys who like to go fishing in the park. All they do is ride their bikes to the park. There are not side- walks on Newburgh. They would have to go so far and now they get there in two minutes. With the Church and cars, it is very busy on Newburgh. My boys were out there picking up worms and Mr. Hamilton said they were disturbing the peace but he has a dog who runs back and forth when someone goes through. For the safety of the kids, I do not want this vacating because they would have to go up to Newburgh Road. R. L. Rossow, 36644 Pinetree: Mr. Hamilton has lived there since it was built . The public access was originally for Newburgh School which has not been used since 1955 or 1956. This has been used regularly all year by all the people and I can see no reason why he has waited this long to do this. Somebody back there is using the area for a refuse dump but I feel the access should be kept open because we do use that. ILO Mr. Andrew: How old is the subdivision? Mr. Rossow: It was built in 1955. Eugene favors, 36829 Angeline Circle: There is a danger on. Newburgh Road for the kids who would use it. I think it should be left open. Mr. Zimmer: Are the owners of Lots 98 and 99 on the petition in opposition to this vacating? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Smith: I can support the petition from a safety standpoint, however, I wonder if this was in the original plan that there must be access to the park. Access should be required and if there is a plan I think this is totally out of order and cannot support it. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-9-3-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #11-260-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-9-3-8 as submitted by Walter B. Hamilton requesting the vacating of a public wolkway located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that ,Petition 80-9-3-8 be denied for the following reasons: 7459 (1 ) The subject walkway continues to serve the adjacent sub- division by providing a safe pedestrian route to the Middle Rouge Parkway. I (2) A substantial number of the residents living in the adjacent subdivision object to vacating the subject walkway. (3) The subject walkway is the only direct means of access to the adjacent parkway property for residents of Smokier-Rousseau Subdivision. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of November 3, 1980 and a 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, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Zimmer, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Scurto Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-10-6-11 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 11 .03 and Section 16. 11 of Zoning Ordinance #543 by providing for regulations con- trolling automobile rental facilities and truck and trailer rental facilities as waiver uses in C-2 and M-1 Zoning Districts. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-10-6-11 closed . On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #11-261-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-10-6-11 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 11 .03 and Section 16. 11 of Zoning Ordinance #543 by providing for regulations controlling automobile rental facilities and truck and trailer rental facilities as waiver uses in C-2 and M-1 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-10-6-11 until the Planning Commission Study Meeting of November 25, 1980. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-9-7-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by changing the designa- 110 tion of the portion of Henry Ruff Road located between Puritan Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14 from a half-mile collector street to a special collector street. #+4 } 7460 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ,..+ On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, ted (40, it was #11-262-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on November 18, 1980 for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the same is hereby amended by changing the designation of that portion of Henry Ruff Road located between Puritan Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, from a half mile collector to a special collector street, for the following reasons: (1 ) Henry Ruff Road in this area no longer has the required 86' wide right-of-way width necessary to qualify for designation as a half-mile collector. (2) Henry Ruff Road does not function in this area as a full-width half-mile collector nor does the traffic volume in the area warrant it. (3) The designation of special collector, which requires a right- of-way width of from 70' to 100' , is more appropraite since the existing right-of-way width of Henry Ruff Road is 73' . t (4) Because of its adjacency to Riley Junior High School , the nature of the pavement width, the general street pattern in the area, and the fact that it does not provide direct access to abutting property as would a local street, special collector is a more appropriate designation for this section of Henry Ruff Road. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council , City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-10-1-30 by Livonia Mall Management to rezone property located on the south side of St. Martins Avenue between Purlingbrook and Middlebelt in the South- east 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to C-2 & P. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there appear to be no engineering problems connected with this petition. We have a letter from Brenda L. Fandrei dated 11/14/80 stating that the rezoning of this property would be detrimental , and 11:110 q letter from Carolyn Rondeau indicating her objection to this rezoning petition. Also, there has been submitted a petition bearing 400 to 500 signature of residents who object to this petition. 7461 Jeanne Hildebrandt, Livonia Mall Management ; Our purpose in requesting this rezoning is to construct a 121 x 178 square foot building for theatre purposes. We would like to construct the building abutting the concrete asphalt which would take it back 120' .which leaves considerable protection for residential . We will cooperate with residential ; construct berms so it is completely invisible. The theatre would face Seven Mile Road. Ingress and egress would be from Middlebelt and Seven Mile Road. Mr. Andrew: Do you need Lot 497 to develop the theatre? Mrs. Hildebrandt : No. The reason for Lot 497 was in case there was a shortage of parking. Mr. Andrew: Does General Cinema Corporation own the other theatres in the Mall ? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Will you vacate those? Mrs. Hildebrant: No, the would stay there. Mr. Zimmer: You will locate the theatre as far south as the property line and go north only with the 121 ' . Is that correct? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Yes, the building would be constructed where the asphalt ends. Mr. Zimmer: This parking situation; on its own merits you have to consider the parking requirements on this development so it would be out of the question for us to assume anything but rezoning 497. If it would be shown that these owners have adequate parking in other areas adjacent to their facilities, it is necessary to consider this rezoning for parking for the building on 498? Mr. Andrew: It 's always been my understanding that, technically, the Livonia Mall is close to exceeding the zoning requirements for parking so that if there was any future buildings on the site we would have to take into consideration additional parking spaces to meet the Ordinance. Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Andrew: If we are going to have a theatre, the number of cars would be one for three and we would have to consider additional property for parking. Mr. Zimmer: How long has this property been in the ownership of Livonia Mall Manage- ment? Mrs. Hildebrandt : Since before the Shopping Center was built. Mr. Zimmer: How long have the houses on St. Martins, north of this site, existed? Audience: Since 1959; before the Mall . Mr. Zimmer: Is there any question about St. Martins being able to support more traffic? Mr. Nagy: The petitioner states they will rely on the existing ingress and egress. 7462 Mr. Vyhnalek: How many theatres will this hold? „, Mrs. Hildebrandt: Three. tMr. Vyhnalek: A total of six. On the C-2, what's in this area now? Mr. Nagy: It's vacant. All but St. Priscilla Church. Mr. Zimmer: Has Livonia Management considered any alternative use and found them to be not viable, more like senior citizen housing or any of the other residential . Mrs. Hildebrandt: Before I was Manager, the developers had looked into apartments and senior buildings. They did not materialize. Apartments would be unfeasible for this area. This is the only use that could be put up there. Mr. Zimmer: We do have a successful set of buildings for senior citizens. Why do you think you couldn't do more of that? Mrs. Hildebrandt : The developers looked into this at one time and also on the north side of St. Martins. Mr. Zimmer: I would like the history on that question. Something is going to happen to the woods unless someone wants to buy it and leave it woods. The only things I can see is commercial and something in multi-family residential . If done correctly, a commercial use on the southeastern part if handled well might be the best use as opposed to a high rise. t Mr. Falk: I would ask the representative of the theatre to present us with some data on the feasibility of placing three more theatres on this site in addition to the present three inside the Mall . Can or does he believe that he can sustain the total of six indefinitely? I do not believe the introduction of theatres in this area will be beneficial to the senior citizens or the residents on St. Martins. We have had reports of police calls in this area for some time and this additional traffic will further complicate an already jammed traffic condition on Seven Mile Road with Art Van coming in and with Jamie's on 7. Jim McClammon, 29636 Pickford : I am a member of St. Priscilla Church. I spoke with the Engineer and he marked up a map for me with the cording of R-1 and that is not C-2 in that section. Mr. Andrew: We will check our records on that point. Arnold Kudzius, 29924 St. Martins: I am one of the group and 120 of those names on the petition are from seniors. I don't think Mrs. Hildebrandt gets out on St . Martins. The place north of St. Martins is filthy and if they put a theatre there, no way can they fulfill the promise and maintain their property. Mr. Andrew: This is not an attack upon Mrs. Hildebrandt. The chair will not allow this. We will be happy to listen to constructive comments. Stella Pilawski , 30079 St. Martins: It would be more dangerous with more theatres. You will get a lot of people in from bad areas and they will be bother- ing all the residents in the area. It should remain a residential area and then some of the trees could be saved. We have so many business 7463 areas now. Livonia has planned it well ; commercial and industrial . Why don' t they buy the old supermarket and build a threatre there; but we don 't need one there either. Eventually trash would be put in the (: , 1LW area of St. Martins. This is residential ; not a place for theatres. Joseph Koenig, 30033 Fairfax: I lived near Twelve Oaks and competition is tough. I can't see why Livonia Mall wants to build on the outer perimeter. Why that corner where the senior citizens live and where there is a Church. Six theatres - what kind of movies will be shown there. They have a theatre there now and I don't think two wrongs will make a right. Daniel Calaluca, 29948 St. Martins: For years the residents have fought the road improve- ment on St. Martins. There are four outlets from that lot and traffic has increased. I have a letter which I sent to the Livonia Observer and if you don't mind, I would like to read it. Mr. Andrew: Go ahead . Mr. Calaluca read the letter to the Commission. Mr. Calaluca: I have a child in elementary school , a child in junior high and a child in high school . I could have purchased a better or more expensive home but I don't want to move. I love it here. I have done some research as to the businesses on Middlebelt not including the shops in the Mall . I feel they are infringing on our neighborhood. The berm would be okay for the people who live in homes but how about the senior citizens; they live in high rise. I feel if this is rezoned to general business it will take away any alternatives I have because I feel it will lower the 4 value of my home and I would not be able to sell it. Mr. Andrew: Your reference in your letter to the statement by the Planning staff as to why we wouldn't be discussing the use. This is a petition to rezone land from commercial to parking. The petitioner has been kind enough to indicate that his intended use is a theatre, however, the question this Commission must take into consideration is this. We can- not condition zoning therefore the question is -- should this land be rezoned to parking and C-2 irregardless of whether or not they indicate a theatre is going in. Once the zoning is granted there are about 75 uses that could go into that property other than a theatre. That is another petition in case the zoning is granted. We want you to under- stand that. Mr. Calaluca: I am opposed to this petition. My one alternative is single family and the other is that the City buy the land for park. We have an old site plan from 1965 and it shows this as park. We would like to see that. Isn' t there some way that could be worked out? Mr. Andrew: The Mayor and Council would have to make that decision. Mr. Calaluca: Couldn't it be recommended tonight? Mr. Andrew: It will be made part of the record and the Mayor and Council will read it. / Pete Mitsopoulos, Melvin Avenue: I think Livonia Mall 's intention to rezone that for a parking lot is ridiculous. That particular section of the area is hardly used. The only value for the property would be some commercial . 7464 The parking value would not be worth the blacktop that you would put into that section. It is removed from the Mall , so the purpose of rezoning for parking, I can't buy. It is obvious that that is not what it is for. IL Mr. Andrew: In their opinion, in order to develop 15,000 square feet of building they will have to meet the parking requirements of the City of Livonia ordinances. The City of Livonia Ordinance says they need additional parking to accommodate that size building. Mr. Mitsopoulos: There is a parking area in the southwest corner that is not used if they want to put a building up. Deborah Smith, 30135 Fairfax, read a letter to the Commission stating her feeling that the woods should be preserved and this petition not approved. Dennis Kaplinski was present and objected to the petition. Betty Hellen, 29549 Bretton: For several years we have been coming down here and some- one said something has to be done eventually. Why can't the manage- ment come up with perha s a professional building in there. No one has ever tried that and it would possibly be all right with the people. Even a two-story office building. What we don't want are a lot of cars and kids and late-hour businesses. Miss Smith: Has anybody been back there to sit and enjoy it? I think it is beauti- ful and if you destroy that you destroy everything. 4 Commissibner Smith: I have been back there. I went through there and it looks like an area left undone. It doesn't look very well to me. The trash I found there was people trash; left there by the residents of the area. The residents didn't want senior citizen buildings but I think they have done well . I have some problem with parking in the Mall with businesses staying open late. I think Pete brought up a very good alternative use, but before I mention that I would like to say that I do like trees. However, this is private property owned by this corporation and they have a right to petition to use it. I would like to see it developed in a way you would like it done. Has Livonia Management every though of building the theatre On the southwest portion on Seven Mile, leaving an open area? Or joining with St. Priscilla and building it out to Seven Mile. I believe General Cinema has made surveys to see if the area could sustain six theatres. I could support a theatre on Seven Mile. Robert Rondeau, 29974 St. Martins: When petitions went around for the senior citizens, most of the people that I know were not opposed to it . I agree that the parking could go in the back. The old plan showed that. We are not completely against this but we are opposed to tearing down the neighbor- hood doing it. We don't want to look out our windows at another junky parking lot . Mr. Kudzius: I would like to see a petition for something worthwhile; a park. Business is business and they are here to make money. Can't we work together? The seniors have no place to go; this is their place and it also belongs to the kids. And, there is a library there. We have enough problems over there and we don't need any more. *Mrs. Scurto entered the meeting at 10:05 p.m. ,4017 7465 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, 10 Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 80-10-1-30 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #11-263-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-10-1-30 as submitted by Livonia Mall Management to rezone property located on the south side of St. Martins Avenue between Purlingbrook and Middlebelt in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to C-2 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this petition until the Planning Commission Study Meeting to be held on November 25, 1980. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-11-2-27 by Rick MacKinnon requesting waiver use approval to construct a credit union building on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Andrew: The building elevation indicates a drive-in window. Do you anticipate a drive-in operation on the west side? Rick MacKinnon, General Manager, Michigan Credit Union : That is possible. Mr. Andrew: If the site plan should be approved with the conditions that the west side not be encumbered in the future by any future buildings, can you live with that? Mr. MacKinnon: Yes. t Mrs. Scurto: May I assume that everything from the bark to the building is going to be grass on the west side? Mr. MacKinnon: Yes, it will be grass. Mr. Andrew: Has the decision been made for a transformer pad? Mr. MacKinnon: We don't know yet. Mr. Andrew: What is the height of the air conditioning units and how about the screening. There is a note on the plan that the bay length may be reduced. Will you go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get the bays reduced? • Mr. MacKinnon: The air conditioning units will be screened with metal . There was no necessity to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals; no, we would not. Mr. Zimmer: Is this the minimum number of parking spaces? Mr. MacKinnon: We have the required number - 43. fl Mr. Nagy: It is in excess of the Ordinance but the petitioner prefers this number from his own experience in business. 7466 Mr. Zimmer: My reason for asking is that I was concerned about the three in the front of the building and how it might effect the appearance of the front of the building. I would be interested in seeing those removed s and leaving it completely landscaped. Mr. MacKinnon: There will be an automatic tele-machine and these parking areas are for that use. Mrs. Scurto: I agree with Mr. Zimmer. I would like to see those three spaces removed. Mr. Zimmer: This will be all brick? Mr. MacKinnon: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski : Will there be any outside trash containers? Mr. MacKinnon: There will be a small dumpster. Mr. Zimmer: How many members are there? Mr. MacKinnon: 5,729 Mr. Zimmer: We spend a lot of time on this property. Going back to the original question as to whether or not this residential can and should support a commercial or professional use, we have minimized the intrusion by classifying this as professional service. To me, in trying to keep that minimum use I see this as intensifying a professional service to its fullest extent. I feel very strongly about the waiver use not being 1 in concert with my opinion but it was zoned professional service and think it shouldbe kept minimal . I have strong feelings about denying this waiver use. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #11-264-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1980 on Petition 80-11-2-27 as submitted by Rick MacKinnon requesting waiver use approval to construct a credit union building on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-11-2-27 be approved subject to the follow- ing conditions: (1 ) that Site Plan #10383, dated 11/3/80, prepared by George R. Cohan & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #10383, Sheet A-3, prepared by George R. Cohan & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan dated 11/10/80, prepared by George R. Cohan Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that Sign Plan #10383, dated 11/11/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and 7467 (5) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; for the following reasons: (1 ) The proposed use fully complies with subparagraph (c) of the P. S. Zoning District regulations as set forth in Zoning Ordi- nance #543. (2) The site has excess capacity to accommodate the intended use. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Smith, Morrow, Kluver, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #11-265-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated November 6, 1980 from Michael L. Priest requesting a one-year extension of approval of the Preliminary Plat for Sheffield Estates Subdivision No. 2 pro- posed to be located on the northeast corner of Curtis Avenue and Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant an extension for a period of one year from the date of this resolution. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #11-266-80 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 400th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on October 21 , 1980 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution result in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Zimmer, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Scurto Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr . Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, 110 it was #11-267-80 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 339th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 28, 1980 are approved. 7468 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. i On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #11-268-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1243, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-10-8-22 by Construction Craftsmen Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct multiple family dwellings on the east side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Fargo in Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions : (1) that Site Plan #140, Sheet 1 , as revised, dated 11/20/80, pre- pared by Michael S. Downes and Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevations as shown on Plan #140, Sheet #2, dated 10/31/80, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plans LS-1 and LS-2, prepared by Calvin Hall & Associates, dated 10/15/80, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plans shall be installed on the site as each phase of the project is completed and ready for occupancy. i 1 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #11-269-80 RESOLVED that,. the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 80-7-2-21 by Fred J. Armour for Bob Evans Farms requesting waiver use approval construct a restaurant on the north side of the 1-96 Freeway, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, subject to the following conditions: (1 ) that the Revised Landscape Plan for Bob Evans Restaurant dated 10/29/80 is hereby approved and shall replace the previously approved Landscape Plan dated 8/15/80 by Wolfgang Doerschlag, Architect; (2) that all other conditions set forth in the original approving resolution #8-201-80, adopted on August 19, 1980, are valid and shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted , the 401st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 18, 1980, adjourned at 11 :20 p.m. / PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST. /Z"Iiir. .-•. , % / =.01/r/�,.e Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman Jo.eph /. F. Secretary