HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1981-05-12• 7461
MINUTES OF THE 412th REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
• PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 12, 1981, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its
,412th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 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 45 interested people in the audience.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski Jerome Zimmer
R. Lee Morrow Donald Vyhnalek Daniel R. Andrew
Judith Scurto Joseph Falk
MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Russell Smith
i
Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director;
hand Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves
a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council, who
in turn will then hold their own Public Hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver use request, and the petition is denied by the Planning Commission,
the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Otherwise the petition
is terminated.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Rehearing of Petition
IL ,Petition 76-6-1-22 by the City Planning Commission as amended by Council
Resolution #1010-76 to rezone property located on the north side of Joy
Road between Inkster and Cardwell in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from
C-2 to R-1.
Mr. Andrew: Initially this petition was heard in June of 1976. The City Planning
Commission on its own motion brought this petition forth to consider
rezoning of this property that is cross hatched from C-2 to R-1. We
are interested in the residents and whether they are for or against the
rezoning.
Frank Hajduk: I own one of the pieces of the property that is being considered tonight,
8931 Frederick the second shaded one. I bought it last year for general business. I
had hoped to put up a building in the future. I was unaware of any
rezoning. Why are we taking general business and trying to rezone it to
single dwellings?
Mr. Andrew: As I recall back in 1976 a study was made of the Joy-Inkster area. On the
basis of those studies I believe some of us felt that residential zoning was
a proper zoning as there is a surplus of vacant commercial lands. That is
not to say that R-1 is the proper zoning. A decision as to whether or not
we should approve or disapprove the petition is before us. This doesn't
mean we necessarily support the rezoning. The petition is before us and
we are to act on it.
Henry Binder: I am here in behalf of the owner of the lock and key establishment. The
11::207 Inkster man is not well tonight. He is opposing this petition. I am a member
of the civic association and the civic association is also opposed.
ohn 011ar: I would like it left as it is as commercial. A lot of people have tried
778.8 Joy to build here and they get turned down.
• 7462
Mr. Andrew: That is not true. Are you down the street from here?
Mr. 011ar: I received a letter to come down and I object.
t
John Stewart, Attorney for owner of certain property in question, Cherry Hill United
Pres Church, was present: We would like to see it remain as C-2 and we would like
clarification as to what can be used on the property in the C-2
classification. We have a prospective buyer for the property who was
interested in putting in a landscaping plant but Mr. Nagy informed us
that it was too intense of a use for C-2.
Mr. Nagy: On page 38, Section 11.03, subparagraph (1) the explanation is given
pertaining to nurseries. An end loader, dump truck, aod, dirt, etc.
were proposed for the landscape business. The sale of plant materials
only is a waiver use. Not a landscape. contracting yard.
; Mr. Andrew: A waiver use must be approved by Planning end City Council.
Mr. Zimmer: Who owns the property?
Mr. Stewart: The church. We havea tentative sales agreement with a purchaser who was
interested in the nursery business.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Were you before us 6 or 8 months ago?
Mr. Andrew: I believe a realtor was before us then.
Mr. Zimmer: We have looked at this for a long, long time and it is my opinion
that this property should not be rezoned to R-1. We need to get this
settled. In denying the R-1 doesnot mean necessarily that I feel it
should be C 2. Possibly medium density residential would be appropriate.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#5-75-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 76-6-1-21 by the City Planning Commission,, pursuant to Council
Resolution #1010-76 requesting to rezone property located on the north side
of Joy Road between Inkster and Cardwell in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36,
from C-2 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 76-6-1-22 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) While the Planning Commission recommends the ultimate removal of this
subject C-2 Zoning District because it cannot be justified since there
is an excess of commercially zoned property all along Joy Road, we believe
that the best use of the subject lands is for multiple family residential
rather than single family residential in order to (a) provide for a
reasonable development alternative and (b) encourage the provision of
a variety of housing types consistent with Planning Commission adopted
goals and policies.
r110 (2) The proposed change in zoning will not encourage the maximum use of the
Subject lands consistent with good land use principles and the Future
Land Use Plan.
. 7463
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the
official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81, 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.
1[Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-1-23 initiated by Council
Resolution #400-80 to rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road,
north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF and C-2 to R-1.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated May 7, 1981 from R. Patching. We have a letter
from L. Patching. We have a letter from Div. of Engineering stating
there are no engineering problems in connection with this petition.
Mr. Andrew: This was a petition initiated by City Council. R-8 rezoning was denied.
They passed a petition then to consider rezoning to R-1.
Tom Scanlon: We are opposed to the R-1 zoning. We would like to see the land used
Real Estate for a senior citizens housing project or a convalescent home.
Advisor:
Archdiocese
Frank Hajduk: If this is rezoned my taxes will go up. I am opposed to it.
8931 Frederick I have a landlocked. piece of property that everyone uses for a dump.
I don't want to have to pay more taxes for some property I can't even use.
Mr. Andrew: The map as indicated on the screen is a reduced form and does not
correspond with the. map attached to the petition. The legal description
for the petition encompasses a larger area. The map you received in the
mail was right. This one, they forgot to draw some lines.
J. Whitten: Why do they want to rezone it?
9217 Inkster
Mr. Andrew: Iwould hate to speak for the City Council. I think they feel from a
planning standpoint it works out well to encompass some interior road
system to sell off some of your back property. The land has been vacant
for a long time.
Mr. Whitten: Whatever they do they are going to mess it up. I want it the way it is.
I am opposed to the petition.
Mr. Zimmer: You could continue to use your property the way you are now but you would
have the option in later years to sell it off for R-1 or your heirs.
Mr. Whitten: I want to keep it the way it is. Dr. Wilson from the Detroit Zoo comes
over all the time. He likes it the way it is too.
Henry Binder: At that Council meeting Mr. Bishop said that Planning could look over
the Archdiocese property and rezone it as R-1. The whole section was not
included. I have submitted a petition with 957 of the residents abutting
or living near by objecting to the rezoning.
.Vince Barone: Part of my property in the back is up for rezoning. I own 1033 feet deep
427629 W. Chicago lot. My lot is 90 feet wide. I had to get special permission to build
my. house because my lot was not 100 feet wide. Now you want 60 x 120
lots. They are too small. Homes will be only 1,000 square feet.
I no like that.
7464
Mr. Andrew: If the rezoning was accomplished you could sell off your back property.
1!
Would you be interested in selling?
'yir. Barone: No. I have been working for years cleaning up the back. I have many
beautiful trees there. I don't want to sell.
Mr. Vyhnalek: If Mr. Bishop said that the Archdiocese property should be rezoned we
can check it.
Mr. Andrew: We probably asked them to encompass a larger area.
Mrs. Scurto: When the Council makes a decision it is in our jurisdiction to make a
parcel smaller or larger. If the rezoning is accomplished we cannot
force you to sell your property if you do not want to sell.
Mr. Nagy: Council Resolution #400-80 reads in its entirety; that property located
on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 36. That same day another petition was lookdd at, that being
the Archdiocese petition. It was denied. The Archdiocese wants to dispose
of the property. The R-1 development on their 11 acres seemed appropriate.
At the same time it also seemed appropriate for the surrounding property.
If it makes sense for the 11 acres it makes sense for the abutting
property owners. If you don't want your property rezoned this is the
hearing to let the Planning Commission know your views.
Mr. Binder: We, the residents that own those homes and as the petition reads, 95%
of us use our land for one thing or another. I don't feel we have been
IL any burden to the City that we should be rezoned for R-1. Do something
with the Archdiocese property but we want to be left alone. I eat off
my land. I have chickens, geese. I have seen many cars dumping garbage
on the Archdiocese property. They should have signs posting "no dumping".
I have license plates of cars that back up in there and dump dead shrubs,
grass, etc. If they want the numbers, I have them.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Scanlon, you are opposed to this rezoning?
Mr. Scanlon: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: The residents don't want R-1 and the Archdiocese doesn't want it. We
have tried to reach a compromise between R-8 and R-1 and we have satisfied
no one. It would seem the appropriate thing would be to do nothing.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, it was
#5-76-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 80-6-1-23 initiated by Council Resolution #400-80 requesting to
rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Joy Road
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF and C-2 to R-1, the City Planning
I Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-1-23
be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed -change in zoning will not promote development which is in
harmony with the prevailing rural character of the area.
(2) The proposed change in zoning is opposed by the affected property owners
as well as surrounding property owners for the reason that the R-1 zoning
district allows residential lot sizes which are inconsistent with existing
{-..
• 7465
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81 and
a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake
t & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power
Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
k roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto
ABSENT: Smith
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-3-1-5 by the City Planning
Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail,
east of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to AG.
Ir. Andrew: City Planning on its own motion is rezoning property that has been
developed for cemetery purposes from RUF to AG. This is consistent
with the Commission's policy to have all cemeteries in the City zoned
in the AG classification. Cemeteries are treated as waiver uses in the
AG. district.
Pat Mitchell: We were informed that they were getting this rezoning so they could put
Rep. for a mausoleum there.
Condominimums
Mr. Andrew: No, absolutely not.
"Mr. Nagy: Cemeteries would have to petition for any change, pursuant to the
Waiver Use requirements of the A.G. district regulations.
Ms. Mitchell: There is no room for a mausoleum.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairma n,declared the public hearing on this item.closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-77-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-3-1-5 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located
on the northside of Ann Arbor Trail, east of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 32, from RUF to AG, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 81-3-1-5 be approved for the following reasons:
(1) The subject cemetery is presently nonconforming within its present zoning
classification of RUF, Rural Urban Farms.
(2) This proposed rezoning will provide a zoning classification commensurate
with the established use of the subject property.
(3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission
policy of having the zoning classification reflect the established use
I of 'the property.
. 7466
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81,
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.
r. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
L
.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-3-1-7 by the City Planning
Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east
of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, from R-5C to AG.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-78-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-3-1-7 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located
on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 7, from R-5- C to AG, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 81-3-1-7 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) The subject cemetery is presently nonconforming with its present zoning
classification of R-5-C, residential.
(2) This proposed rezoning will provide a zoning classification commensurate with
the established use of the subject property.
IL
(3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission
policy of having the zoning classification reflect the established use of
the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the
official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81, 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 announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-1-11 by Rest-in-the-Son,
Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, north
of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF-B to R-3.
There was no one present regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was
7467
#5-79-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-4-1-11 by Rest-in-the-Son, Inc. , requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the South-
west 1/4 of Section 4, from RUFB to R-3, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 81-4-1-11 be approved for
the following reasons:
(1) The proposed zoning classification is consistent with the adjoining zoning
districts in the area.
(2) The proposed zoning is a logical extension of an adjacent zoning district.
(3) The proposed zoning district will provide for lot sizes and a housing
pattern consistent with the established and planned residential development
in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81,
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 announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-1-12 by Ross J. and
Nellie Borregard to rezone property located on the northeast corner of
Schoolcraft Service Drive and Brookfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22,
, from RUF to P.S.
'Mr. Andrew: Do you own the property to the east?
Mr. Borregard: Yes, only the two lots.
Mr. Andrew: Are you buying this land on a land contract?
Mr. Borregard: Yes.
Mr. Andrew: When do you plan to start building?
Mr. Borregard: As soon as possible.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-80-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-4-1-12 by Ross J. and Nellie Borregard requesting to rezone
property located on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and
Brookfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, from RUF to P.S. , the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
81-4-1-12 be approved for the following reasons:
IL (1) The proposed zoning is a logical extension of an existing P.S.
Zoning District.
(2) The proposed zoning change will provide for uses that are consistent
with the adopted Future Land Use Plan.
7468
(3) The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Planning Commission's
policy of encouraging the location of small office buildings along
14
major traffic corridors to act as a buffer or transitional use to
protect residential neighborhoods from the adverse affects of such
traffic corridors.
4
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81
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.
Ir. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-2-7 by George and
Betty Hajal requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License in
connection with an existing party store located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Cavell and Arcola in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25.
Ms. Janice Hajal: I am here in behalf of my parents. They have operated a party
27600 Plymouth Rd. store with beer and wine for five years. We have made many
improvements on the property. A lot of patrons have been asking
for the liquor. With the economy as it stands we need to expand
our products.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you own the ice cream store?
Ms. Hajal:li
That is a separate operation. There are different owners but my
parents are part owner of the ice cream store.
4
,Mrs. Sobolewski: Who runs the ice cream store?
Ms. Hajal: My brother.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Who runs the party store?
Ms. Hajal: My sister and dad.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you use the same entrance for both the party and ice cream store?
Ms. Hajal: No. There are separate doors.
Mrs. Sobolewski: How many seats in the ice cream store?
Ms. Hajal: No seats.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Had you tried before to secure an SDD License?
Ms. Hajal: No.
Mr. Zimmer: Is there adequate parking?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
fir. Andrew: We have been informed that there is a shortage of SDD licenses, therefore,
i until the City Council completes that study, I feel we should table the
petition.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
s• -
7469
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and adopted, it was
1!:
45-81-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-4-2-7 by George and Betty Hajal requesting waiver use approval
to utilize an SDD License in connection with an existing party store located
on the north side of Plymouth Road between Cavell and Arcola in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
81-4-2-7 until further study of SDD licenses by the City Council is made.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Scurto, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew
NAYS: Zimmer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Smith
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-2-8 by Arbor Drugs, Inc.
requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License in connection with
an existing business located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Five
Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23.
There was no one present in regard to the petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
1[0
/On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted,
4it was
15-82-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-4-2-8 by Arbor Drugs, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to
utilize an SDD License in connection with an existing business located on
the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Five Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 81-4-2-8
until further study of SDD licenses by the City Council is made.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-3-1 by the City Planning
Commission to vacate a portion of a public alley located south of Seven Mile
Road between Floral and Deering in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated April 30, 1981 from the Detroit Edison Co.
Mr. Andrew: The vacating is subject to retention of easement.
Ms. Sturgill: The present owner on the north side is willing to build a wall. The
19039 Deering gentleman has agreed if it is vacated he will put the wall up.
Mr. Andrew: We cannot guarantee that. I believe the wall has been waived by the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
ILMs. Sturgill: I realize that.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
7470
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
tjOn a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-83-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-4-3-1 by the City Planning Commission requesting to vacate a
portion of a public alley located south of Seven Mile Road between Floral and
Deering in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 81-4-3-1 be approved subject
to the retention of a full-width easement to protect existing utilities for the
following reasons:
(1) The subject alley is not needed to provide vehicular access to abutting
properties.
(2) The area encompassed by the alley can best be utilized and maintained
if attached to adjacent private property.
(3) No public utility or reporting City department has objected to the
subject vacating.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81
and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone, Consumers Power Company and
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
4Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
4On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously adopted,
lit was
#5-84-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81-3-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, by incorporating subsection (2) ,
theaters, in the C-3 Zoning District Regulations, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 81-3-6-4 be approved for
the following reasons:
(1) This proposed language amendment has been recommended by the Department of
Law.
(2) This proposed language amendment will provide clarification regarding
permitted uses in the .0-3 Zoning District.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the
official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/27/81 and notice of
such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
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.
Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-3-2 by Michael L. Priest
& Associates, Inc. , Dominic Soave and Joseph Iannaci requesting the
1[7
vacating of a portion of an alley located south of Seven Mile Road between
Irving and Myron Avenues in Section 9.
7471
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated April 30th from Division of Engineering by Gary
Clark. We have a letter from the Detroit Edison Company. We have a
4 letter from Mary Gargaro objecting to the vacating.
Dominic Soave: I am Ms. Gargaro's tenant. During the winter delivery trucks cannot
€33529 W. 7 Mi. get back there. Deliveries are made through the front. The building
department has requested me on several occasions to grade back there.
It doesn't seem to do any good.
Mr. Andrew: We would like to see the easements recorded. If the alley is vacated
10 feet will attach to property to the south and all lots to the north
get 10 feet.
Mr. Nagy: The new driveway will be 20 feet south of the existing center line of
the alley to allow a row of cars in that area. The two lots there are
50 feet in width. The present alley is 20 feet, 10 feet attached to
lots to the south making them 60 feet.
Mr. Goodson: I would like the easements recorded before the alley is closed. We
want access to our back door.
Walter Collison: I have objections if the easements aren't recorded.
223 Lakeside Dr.
Jerome, MI
John Gargaro: We have no objection providing the easements are recorded first.
2229 Elizabeth
Dearborn
II4
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
4
'Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it
was
#5-85-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 81.4-3-2 by Michael L. Priest & Associates, Inc., Dominic
Soave and Joseph Iannaci requesting the vacating of a portion of an alley
located south of Seven Mile Road between Irving Avenue and Myron Avenue
in Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition
81-4-3-2 until the study meeting of June 2, 1981, at which time the
appropriate easements will be recorded and copies available.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-86-81 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby transmit and recommend
proposed language amending Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 3-537 and Section
3-544 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, which language would require the
screening of trash "dumpsters" and set standards therefor, and further, that
upon adoption of said amendments to the Code of Ordinances by the City Council,
the Planning Commission will immediately thereafter hold a public hearing to
consider an amendment to Zoning Ordinance #543, to incorporate and adopt said
language by reference.
. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted..
J .
7472
On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and adopted, it was
"a5-87-81 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 411th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on April 21, 1981, be approved.
f
i roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kiuver, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Morrow, Scurto
ABSENT: Smith
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-2-8--7P by John Del Signore
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended by Ordinance #1468, submitted in connection with a proposal
to construct a commerical building on the north side of Plymouth Road between
Merriman and Hubbard Roads in Section 27.
Mr. Bakewell: On the site plan the landscaping was increased in the front from 11 feet
to 15 feet. The sign is in the proper position and adequate size. It meets
the ordinance.
Mrs. Scurto: Is there a reason why the parking is in front?
Dick Zambiski: We will have some offices in the front. We would loose parking in the
back if we pushed the building forward.
1[0rs. Scurto: The entrance is in the middle of the side of the building. The parking
in the front is no closer to the entrance than the parking in the back.
. Andrew: Are you suggesting that they encroach in the front yard and give the
parking up?
Mrs. Scurto: No, they should give the parking up.
Mr. Andrew: 60 feet of landscaping in the front would be a tremendous amount. What
about the architectural changes?
Mr. Bakewell: The entire west wall and rear wall which was block is now decorative
painted block or fluted block. Fifty percent of the exterior is brick and
window and 507. is block.
Mr. Andrew: What color and size of block will be used?
Mr. Zambiski: Fluted block comes in so many shapes and colors. We probably will use
a tan block with a dark brown roof.
Mr. Andrew: When would you make a decision as to the exact material?
Mr. Zambiski: We probably would use an 8 inch fluted or decorative fluted block. Some
sort of a tan. It would depend on the company and the prices we get.
tiofr. Bakewell: There will be a mansard running on two sides. Roof top equipment will be
I
a decorative screen.
. Andrew: Are you.satisfied with the landscape and architectual changes?
7473
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
Zimmer: What is the r.o.w. currently? Dirt?
1[Mr.
Mr. Zambiski: Grass. •
Nr. Del Signore: We willlandscape that to match the rest.
Mr. Zimmer: I would like to see the building closer to Plymouth Road. You would go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I prefer no parking in the front.
Mr. Del Signore: Unless we put it up like the House of Maple, it would not look uniform.
Mr. Zambiski: This land is tight as far as parking. Where would we put the dumpster?
Mr. Falk: Could the petitioner meet with John Nagy as far as the fluted block goes.
We would not like to hold this up becuase of that. How high is the
berm in front?
Mr. Bakewell: 2 1/2 feet.
Mr. Andrew: I would like to suggest that if parking in the front is offensive we
should revise our ordinance relating to front yard setbacks.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and adopted, it was
#5-88-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1468, the City
1[40 Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 81-2-8-7P by John Del Signore
requesting approval of all, plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in
connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in Section 27, subject
to the following conditions:
(1) that Site Plan #81-1124, dated 5/11/81, prepared by Schrader-Porter &
Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(2) that the Building Elevations as shown on Sheet 1, dated 4/23/81, as
prepared by Dick Zambiski, Inc. , which are hereby approved shall be
adhered to;
(3) that the Landscape Plan as shown on Plan #81-1124, prepared by Schrader-
Porter & Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and
(4) that the landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed on
the site prior to occupancy of the building and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition;
(5) that the fluted block be reviewed by the Planning staff and approved as such.
Mr. Zimmer: I feel that petitioner could work around the parking and it would not be
hardship to put it in the back. It would be a better plan and it would
maintain a continuous green along Plymouth Road. In the long run petitioner
would be happier with it.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
4
1[10
AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto, Sobolewski, Zimmer.
ABSENT: Smith
7474
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
1!
4Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-4-8-14 by Livonia
Professional Pavilion requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, submitted
in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office building on the
south side of Six Mile Road between South Laurel Park Drive and Newburgh
Road in Section 18.
Mr. Bakewell: The changes are one. The adjacent neighbors Win Schuler's greenbelt
will be connected. The same holds true to the east. It will be two foot along
the west, south and east. It will be 6 feet wide. Some of the interior
parking has been rearranged. There is a green island. The parking is not
reduced to the point of being deficit. The parking count is the same as
before. The dumpster has been relocated up near the building entrances
and screened by gates. There are 4 parking lot lights 20 feet high. A
113 foot high light is at the entrance.
Mr. Andrew: Are you satisfied?
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: Those round circles are trees?
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the distance between the west row and first one east?
Mr. Bakewell: 22 feet. All aisles. Where they can overhang we allow 20 feet.
Mr. Morrow: The dumpster is a straight shot from the west. There is good access to it.
Mr. Bakewell: Yes. There is no parking in front of it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#5-89-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
81-4-8-14 by Livonia Professional Pavilion requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct
a medical office building on the south side of Six Mile Road between South
Laurel Park Drive and Newburgh Road in Section 18, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
(1) that Site plan #8111, Sheet 1, dated 5/11/81, prepared by Chatas
Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(2) that the Building Elevations as shown on Plan #8111, Sheets 3 & 4,
dated 3/31/81, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to;
1[
(3) that the wall sign as shown on the north building elevation shall
comply with present sign regulations for P.S. zoning districts;
4
(4) that the roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be subject to review
by the Planning Dept. , and if necessary, screened at their discretion;
• 7475
(5) that a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission
approval within thirty (30) days.
4 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Revised Site Plan submitted in
connection with Petition 80-1-2-1 by Hugh Leavell requesting waiver use
approval to use an existing building located on the south side of Seven
Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10,
for general office purposes.
Mr. Nagy: Proposed is a row of shrubs in front of the proposed front row of
parking. a 3 foot 8 inch strip along here with a 3 foot high hedge from
back of the building over to the service area.
Mr. Zimmer: Is the pile of dirt on his property?
Mr. Nagy: Engineering has asked him to remove the dirt in the r.o.w.
Mr. Falk: Initially what he did was pretty good. Now he is doing nothing.
I have difficulty giving that gentleman parking on the front.
Mr. Bakewell: The cars are parking parallel along the circular drive. At 7 p.m.
I went by and there were no cars parked in the back.
Mr. Zimmer: He has not attempted to even try the plan we suggested. He could have
tried it and come back and tell us if it worked or not. That back door
has easy access to the building. With some clarification of where
the parking is and isn't there would be no problem.
ILMr. Morrow: Is there a greenbelt along Seven Mile?
Mr. Bakewell: 20 feet.
Mr. Andrew: Are there plans to improve Mayfield?
Mr. Nagy: It is not eminent.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He did not follow through on the east side and remove all that parking
and because of that I am changing my position from the last time.
Mr. Morrow: I feel he should give up the parking along Mayfield.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it
was
#5-90-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1981
on Petition 80-1-2-1 by Hugh Leavell requesting waiver use approval to use
an existing building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between
Loveland and Mayfield in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, fro general office
purposes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 80-1-2-1 be
denied for the following reasons:
1[
(1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed Site
4
Plan is in compliance with the general standards and requirements set
' forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
a
.
r
• 7476
(2) The proposed Site Plan fails to fully utilize the subject site for
offstreet parking in such a way as to minimize its adverse affect on
the overall aesthetic appearance of the site.
i
(3) The proposed Site Plan is inconsistent with, or contrary to, the
objectives sought to be accomplished through the principles of
sound planning and superior site design and is, therefore, not in
harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding
neighborhood.
(4) Not all of the previously approved site improvements as shown on Plan
#SP-1, dated January 22, 1980, have been installed, specifically the
offstreet parking area to the south of the building which, if installed
would likely diminish the need for the parking area proposed on the
Revised Site Plan for the front of the building.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 412th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 12, 1981 were adjourned
at 10:40 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-- _i' `/ / ice.
Jos- •h J. lk, cretary
[ATTEST
: '
Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman
4