Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1986-03-18 9577 MINUTES OF THE 513th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 18, 1986, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 513th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver Jeanne Hildebrandt C. Russ Smith Donna Naidow Michael Duggan Sue Sobolewski Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: Michael Soranno Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Morrow 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 hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise, the petition is terminated. 4 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 86-1-1-4 by Kenneth R. Hale for Jack Shenkman to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-8. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no City maintained sanitary sewers available to service this site. Also, there is a petition containing 207 signatures of residents in the area protesting this rezoning petition. Kenneth Hale, Attorney representing the petitioner: This property is being co-developed by Mr. Shenkman and Beznos Realty. Beznos has 5,000 units throughout the country including Muirwood, the Buhl Building, Bonaventure and numerous shops throughout the country. Mr. Shenkman is the original owner of the Livonia Mall. Common to all is that they are first-class, high-quality developers and have contributed to communities and have supported this community itself. This property was to be developed commercial and multiple, but after the developer considered the impact of that proposal on the neighbors, they decided to propose multiple only. The Architect is here tonight, and he has been directed by the developers to minimize the impact on the area by establishing buffers to the individual buildings and by having low-rise, primarily two-story buildings. This would also meet the needs of ; 4 professional people. He was instructed to develop the best multiple project in the neighboring area. The Architect has spent a great deal of time in meeting these objectives. 9578 IL 'Kenneth Newman, Architect, 26887 Northwestern Hwy: There will be no parking along Fitzgerald. The driveway into the project will be on the westerly side. The project will have all the amenities necessary to attract first-class tenants. No building will be higher than 35' . The average size of the units will be 1,150 square feet. Mr. Shenkman originally tried to buy the land on the north which is owned by the School Board. Mr. Howell indicated that the property is not for sale at the present time. There were several considerations regarding whether this property should be developed for single or multiple family. The land costs of this land prohibits the development of single family homes. You would have to build a $150,000 house. Our clients are not willing to build on a basis that would not make sense. There are houses in the City that people could buy who want single family houses. The R-8 issue was raised and originally we asked for all R-8. We are now talking only five acres of R-8; four buildings. We are willing to amend our petition and the buildings will be no higher than a two-story building because the first story will be equal to the level of the terrain. If we were granted the R-8 and whether or not we would build the R-8 height, I can only say these people are good for their word. The City Council has the final say and if it is approved by the Council, construction would immediately begin and the project would be developed. We are willing to split the petition tonight to make it a combination of R-7 and R-8. The R-8 would allow us to have the amenities on the Fitzgerald side that I think would be required IL to give the type of image the City wants. The cost will be approximately $15,000,000. It will create population and support the business community. If we are prohibited in building the project as we propose, there is no guarantee that the next development to come along will build the type of buildings we are proposing. Mr. Morrow: Are your clients the present owners of the property? Mr. Hale: There is a purchase agreement to close on the property in the near future so time is of the essence. Mr. Newman showed a site plan of the proposed development to the Commission. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many units are in the four R-8 buildings? Mr. Newman: 108 units. Mr. Vyhnalek: If they were just R-7, how many units could you get in there? Mr. Newman: We would lose approximately 36 units by changing the zoning to all R-7. Mr. Duggan: Are these rental or condos Mr. Newman: Rentals. } Mr. Duggan: What is the price range? 9579 'Mr. Newman: It is my understanding the unit price would be about $750 to $800 per month. 'Mr. Smith: What is the height of the buildings in the R-8? Mr. Newman: Maximum allowed is 35' and we would have buildings less than that requirement. Mr. Smith: Would you make a statement that they will not be higher than that as a condition of this approval, if it is approved -- that no building in the R-8 would exceed 35"? Mr. Morrow: We cannot condition zoning. Mr. Nagy: If the R-7 will allow 35' , you couldn't rezone on the basis of less. Mr. Newman: We would have no problem coming in with buildings no higher than 35' . Mr. Duggan: Have you met with the neighbors at all to talk to them about this? Mr. Hale: No, we wanted to have this public hearing to find out how they feel. IMr. Duggan: If you built houses in the RUF, how many houses would fit into this property? Mr. Newman: Two per acre -- about 50 units in the RUF. John P. Casey, 19377 Fitzgerald: I collected a great number of signatures on the petitions. I would like you to know that the petitions were signed by 100% of the residents surrounding the property; also 100% of the residents on Fitzgerald. I talked with these people and my concern was the height of the buildings. The R-8 zoning allows for four stories. If an R-8 zone is passed and for some reason this particular project is not completed, once it is zoned R-8 someone else could come along and develop it. Mr. Morrow: We cannot condition zoning. Mr. Casey: But if this project is not completed, then at a future date someone else could build a four-story building and there would be nothing we could do about it. The people also object to the apartments. The land is zoned for single family homes and they object to the increase in traffic that apartments would bring. There is a traffic problem there now everyday and it will increase more in the future with the development along Haggerty. te There are now five new apartment developments in the area for a total of 769 units. That is a great number of units. Sometimes zoning changes can benefit the City as a whole even it it is detrimental to the immediate area but we cannot see how this will benefit the City as a whole and it would be a detriment to our 9580 area because of the higher concentration of people and traffic. It would make the area less desirable and would decrease the value of our homes. It was said that the cost of land is too hight for single-family homes but when they bought the property it was zoned one-family residential and they bought with their eyes open. The owners are looking only for a way to make maximum profit on their investment and no one should have the right to change other peoples' environment simply to make more profit. When people invest in a home they look at the surrounding area and anyone investigating would have seen it was single family. The Commission has a moral obligation to protect the people already living there. The people living there are citizens of the City -- they are the City. Mr. Duggan: I would like to say that is one of the best prepared presentations I have heard so far. You obviously have a pulse on the people around you regarding this petition. When you say the people in the area don't want apartments, can you tell me what the complaints are specifically? Mr. Casey: An apartment development like that doesn't attract families. who want to be a neighborhood. With apartments, people just live separate. It is not a community. They don't blend as in a subdivision. Mr. Duggan: How much of a concern is the height of the buildings? Mr. Case: It is a concern. The zoning allows four stories. I heard rumors they were asking three but were allowed four. The people don't want that. Mr. Duggan: If we approved zoning that would allow only two stories and the apartments would run $750 a piece, would you feel comfortable with that? Mr. Case: We think there should be single-family homes in this area. Larry Dibasio, 19249 Fitzgerald: I live behind this apartment building site. There will be crime, and traffic and our property values will be lowered. There is a lot of vacant land in the area of Seven Mile and Newburgh. Zoning, in order to be legally valid must not be arbitrary. In order not to be arbitrary, it must conform to a plan. This is a very fine looking proposal for multiples but what will the next proposal for multiples look like. The Master Plan calls for single family and that is what it should be. Once you rezone it, anybody can put in what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Property changes hands. You have to look at this on the basis of the whole area. If you vary too much from the Master Plan, you create problems. This area can't stand much more traffic. ILMr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Howell, could you explain what the School Board's plan is for the twenty-five acres? . 0581 10'Mr. Howell: It was up for sale but now they are sitting on it. } Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the acreage east of the subdivision? Mr. Howell: That was sold to the City of Livonia for the golf course. William LaPine, 33855 Carl Drive: I checked out this area before I bought out there on the Master Plan it was all single family homes. I know the problems you get with apartments. Now, you come along and start rezoning property to R-8. It just doesn't make sense. Mr. Hale pointed out that this is basically because of the future project. There are other projects and proposals on the agenda tonight for apartments. There are many other areas in this end of town that are being innundated by apartments. This is a parcel of land not zoned for apartments. I know we lost a case where the property was zoned for apartments and we could not deny the owner the use of his land. Single family homes in this area would be logical and profitable. It is an injustice to the people in the area to rezone this property and I ask you ladies and gentlemen to turn this petition down. Mr. Morrow: Mr. LaPine presented a letter from Windridge homeowners. They feel the rezoning of this land is in conflict with the Master Plan. 10 4 ' William Lute, 19358 Newburgh: How close to my property will these buildings be? Mr. Newman: 75 feet. Mr. Lute: The apartments look good on the board but those gentlemen don't have to live there. If you got up in the morning and looked at that wall, you would not like it. I wanted to build a barn and they told me I couldn't go any higher than 18 feet and he wants to put up a 35' building. I wish you would give this a lot of thought before you let them build these apartments. Joseph Laura, 35164 Banbury, President of Sheffield Homeowners Association: I have been requested by the Board of the Civic Association to address you this evening and to let you know that we are very much against the apartments because of the transient nature of people going in apartments, the height of the buildings and the traffic. Sheffield would like to ask a no vote tonight. Mary Posuniak, 19321 Newburgh: I have three small children and I don't really want apartment buildings where people come in and out. We have no crime and we don't want apartments because we are afraid of the crime and traffic on Newburgh is outrageous now. Clarence Coveney, 19283 Newburgh: I want to go on record as being 100% opposed to any rezoning on this property to allow four-story buildings to go up there. F. Shehigian, 36695 Clarita: I live in Gold Manor Subdivision and have names of 113 9582 residents in the subdivision who oppose this rezoning. There are many accidents at Seven Mile and Newburgh Roads. The height of the building is a concern to us and will put a lot more transient type people in the area rather than home owners. A lot of people settled in the area because they thought it would be developed like the rest of Livonia. We will have to keep running in here with petition against apartments, but we will fight it. We request that this petition be denied. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have to have split R-8 and R-7, Mr. Hale? Mr. Hale: Yes sir. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-1-1-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and supported by Mr. Smith, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-1-1-4 by Kenneth R. Hale for Jack Shenkman to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-1-1-4 be tabled until the Study Meeting of April 22, 1986. FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Sobolewski, Duggan, Naidow, Morrow ABSTAIN: Hildebrandt ABSENT: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the resolution failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #3-60-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-1-1-4 by Kenneth R. Hale for Jack Shenkman to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road in the southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-1-1-4 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan recommendation of low density residential for this general area. (2) The proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. 9583 (2) The proposed change of zoning would provide for population desnities i: and building heights which are not in keeping with the surrounding low density residential development. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Duggan, Smith, Kluver, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Naidow NAYS: Smith ABSTAIN: Hildebrandt ABSENt: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-1-5 by Milton and Patricia Vingsness to rezone property located on the east side of Eckles Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in Section 19 from R-1 to C-2. Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no water mains or sanitary sewers available to service this site and that drainage through the open Bakwell County Dr'in which traverses the site must be maintained in connection with any development. I: Milton Vingsness, 14050 Eckles, Petitioner: , I am the owner of the property and am getting ready to retire and would like to get rid of the property. In order for this property to change hands it is not going to go for residential. The rest of the C-2 zoning is also subject to sewers and if they have C-2 zoning they must have sewers. The property directly south of mine is City owned property. This is my reason for requesting this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, delcared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-1-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #3-61-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-2-1-5 by Milton and Patricia Vingsness to rezone property located on the east side of Eckles Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in Section 19 from R-1 to C-2, the City Planning does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-1-5 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. t (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for development of the subject site in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 9584 (3) The proposed zoning is consistent with the recommendation of the Future Land Use Plan for the area. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-1-6 by Robert K. Seymour for James Martin to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A to C-2. Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Divsion stating there are no engineering problems connected with this petition. Robert K. Seymour, 9210 Lathers, Petitioner: The reason for this request is that the parcel immediately to the west is one parcel, half of which is zoned C-2 and half residential. We want to unify the zoning on that piece of property. Mr. Morrow: What do you intend to put on the property? Mr. Seymour:i: We plan to put in a small retail center. My client will have his own business and two to three other stores. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you object to that being classified as parking since it is going to be used for parking? Mr. Seymour: We have no problem with that. Mr. Vyhnalek: The residents are assured then that there will be no commercial there. Robert Wyman, 20321 Shadyside: I would like to see a wall here between the residential and commercial. What will he do about the storm sewers, the one going down Shadyside? Mr. Morrow: That will be part of the site plan. Mr. Seymour: We have the right by title to go into the storm sewer via the strip of property going east from this site. He owns the property through which the easement was granted and can tie in. James Muir, 20202 Shadyside: Does this bring stability to this area? Will this establish a point where industrial and commercial will be allowed to abut the residential? FL:Mr. Morrow: That would be kind of hard since we don't know what the future holds. This is to rezone to the parking classification property which adjoins the commercial property. 9585 Mr. Muir: Erosion of this property going east is of great concern to me. There are a lot of changes happening and I am concerned that this may be a line of demarcation to end the commercial zoning and ' that the City will see no more. The Future Land Use Plan generally sets the commercial zoning in the area. The zoning lihe in some cases does not line up with property line. In this case, the zoning of this property will line up with the commercial zoning but I don't see any reason for intruding any more into the residential property. There is plenty of depth along Farmington Road to accommodate commercial zoning. The Future Land Use Plan is general but this plan won't go beyond the line that is there now. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-1-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was 3-62-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-2-1-6 by Robert K. Seymour for James Martin to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-1-6 be approved as amended to rezone the property from R-3A to P, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide a buffer or transition zone between commercial and residential uses. (2) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for development in keeping with the petitioner's proposed use of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-1-2-4 by L. N. Butcher for Amoco Oil Company requesting waiver use approval to install a car wash unit within an existing gasoline station located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads in Section 4. Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states there are no engineering problems connected with this petition. L. N. Butcher, 30230 Orchard Lake Road, petitioner: We are asking your approval for continued use of a car wash bay. We found in the last year there was a need to rebuild this facility. The present facility was built in 1957, over thirty years ago. We face-lifted it in 1969. 9586 There is a need in the car market trends to have a more streamlined gasoline pump facility. Because of the configuration 4i; of the existing building and pump islands, we are not able to meet the current demands for a facility like this. We have included a small kiosk for the owner to provide some retail items in order to compete. At the south end of the property, we plan to build an 18'x14' building for a dripping area for cars going throught the wash. It would also allow the owner to put in a dryer if he so chooses. He already has the car wash bays. He does about 30,000 car washes a month. We hope he would have an additional 700 cars per month. If you will recommend approval to allow us to rebuild this building, we will be eliminating the existing nonconforming canopies and it would allow landscaping within the property. It also eliniates a nonconforming setback of the existing building from Eight Mile Road and will allow a better stacking for cars. Mr. Duggan: You presently have 30,000 cars going through each month and what is the additional number anticipated? Mr. Butcher: We anticipate some growth of additional cars going through the wash of 500 to 700. Mr. Duggan: Your plan shows more than 16 cars stacking. Mr. Butcher: The code requires that you show stacking for 20 cars. Mr. Morrow: Do you realize you will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Butcher: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: Your plan shows 4' and 9' instead of the required 25' between the approaches. Mr. Morrow: The Zoning Board of Appeals will have to rule on that. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am all for car washes but you are coming in with a car wash and convenient store. That is a lot of traffic on that piece of property. I am not sure I can go along with all three uses. It looks over-built. I don't mind the rebuilding. Mr. Smith: I echo Mr. Vyhnalek. I am also opposed to using the curb cuts as it is today. This corner is very more heavily travelled than it was thirty years ago and I think the way it is laid out that it would be hazardous. I am in favor of the Amoco station but the car wash and the convenience store I am not in favor of. Cathy O'Connor, 20234 Pollyanna: The traffic here is horrendous. I would not like to see anything on this corner that would bring additional traffic. I understand the issue about convenience stores along with gas gas stations but there is one right there in Lawson's. ' William LaPine, 33855 Carl Drive: If there will be stacking for twenty cars on 9587 Eight Mile, I think that would be dangerous. {440 Mr. Vyhnalek: Would this be a totally self-serve operation? Mr. Butcher: It would be a full serve service station. Larry Amico, 37613 Kingsbury: The self-serve does increase the traffic at the station but the design of the site handles the traffic in a better way. This is not a conveyor car wash -- it is just an ancillary income. Mr. Morrow: The convenience store -- how would that affect it? Mr. Amico: That would be an ancillary income. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-1-2-4 closed. Ona motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #3-63-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-1-2-4 by L. N. Butcher for Amoco Oil Company requesting waiver use approval to install a car wash unit within an existing gasoline service station located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads in Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-1-2-4 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use complies with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is in violation of the special waiver use standards set forth in Section 11.03(a)(1), 11.03(a)(2) and 11.03(a)(4) of Zoning Ordinance #543. (3) The subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (4) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use and the site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it will be such that the traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-1-2-6 by Hart & Leidal requesting waiver use approval for general office uses within a building proposed to be located on the northwest corner of School- craft and Ellen Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21. 9588 1400 :Mr. Shane: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this proposal. 4Mr. Leidal, 14600 Fairlane, petitioner: The building will be a pretty good size building. I would like a little more freedom as to what I put in there. With general office, we will have a little less traffic and more opportunity to be selective on who we get in there. Mr. Vyhnalek: Will the site plan stay the same? Mr. Leidal: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: No moving of walls or doors? Mr. Leidal: No. Robert Danter, 35132 Scone: My only comment is about the potential for extending hours. A professional building has essentially 9:00 to 5:00 hours and we would like to keep it that way. We want the building to succeed but we want it to succeed during normal business hours. Leidal: I am quite sure that general office hours are usually until 5:00. Occasionally, a little later. [ Mr. Mr. Santer: I am thinking in the line of an insurance adjuster who has extended hours. Mr. Leidal: No, nothing like that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-1-2-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #3-64-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-1-2-6 by Hart & Leidal requesting waiver use approval for general office uses within a building proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Ellen Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-1-2-6 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. a (3) The proposed use complies in every respect with the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance 9589 with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. i "Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-2-8 by Red Lobster Restaurants requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middle- belt Road in Section 26. Mr. Shane: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates the assumption that the developers of the Builders Square site have obtained approval from the Michigan Department of Transportation to provide a drive approach that would service the subject restaurant site. Charles Tangora, Attorney representing the petitioner: Certain questions have been raised about the building and restaurant. It is our thought that we we would bring in the Architect because this is a different type building than has been built before. A meeting will take place tomorrow afternoon and with this in mind, we request that this petition be tabled until we have had an opportunity to sit down with the Planning staff about this building. tjMr. Morrow: Mr. Tangora, we will have to proceed with the public hearing. Mr. Smith: Why does this property set back from the property line? Mr. Tangora: It appears that that might be the Plymouth Road setback line. Mr. Morrow: I suspect it is part of the greenbelt of Builders Square. Mr. Vyhnalek: At our study session, I was troubled with the parking to the north. Why can't it just be even instead of sticking out there? Will you point that out tomorrow at your meeting.? Mr. Tangora: Yes, I will take a look at that and the overall site. Mr. Morrow: Who will own the property? Mr. Tangora: There is a agreement contingent upon the waiver use approval. Builders Square will sell the property to Red Lobster and they will be the sole owners if it is approved by the Commission and Council. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-2-8 closed. Air On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, 110 it was X #3-65-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 9590 1: 1986 on Petition 86-2-2-8 by Red Lobster Restaurants requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 86-2-2-8 until the Study Meeting of April 22, 1986. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-2-7 by Red Lobster Restaurants requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt in Section 26. Mr. Morrow: It has been indicated by the petitioner's representative that they would like this petition tabled also. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-2-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was t #3-66-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-2-2-7 by Red Lobster Restaurants requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 86-2-2-7 for further study. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #3-67-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to reconsider its action taken in Resolution #3-66-86 concerning Petition 86-2-2-8 by Red Lobster Restaurants requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in Section 26 and determines to table Petition 86-2-2-8 to a date uncertain for further study. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-3-1 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #128-86, to vacate the portion of Pembroke Avenue lying north of Lots 1 & 72 of I: Fitzgerald Gardens Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that consideration may want to be given to retaining the public right-of-way adjacent to Lot 72 as a secondary means of 9591 1: access to the proposed Whispering Willows South Golf Course, but in any event, full width easements for public utilities and surface drainage should be retained over the rights-of-way to be vacated. Also, that portion of the Pembroke right-of-way lying east of Lot 72 should be retained as public right-of-way inasmuch as the right-of-way was dedicated as part of the original plat for the Fitzgerald Gardens Subdivision. Letters in the file from Detroit Edison Company and Consumers Power indicate that they have no objections to this petition. Mr. Morrow: This was brought to the Planning Commission by a Council resolution which requested that this hearing be held on this vacating. Richard Evans, 19777 Fitzgerald: I brought it originally before the Council to vacate the easement north of my property for the reason that it would enhance my property value. I have been at this location for about six years. I believe it is actually about 43' wide. We are talking about half the street. The other half has already been absorbed by Whispering Willows. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously j adopted, it was g . #3-69-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-2-3-1 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #128-86, to vacate the portion of Pembroke Avenue lying north of Lots 1 and 72 of Fitzgerald Gardens Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-3-1 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed street right-of-way vacating would preclude any future access to abutting properties both public and private. (2) Public street rights-of-way should be retained in public owner- ship until such time as it is determined that they no longer serve any public purpose. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petitioon 86-2-6-1 by t the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 by incorporating property located along the I-275 corridor area between Six and Eight Mile Road, and Haggerty and Newburgh Roads within the control zone area. 9592 111There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, 4 Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-6-1 closed. 0 On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #3-70-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1986 on Petition 86-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 by incorporating property located along the I-275 corridor area between Six and Eight Mile Road, and Haggerty and Newburgh Roads within the control zone area, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance text will provide the City with more uniform development standards for the designated area. (2) The proposed amendment is consistent with the City's policy of paying particular attention to areas of the City with special development potential. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 4 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution I adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-1-7-1 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 designation of Norfolk and Hubbard Roads in Section 3 from collector (86 ft.) to local (60 ft.) streets. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Norman McLeod, 20209 Southampton: What are you doing here? Mr. Morrow: We are downgrading the street. Collector roads are generally wider and operate within a square mile. It is our sentiment that these roads no longer require that classification because there is not a lot of traffic to collect and carry to the mile roads. Mr. Nagy: This is for Planning purposes only. If we were using Norfolk and Hubbard Roads for collector roads, we would ask for 43' to be saved for future road. If we were going to downgrade the road, we would reserve only 30' . Mr. Hastings, 20225 Norfolk: What if the extra ten feet is required. What conditions I: may cause you to seek the extra ten feet? Mr. Nagy: We would only take 60' for new development. We would not actually take the property for existing development. We would take only an easement for possible utilities. Wo would never go 9593 a in and condemn ten additional feet. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-1-7-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #3-71-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on March 18, 1986 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 Norfolk and Hubbard Roads in Section 3 from collector (86 ft. ) to local ft.) (60 ft.) streets for the following reasons: (1) There is no present or future need for streets designated as "collector streets" in this area of the City because of the present or future population density. (2) There is no need for the subject streets to have 86' right-of-way widths in order to function as local subdivision streets. 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 a City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of 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. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: This concludes the public hearing portion of the meeting and we will now continue with the regular meeting. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #3-72-86 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 512th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on March 4, 1986 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Naidow, Smith, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ,adopted. 9594 I! j On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously I adopted, it was #3-73-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 2/21/86 from Robert L. Zeigelman regarding the conversion of a tennis facility located on the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Six Mile Road, to an office use, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 72-7-8-12 be approved subject to the following conditioons: (1) that Site Plan dated 3/6/86, marked Sheet 1, prepared by Luckenbach, Ziegelman & Partners, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to (2) that the Landscape Plan dated 3/6/86, prepared by John Grissim & Associates, Landscape Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscape materials shown on the approved plan shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. (3) that the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 5, dated 3/6/86, prepared by Luckenbach, Ziegelman & Partners which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that Condition #3 of Planning Commission Resolution #3-216-72, adopted on August 15, 1972 is hereby rescinded. 4 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #3-74-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543. the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Six Mile Road from C-2 to P.S. AND THAT, notice of such hearing be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #3-75-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-8-8 by Fred J. Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a pro- posal to construct a multi-family development on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in Sectioon 4 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 86D-635, dated 3/10/86, prepared by Affiliated I: Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 9595 (2) that the Building Elevations shown on Plan 86D-635, Sheets 2, 4, 5 and 7, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan 86D-635, Sheets lA and 2A, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and rior to (4) that the occupancy land sshallcaping be thereafterpermanentlylmaintaineded on the sineaphealthy condition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Kluver, Hildebrandt, Sobolewski, Duggan, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: Vyhnalek ABSENT: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was 1[100 #3-76-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 86-2-8-11 by Robert German requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a professional office building on the northeast corner of Farmington and Rayburn in Section 15, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan for a proposed office building by Robert German dated 3/14/86, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; ons red bert n (2) that datedthe ffic3/14/86CewhichBuilding are herebylapprovedashallybeoadheredrto; (3) that the Office Building Landscape Plan prepared by Robert German dated 3/14/86, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscape materials installed on the site prior to building occupancy; and (4) that the protective screen wall shown on the plan shall be painted on both sides in an earth tone color to match the building. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 100 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #3-77-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Sections 8.02 and 29.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City 9596 Council that Petition 86-3-8-13 by Robert Roland Bryce requesting approval of all plans in connection with a proposal to construct multi-family dwellings and housing for the elderly on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in Section 3, subject to to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 85-241, dated 3/3/86, prepared by Robert Roland Bryce, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plans 85-241AE and 85-241SE, prepared by Robert Roland Bryce, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan 223-86, Sheets 1 and 2, dated 2/10/86, prepared by Calvin Hall & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that the landscaping shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to unit occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, 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 #3-78-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning does hereby approve the Revised Site submitted in connection with Petition 85-10-8-22 by John Gargaro/ J. Anthony requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the north side of Schoolcraft between Newburgh Road and Richfield Avenue in Section 19, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Revised Site Plan 84-9-11, dated 3/18/86, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that Revised Landscape Plan 84-9-11, dated 3/18/86, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was #3-79-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby apprve Permit Application #2579 by Joseph Job for a satellite disc antenna on property located at 14369 Brentwood Avenue in Section 24, subject to the following condition: (1) that the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Permit #2579 9597 by Joseph Job which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Smith, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Morrow 1: NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was #3-80-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign Permit Application #2557 by Levan Wine Shop to erect a new wall sign on a building located at 36217 Plymouth Road, subject to the follow- ing condition: (1) that the Sign Plan as shown on Application #2557, prepared by Levan Wine Shop, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that window signs shall be limited to the one on the approved drawing. to A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Smith, Kluver, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: Hildebrandt ABSENT: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was #3-81-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application #2572 by Joe's Produce to erect a new wall sign on a building located at 33151 Seven Mile Road be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that the Sign Plan submitted with Permit Application #2572, by Joe's Produce, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Kluver, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Naidow NAYS: Hildebrandt, Morrow ABSENT: Soranno Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. t On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 513th Regular Meeting i 9598 t and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 18, 1986 was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. CIPLANNING COMMISSION .D.14- ' t.- ' 7 r Donna J. Naidow, Secretary ATTEST r R. Lee Morrow, Chairma ac