Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1985-02-19 9308 MINUTES OF THE 491st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF E LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 19, 1985, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 491st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski C. Russ Smith Donna Naidow Donald Vyhnalek Michael Duggan Jeanne Hildebrandt Members absent: Joseph J. Falk 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 which, 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. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition IF: 84-11-1-31 , as amended, by John J. Mahn to rezone property located on the north and south sides of Ann Arbor Trial , west of Newburgh in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 and RUF to C-1 and, AG and RUF to R-7. Mr. Nagy: A letter from the Engineering Division has been received indicating that Ann Arbor Trail has not been dedicated to its fullest extend adjacent to the proposed R-7 zoning and that there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service any of the proposed zoning areas. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Mahn, do your clients own the property? John Mahn, 20764 Hugo, Pontiac, representing the petitioner: By purchase agreement subject to the rezoning approval . Mr. Morrow: Did you hear anything in the Engineering report that would deter you from pursuing this petition? Mr. Mahn: We were aware of the storm sewer problem. We are in the process of granting an easement to the City so they can put in the sewer as well as widen the road. The intent of the rezoning is to put multiple dwellings in the area of R-7 as well as improving the southern property adjacent to the commercial . In December, you asked us to give you some accesses to the actual development -- a road onto Newburgh Road and cut back on the commercial . Mr. Morrow: As I recall , that petition came a few years ago and Mayflower was the developer at that time. I • 9309 Mr. Mahn: The same group but a different name. We had control of the property on the west and picked up property on the east to give us access to Newburgh Road. 9 4 Mr. Vyhnalek: What will be in the C-1 ? Mr. Mahn: One of the principals of this project just finished a clinic on Seven Mile and Farmington as well as Westmore and Seven Mile where there is a small three-store commercial strip. That is similar to what is going in here. Three or four stores, depending on the parking. Mrs. Sobolewski : Does Mayflower have anything established in Farmington or Novi ? Mr. Mahn: No. Dennis Theut, 9317 Newburgh: I am interested in knowing what you have in mind for Stonehouse and if they will put through West Chicago. Mr. Morrow: There will be no access off that property in red. Nothing off West Chicago. Either off Newburgh or Ann Arbor Trail . Mr. Theut: What kind of dividing wall will separate that from the residential? Mr. Nagy: Under the Ordinance, this is residential and accordingly there is no requirement for a wall . The site plan will regulate the ii: development of the property and the site plan will show a green- belt and landscaping in that area but no concrete wall . There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, 1 Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-11-1-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #2-18-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 84-11-1-31 , as amended, by John J. Mahn to rezone property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail , west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1 & RUF to C-1 , and AG & RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-11-1-31 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning to the R-7 classification would provide for an alternative type of housing unit desired by certain segments of the community. (2) The proposed change of zoning to the R-7 classification is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning to the C-1 classification on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail would provide for utilization of lands heretofore operated as marginal use. • • 9316 1!: (4) The proposed change of zoning to the C-1 classification on 44 Newburgh Road represents a minor extension of an existing zoning district and will provide for uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the existing and proposed uses in 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. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-1-33, as amended, by James Blain for Republic Development Corpora- tion to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from R-7 to P.S. , C-2 and P.O. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with the proposal . Charles Tangora, Attorney representing the petitioner: Mr. Blain is also here. The Commission recognizes that we tried to work very closely with the Subdivision to eliminate the impact the development will have on it. They have been very cooperative. You recognize also that our petition is being presented as a change from the original petition. This should have less impact on the subdivision. Mr. Blain will continue to work with the residents and be a good neighbor. Mr. Morrow: I concur that this is probably one of the best-studied parcels in the City. Peter Gentelia, 16221 Quakertown Lane: I am the President of the Quakertown Civic Assoc- iation. 80% of the residents were in favor of the previous pro- posal and I don't imagine any are against this proposal . Mirza Rab, 38982 Meeting House Lane: I like this proposal but there is only one thing that bothers me. What will happen to the property values? Mr. Morrow: We can't speak to property values as a result of this rezoning. At one time this petition was going to be an auto dealership. It never developed. They were then going to put in a strip center and some office. That has been modified down from there. They have come in now with a type of zoning close to the residential and compatible. How it will affect property values, I cannot tell you. Edward Hesano, 27460 Beacon Square: I own the C-2 on the corner. What do they want to put in here? They want to rezone my C-2 to office. At one time there was C-2 all around me. Mr. Morrow: In the C-2, there probably will be a restaurant. Mr. Hesano: I want to make sure that whatever goes in there will not be a competition with my plans. They would have to get approval for the restaurant? I'd Mr. Morrow: That is right. . 9311 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, 1: Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-11-1-33 closed. Mr. Duggan: I am against this but Mr. Tangora and Mr. Blain ought to be commended for the way they have worked with the neighbors which makes our job a lot easier. We appreciate that. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #2-19-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 84-11-1-33, as amended, by James Blain for Republic Development Corporation to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from R-7 to P.S. , C-2 and P.O., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-11-1-33 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding existing and proposed uses in the area. (2) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for office uses that are in demand in close proximity to interstate freeway systems and other major transportation arteries. (3) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for a variety of office and commercial services servicing both local and regional markets. (4) The proposed changes of zoning will provide additional tax 0 revenues without causing major traffic conflicts with the residents in the adjacent residential subdivision. 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, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Sobolewski , Smith, Morrow NAYS: Duggan ABSENT: Falk Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-1-1-2 by Robert German to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Doris Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from RUF to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition. There are also letters i; from the following residents indicating their opposition to this petition: Mrs. Lola L. O'Connor, 30145 Seven Mile Road; Herman Jagusch, 18616 Doris; Robert & Marguerite Sarkisian, 18651 Doris; Dara L. Hansen, 18949 Doris; Freda Thomas, 18991 Doris; Mr. and Mrs. McFall , 18948 Doris; Barbara Ann Myers, 18840 Doris; Mr. and Mrs. David Wilnorte, 18236 Doris; Virginia G. McGarr, 18914 Doris; and • • 9312 Joe & Lois DesRochers, II , 18825 Doris. Robert German, 31660 Bobrich, petitioner: I am requesting the rezoning on the basis 4 that one block to the east there is commercial zoning and three blocks to the east there is professional zoning for physicians and dentistssoffices. I was hoping to construct a medical building on the site. I purchased the property and I don't believe Seven _ Mile Road is a desirable place for a home. Mr. Morrow: When did you purchase the property? Mr. German: A couple months ago. Mrs. Sobolewski : Is it your intent to have access onto Doris? Mr. German: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski : Not on Seven Mile? Mr. German: That is right. Mr. Smith: Do you own any other property besides the area outlined? Mr. German: Yes, A, B and C, the three parcels to the south. Mr. Morrow: You are aware that this is in opposition to the Future Land Use Plan? Mr. German: No, I did not. With the commercial around me, I thought it would li: not be. Mr. Morrow: We are trying to cut off any further commercial or professional service in this area. Mr. Vyhnalek: In my opinion, I would have to call this spot zoning and we really are against this with residential on both sides. I know you have built nice buildings but I think this is a bad spot for professional service with residential on both sides. When Art Van headed west, it is my understanding that it was to stop there. As one Commis- sioner, I feel it is spot zoning and I can't go for it. Clarence Charest, Attorney, representing Mrs . Lola O'Connor: Mrs. O'Connor has been a resident in excess of 46 years and developed this subdivision and many others in the City. West from here you will find some pro- fessional service zoning. Many years ago, I represented the people who owned that property and tried then to rezone it to professional service. They said then that it was spot zoning and nothing but residential goes in there. They denied it at that time. Years later someone put in a medical clinic; a classic example of spot zoning. There is no reason to put in P.S. zoning here. You don't put P.S. zoning in the middle of residential . Mr. German bought the property as RUF and should expect to use it as RUF. Mrs. Eugene West, 18988 Doris : I submitted some letters of residents who are in opposition to this petition and there are many other people here in opposition. I 9313 Daniel Otremba, 19021 Doris: When was this property split? Mr. Nagy: Not quite two years ago. It was split since it did not comply with the minimum RUF zoning classification. Mr. Otremba: Why weren't citizens notified of this split? Mr. Nagy: Under our Ordinance, the City is not required to notify the public on a division of property. Mr. Eugene West, 18988 Doris: I built my home 32 years ago. It is a beautiful , quiet street and has a library at the end of the street. Everybody on Doris is against this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-1-1-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #2-20-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 85-1-1-2 by Robert German to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Doris in the North- east 1/4 of Section 11 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-1-1-2 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan as adopted by the Planning Commission, which plan calls for the retention of the low density residential uses of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to and not in harmony with the adjoining and neighboring residential uses of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would detract from and diminish the ongoing residential use and enjoyment of the area, and would only lead to further requests for the conversion of residentially zoned lands to nonresidential uses. (4) The proposed change of zoning is considered spot zoning in that the area under petition is relatively small and the permitted uses are unrelated to any similar type zoning or uses in the adjoining area. (5) Spot zoning is contrary to the adopted land use policies of the Planning Commission. 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. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-1-3 by Harry Van Ess to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the North 1/2 of Section 24 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . 4 Fred J. Armour, 27251 Joy Road, Dearobrn Heights: Mr. Van Ess has been at this location 9314 ten years and his business has grown considerably. He would like to expand. He hopes to upgrade the corner and will do away with all parking in the front. There will be nice landscaping in the front. When we get done, the City will be proud. This is not unique in the area. There is C-2 zoning already in the area. Mr. Morrow: You currently are a nonconforming use? Mr. Armour: That is true. Mr. Vyhnalek: The building will come out toward the road more? Mr. Armour: No, the building expansion will be to the east. Mr. Smith: Do you Intend to upgrade the front of the building? Mr. Armour: Definitely. It will be all brick. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr, Kluver, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #2-21-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 85-1-1-3 by Harry Van Ess to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the North 1/2 of • Section 24 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-1-1-3 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will make the existing use of the property compatible with the zoning district. (2) The proposed change of zoning represents only a minor extension of an existing C-2 Zoning District adjacent on the west. (3) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in 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. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-1-1-4 by Charles G. Tangora for Pama Investment & Contracting Co. , Inc. , to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A and RUFB to R-9. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division noting that there are no sanitary sewers readily available to service the sites in question. In addition, Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. • 9315 Charles Tangora, Attorney representing the petitioner: The 4-1/2 acres outlined on the screen is part of a larger development. They also have ownership of the R-7 directly to the north. Pama has had owner- ship of the property for over three years but because of conditions could not develop. They hope to develop the R-9 into a large development for senior citizens. The 4-1/2 acres is an ideal location for senior citizens because it is close to a shopping area and there will be sidewalks provided for the seniors. Mir, Morrow: Pama is the owner of the property? Mr. Tangora: They have been involved in the R-3A and R-7 for about three years. Because of the economic conditions, multiple was not very desirable. Since that time there has been a tremendous demand for multiple and they feel this is the ideal time to undertake the development. They have an option on the R-9. Plans now are to develop the R-7 and R-9 and the R-2 afterwards. Don Fink, 32400 Seven Mile Road: I recently purchased the parcel on the east with the understanding that there would be no plan for rezoning property in this area. I was surprised to find out that the two parcels next to me were up for rezoning. I believe this is spot zoning. There are questions I would like to ask about sewers and how I would be protected. If this rezoning goes through it would be a spot in the residential and I understand there is a question about rezoning some of this property to commercial . Mr. Morrow: You understand this is a rezoning for a residential classification? ' Mr. Fink: I am concerned about my property and I don't want to put a lot of money in it if I can't recoup. Mr. Morrow: To the best of my knowledge there are no petitions pending on the three lots on the west. There is on the fourth lot. Mr. Fink: If the petition did go through, arrangments would have to be made to handle the water. Another concern about places for the elderly being able to walk to the shopping center. There are no side- walks. There is no elderly person that could possible walk Seven Mile Road. I don 't agree that it is an ideal location for the elderly. And, pulling out on Seven Mile Road during the day is difficult. Carl Wades, 32330 Seven Mile Road: I am poosed to the rezoning to a home for the elderly essentially for the same reasons as Mr. Fink. I , too, am upgrading my property and have a deep concern about my property value. Resident, 19410 Ingram (Spring Valley Subdivision) : In the paper it said one-third for elderly and two-thirds for apartments. What kind of apartments? I am concerned about my property value as well . Mr. Morrow: At this time it is hard to talk about specifics as to how it will be developed but Mr. Paciocco has a track record in the City as put- ting in good developments. We will not appreciably let the property values go down. We have your best interests at heart. Resident: I have a problem with traffic. People coming down Farmington Road 9316 take many shortcuts through here. Do you ever take traffic counts? I think you should have a concern about the traffic. On the other ;1[: hand, I think this kindof development will beautify the area. Mr. Smith: How did they arrive at the need for R-9 in this area? Will this be a federally funded type project? If it was, would the City of Livonia Housing Authority have some control over the tenants? Mr. Tangora: Mr. Paciocco and his partners have been developing in the City for a long time. He perceives a need for senior citizen housing. This is a private development -- no Federal funds. No authority has been set up by the City. The R-7 also is all being marketed at market price. No assistance whatsoever. Mr. Smith: Did they have a market study to show that this is a site for senior citizens? Mr. Tangora: They have recently acquired the front portion. In addition to senior citizen housing they perceive a need for the multiple -- a combination of both. Mr. Smith: It doesn't seem like an ideal situation with the limited access to the shopping areas. I believe they will have to have substantial assets to pay the high rent that this development would require. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-1-1-4 closed. i4On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #2-22-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 85-1-1-4 by Charles G. Tangora for Pama Investment & Con- tracting Co. , Inc. , to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A and RUFB to R-9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-1-1-4 be approved for the following reasons: (1 ) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and uses of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are greatly needed in the community. (3) The proposed change of zoning and uses permitted are ideally suited to the area in that there are convenient, supporting community services of a shopping center and bank. (4) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the Planning Commission. 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. lir' 9317 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 1[0 adopted. 1 Mrs. Sobolew ki , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition -12-2-39 by Taco Bell requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Traffic Bureau indicating that the revised site plan appears to be satisfactory relative to vehicular traffic and parking pattern. There are letters from the Fire Division and Engineering Division stating there are no problems connected with the proposal . Mr. McCarty, Construction Manager for Taco Bell Restaurants: I would like to request that the Commission not make any formal decisions at this time. We have undergone a major change and have a new building we would like to put on the site. Therefore, I would like to go over the new building and aesthetics with the Planning Commission in a study session. Mr. Morrow: Based on a prior meeting, you have incorporated some traffic control and also changed your building. Mr. McCarty: Yes. liMr. Morrow: I would like to pursue the matter of tabling the petition but because it is a public hearing, I would like to see if there are any neighbors we might hear from. Mrs. Sobolewski : You did incorporate into your plan with the new construction the drive-thru that we talked about? Mr. McCarty: Yes, the new building won't change the building at all but the aesthetics will be improved. Mr. Frederick, 15042 Beatrice (Lot 74) : I am against this because of the traffic and the garbage and smell . My living room faces that way. You can go anywhere within four miles of my house to a Taco Bell or other restaurants and I don' t see the need for another. This will probably be open until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Morrow: We are aware there is no shortage of fast-food restaurants in the area. Resident, 15018 Beatrice (Lot 73) : I am opposed to this petition. Mr. Morrow: Does Taco Bell currently own this property? Mr. McCarty: It is under option. Kraig Whiting, 14980 Beatrice (Lot 72) : Some of the drive-thru restaurants are open until 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. We have one restaurant three miles away and one four miles away. There are two restaurants north of Five Mile Road. I think the noise level from the A & P Shopping Center and Harold Thomas Nursery and the audio equipment 1[# is enough and I can't imagine what it would be with a drive-thru window. 9318 ILResident, 15018 Beatrice (Lot 73) ; When trucks come in early in the morning, they make a lot of noise. The noise is getting pretty bad in this area. Resident, 14915 Beatrice: I just built a top floor. On the bottom floor you can't hear the noise on Middlebelt but you can on the top floor. Most of the businesses close at 8:00. I don't particularly care to hear what people are going to order to eat late at night . There are trees there but In the winter time there is not enough foilage to block the sound. Mrs. Frederick, 15042 Beatrice (Lot 74) : We get garbage and bags thrown on our lawn now from the Burger King. With this restaurant, what will we get? Owner of Lot 73: Will they be putting some landscaping back there? Mr. Morrow: We will require at least 20% landscaping on the site. Owner of Lot 73: What is the size of that lot? Mr. Nagy: 130' x 200' . Owner of Lot 70: I am opposed to this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-12-2-39 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was ii: RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 84-12-2-39 by Taco Bell requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the west side of Middlbelt Road, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-12-2-39 be denied for the following reasons : (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. (3) The location of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the use, the site layout and its relation to the thoroughfare giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area. (4) The proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Kluver: Obviously there is a large problem with this petition and I would like to offer a tabling resolution to look at the plan more in depth. I would table the matter until a date compatible with the petitioner and the staff. 9319 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #2-23-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 11, 1985 on Petition 84-12-2-39 by Taco Bell requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the west side of Middle- belt Road, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-12-2-39 until the Planning Commission's Study Meeting to be conducted on February 26, 1985. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski , Smith, Morrow NAYS: Hildebrandt, Naidow, Duggan ABSENT: Falk Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-1-2-2 by Midwest Moving requesting waiver use approval to locate a moving and storage business within an existing building located on the east side of Wayne Road between Industrial Road and the 1-96 Freeway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal. There is a letter in the file from J.E.S. Management Company stating that they object to this petition because they feel the corner lot is too small to support this type of use. Robert Bailey, representing the petitioner: We want to do business in that area and from my experience it is compatible with the area because there is a moving and storage company a short distance away. I have been with the company for about two weeks. Mr. Morrow: It is my understanding that there is a violation because you have moved in and are storing on the property. Mr. Bailey: I am not aware of that. Mr. Shane: On November 2, 1984, one of the Field Inspectors discovered that Midwest Moving had moved in without the necessary occupancy permit or zoning compliance permit. Several times the tenant was contacted and asked to fill out the required waiver use application. After getting no response, a violation was sent on December 17th and sub- sequently on January 18th they filed for the waiver of use . Mr. Bailey: I am not aware of that. Mr. Morrow: You have come here as a manager of Midwest Moving and Storage in Livonia and you have been with the Company for two weeks? Mr. Bailey: That is correct. lirli; 9320 Mr. Kluver: I think this would warrant a tabling resolution so we can work with the company. 1[1; Mr. Duggan: Who made the decision to move into the building? Mr. Bailey: I assume it was Mr. Bob Gardella. Mr. Duggan: Did you talk to him before you came here tonight? Mr. Bailey: I talked to him briefly. It was my understanding that I would accompany him here tonight but he had another appointment. Midwest used to be connected with Global . Mr. Duggan: I don't think we should table this and that we should deal with it tonight because they have been contacted about this according to the list of telephone calls and they didn't send a person here tonight who is knowledgeable about the problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many vehicles would be accommodated on the site? Mr. Bailey: I would say about four. Mr. Vyhnalek: And four would fill up the whole lot? Mr. Bailey: Yes, if they were all in the back lot. Mr. Vyhnalek: Where do the employees park? Mr. Bailey: Two in the front and two in the back. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many employees do you have? Mr. Bailey: There are three employees and from time to time there are ware- housemen and secretaries. Chris Kindred, 33375 Broadmoor Ct. : I leased the property for wholesale distribution for a lumber company. I purchased it and leased it to them. We had trucks come in and go out for 2-1/2 years and to my knowledge never had a complaint lodged against us. I think this operation should not present a problem and only 2-3 trucks and 2-3 cars would be parked here. Another company unloads every day on this street and I don't see why this person would be denied that. Mr. Morrow: He is here tonight because he does not have a license to operate here. Mr. Kindred: Why the company sent somebody down here who has only been with the company for two weeks, I don't know but I do think he deserves another chance and that a tabling would be appropriate. Mr. Vyhnalek: Were there any stipulations when you bought it about getting the back black-topped? Mr. Kindred: No. About half of it is black-topped. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-1-2-2 closed. 9322 get assistance from the City police to ticket these trucks and IL especially abandoned cars. The matter also increased since the Foodland has re-opened. It Is very hard for the security guard to knock on the door of a truck when the driver is in it and ask him to move the truck driver to move but we have asked for assis- tance from the City. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-1-2-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Duggan, it was #2-25-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 85-1-2-3 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to locate a threatre within a building located in the Wonderland Shopping Center on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middle- belt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-1-2-3 be approved subject to adherence to Floor Plan dated Dec. 1 , 1984, prepared by R. B. Stoy & Company, which is hereby approved and that with respect to the Site Plan, it shall be regulated in accordance with the Site and Building Elevation Plans as previously approved by Planning Commission Resolution #7-139-84 and Council Resolution #694-84, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Section 11 .03(q) of Zoning Ordinance #543 that relate to the proposed use. le (2) The site has the capacity to support the proposed use. l (3) The proposed site is appropriate for the regional shopping center complex and is in keeping with the goals and policies to help revitalize the shopping center and this area of the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions on Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Duggan, Kluver, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: Smith, Sobolewski ABSENT: Falk Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-1-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 11 .03(m) to provide for the location of rustproofing businesses as waiver uses in C-2 Districts. Mr. James T. Bender, Director, Branch Operations, Ziebart Rustproofing Company: Our problem is centered around spra'ing a particular product. These generally are brand new units that are being put on a vehicle. We do not spray or bump. I • 9321 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #2-24-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, [ 1985 on Petition 85-1-2-2 by Midwest Moving requesting waiver use approval to locate a moving and storage business within an existing building located on the east side of Wayne Road between Industrial Road and the 1-96 Freeway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-1-2-2 until the Planning Commission Study Meeting to be conducted on March 12 1985. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Naldow, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski , Smith, Morrow NAYS: Duggan ABSENT: Falk Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-1-2-3 by Schostak Brothers & Company, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to locate a theatre within a building located in the Wonder- land Shopping Center on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middle- belt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating II there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal and a letter from the Fire Marshall stating they have no objection to the petition. Michael Polsinelli , 14416 Yale, representing Wonderland Shopping Center: We have been approached for this use for the building. It will enhance the facility itself. Thomas Weldon, 20012 Orangelawn (Lot 115) : How many theatres are proposed? Mr. Morrow: Five. 400 in each. Mr. Weldon: I am against this. We have the Terrace 400 yards away and the Mai Kai at Farmington Road. The Quo Vadis is only 4-1/2 miles away. There is a theatre at Middlebelt and Ford Road. And others. There is really no need for a theatre with five screens. I also object based on the noise. With the other petition, Mr. Morrow instructed that there was to be no parking along that wall in the back of my property. I object to the traffic that late at night . At 9:30 the traffic is gone from the shopping center. With five different movies, there will be traffic coming out until at least 2:30 in the morning at five different times. And there will be doors slamming. Mr. Morrow: The Mall probably had no idea that this would be theatres, but the market is showing that it is a pretty significant business now. i Mr. Thomas: I feel this would be detrimental to the people on the north side, especially in the summer. ' Mr. Polsinelli : One of the problems we have had is the traffic problem with trucks which is definitely a problem with the Mall . We have attempted to 9323 to Mr. Kluver: You have an operation in troy and do the same as you are proposing to do here? In the City of Troy, is the zoning light industrial? Mr. Bender: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this Item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-1-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #2-26-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 85-1-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 11 .03(m) to provide for the location of rustproofing businesses as waiver uses in C-2 Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-1-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed language amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide more flexibility in the location of rustproofing bus- inesses which are not unlike other auto repair facilities already accommodated as light auto repair in the C-2 waiver use section of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The proposed language amendment will continue fp provide the City with maximum control in the location and nature of rustproofing operations through the waiver use process. (3) The proposed amendment will provide language that expressly specifies rustproofing as being included in the term light auto repair as opposed to the existing ambiguous language which is subject to interpretation. 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. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-11-6-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 18.47 by deleting the exception provided with respect to site plan approval requirements in industrial districts. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #2-27-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 19, 1985 on Petition 84-11-6-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #804-84 to amend Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 by deleting the exception provided with respect to site plan approval requirements in industrial districts, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-11-6-4 be denied for the following reasons: 9324 (1) The proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment is not in the best interests of the City of Livonia since it would tend to deter or discourage the development of the remaining industrially IL zoned land in the vicinity of Wonderland Center. (2) Any undesirable land uses which are currently permitted by right in the M-1 Zoning District can be the subject of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance so as to make them subject to waiver use approval or outright prohibited from locating within the vicinity control area. 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. On a motion duly made 4y Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #2-28-85 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 490th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 29, 1985 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Duggan, Smith, Kluver, Hildebrandt, Sobolewski , Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Naidow ABSENT: Falk Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Nagy:ii: The staff has not had an opportunity to evaluate the floor plans in connection with the next item, Petition 84-7-2-26. The petitioner is here tonight and perhaps has the floor plan but the staff has not seen it. Mr. Shane explained the site plan to the Commission in detail . On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #2-29-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 21 , 1984 on Petition 84-7-2-26 by Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive South in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-7-2-26 until the Plannning Commission's Study Meeting to be conducted on February 26, 1985. 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 #2-30-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 21 , 1984 on Petition 84-7-2-27 by Cummings, McClorey, David & Acho requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Laurel 9325 Park Drive South in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-7-2-27 until the Planning Commission's Study Meeting to be conducted on February 26, 1985. ` 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 #2-31-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located south of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from medium density residential to office. AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given ,in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, t4 it was #2-32-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located north of Six Mile Road, west of Laurel Park Drive North in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from high density residential to office. AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #2-33-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Haggerty in the West 1/2 of Section 6 from general commercial to office. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution li: adopted. I N 9326 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #2-34-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part' VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan by changing the designation of property located north of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh and the 1-275 Freeway in the South- east 1/4 of Section 6 from low density to medium density residential . AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #2-35-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 1/18/85 from John J. Juntunen, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve an extension of the approval of Petition 84-4-8-16P requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse and retail building on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Louise in Section 11 , such extension to expire on February 26, 1986, subject to all conditions attached to the original approval as set forth in Resolution #4-81-84, adopted by the Planning Commission on April 24, 1984. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution r adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 491st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 19, 1985 was adjourned at 11 :05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 2,,,___ , . Sue S`obolewski , Secretary ATTEST: ., ee R. Morro , C airman ac