Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-02-10I. • 9861 IL MINUTES OF THE 531st REGULAR MEETING 4: AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 10, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 531st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. C. Russ Smith, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with approximately 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Herman Kluver Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Michael Soranno Richard Straub R. Lee Morrow Donna Naidow Jeanne Hildebrandt Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Smith 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; J otherwise the petition is terminated. The Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after tonight. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-1-21 (rehearing) by David W. Schostak for Newburgh/Six Mile Ltd. Partnership to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.O. , C-4 and C-4II. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from Kenneth Bowden, President of the Laurel Woods Condo Association stating they have some real concerns about the rezoning requested by this petition. The primary concern is the flow of traffic these buildings will create on Laurel Park Dr. Mr. Smith: It is my understanding that these are only minor adjustments. We don't want to have another public hearing regarding the whole thing. This is bringing it up to meet the Master Plan. Mr. Nagy: Just a rehearing. We have some adjustments to meet some new property lines that are being drawn with respect to the conveyance of property from Schostak to Marriott Inns, for example, so the previously described districts for the proposed zoning changes were adjusted necessitating the rehearing but the terms of the actual usage, the heights of the buildings, the t arrangements of those buildings on the property are consistent with the previously approved plan by the Planning Commission and the City Council and the way the property is actually being developed today. • 9862 'Mr. Smith: The original plan is intact? 4 4Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Morrow: What we are doing tonight is not seriously changing the traffic? Mr. Nagy: No. What we are really doing tonight is changing the zoning of C-2 district to actually reflect the actual usage of the property. Back in June or July of 1986, in order to expedite the development of Laurel Park and to facilitate the development of Jacobson Stores and Marriott Inn, etc. the developer, in order to accelerate that, chose to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and get variances from the height limitations of C-2 district. He was successful in getting those height variances and a building permit was issued for Jacobson stores. What we are doing tonight is adjusting the zoning to actually reflect the heights of the buildings that were approved. It is a housekeeping chore only. Whether this zoning goes through tonight or not the project will go forward. Mr. Straub: To what body would homeowners' association address their concerns? Mr. Smith: We had public hearings in regard to that and all questions were 10 answered. 4 Mr. Nagy: Those kinds of concern are always part of a rezoning hearing. The public is concerned. Those concerns should be directed to the Traffic Commission and Engineering Department. Petitioner was not present: Jack Fuller, Laurel Woods: I have heard many comments this evening with respect to previous hearings as it relates to this rezoning. I moved in here in October 1985. I received my very first notice, this one right here, related to this meeting. It was my understanding when I purchased a condo in Laurel Woods that much of this property was zoned commercially at, my understanding, a two-story level. This was a complete shock when I found buildings going 4 stories, 6 stories, 8 stories, whatever. As a property owner I am very much concerned. You touched upon some of these subjects in your conversation already, in particular the dilemma that we are going to have from a transportation standpoint - a traffic jam I might say. You talk about street lights, so on. Yes, street lights will stop traffic. It will allow traffic to move. It is not going to eliminate congestion. I am not sure just what emphasis are going to be allowed on Laurel Park Drive from the area that I guess you would relate to P0-2, P0, C2 and C-4. All of this traffic coming from commercial buildings is going to be allowed to pour out on a residential street. There is going to be a tremendous amount of congestion. In addition, as a property owner I have a very serious concern as to what this is going to do to my property at t • 9863 some point in time when I would like to sell it because I feel that the property values are going to depreciate primarily because of the intense commercialism that is being allowed to be built up in an area that is primarily residential and in Mr. Bowden's letter he did relate to roughly 500 units involving the four condo associations, approximately 1,000 people who have a substantial investment in their property and they are very much concerned with respect to what is going to happen to the property values. Are they going to degenerate to the extent that we would be fortunate to get our dollar back as opposed to some reduced value? Mr. Smith: You understand these things have already been done? All of this zoning has already been approved. We have had previous meetings, previous public hearings, and all we are doing now is realigning the lines of a project that has already been approved. Mr. Fuller: What you are saying I am sure is true. God knows where I was when this was decided. I am not sure. You can correct me if I am wrong, that this was going to go from two stories to four stories to six stories to eight stories. I never had that understanding. I did understand that much of this property was zoned commercial but not to the extent that I was notified. This was first time. Mr. Smith: It takes a while for you to get on tax role. What is the 1 standard Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: The notification requirement for a change of zoning is 500 feet. There is also a hearing required for the Zoning Board of Appeals. When Schostak Brothers took the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, their requirement is for 300 feet and you are within 500 feet area but apparently short of 300 foot requirement so therefore you weren't notified of the hearing by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Fuller: That sounds very complex. I would like to ask one question. When I first moved here, about a year and a half ago, it was strictly residential. Now I am not sure what the motivation is from the standpoint of the City Council of Livonia. They may be extremely interested as far as tax base is concerned from standpoint of having an extensive amount of commercial property as opposed to residential property. If that is going to be the motivating factor then I am not sure really if we are just going through a little play on words here. This could be cast in concrete. I have the feeling this is true. I have some very serious concerns as a resident living in this particular area. I happen to be on Board of Laurel Woods. I am speaking as an individual person who has a serious concern about what is iv happening. It is probably not appropriate, at this meeting, to bring up two notices I received today concerning area around golf course. i 9864 ' Mr. Smith: The 24th Sir. I understand and I appreciate your concern. 110 Again I have to say this project has already been approved. We are only realigning the lines of the project. You would probably be interested in all of the minutes. This has come on for 14 years. The concerns you brought up were brought up during the first meetings. Mr. Fuller: There was a very interesting article in Free Press or News within the last week and they related to various communites, namely Southfield, Troy, Sterling Heights, Livonia. The same problem. I happened to move from Southfield to this area when I saw this happening in Southfield. I saw a tremendous development of office space with only about 50% occupancy. I am wondering if we are creating the same kind of monster in this area. Mr. Smith: I can't answer that. Mr. Soranno: I can sympathize with your concerns about traffic. You probably are going to notice a difference when that is up. That whole section between Six and Eight Mile Road is skyrocketing. What I suggest to you, as far as property value, that you may find yourself pleasantly surprised. IL Mr. Fuller: I think much of what you are saying is correct. When I first heard that Jacobson was developing at Six Mile and Newburgh my first thought was this could have a positive impact on property value and then when I became more and more aware I began to think on negative side. Helen Duce, Aspen Place: We were here at all the meetings and as I remember at that time we knew about these buildings but I thought height limits were going to be two and four with possibility of six but we never heard anything about approval. My one question is that at that time we had such a big hassle about parking space. If you are going to raise those buildings, that is going to bring in more people. Where are they going to get the parking? Mr. Smith: You remember they are going to have a parking garage. Mr. Vyhnalek: The final plan was six stories and three stories for parking. Mrs. Duce: They just had a quick passage so Jacobsons could get started. Mr. Smith: They had to meet our parking requirements. Frank Kirby, 18247 University Dr. , President of Wood Condominiums: This property was previously proposed for rezoning. Mr. DiPonio came in for the rezoning and there was a great deal of reluctance. He was determined to make it C-2. As a consideration to C-2 zoning, there was just one entrance off Newburgh Road into complex. There were free standing homes on east side of Newburgh. At 9865 1!: this point in time no particular thought seems to be given to condo owners. Let me explain to you a condo owner is a person who owns his home. He does not consider himself an apartment dweller. He owns a single family unit. His concerns and desires are the same as the person on the east side of Newburgh. We that live in these condos-have a feeling that we are not considered for what we really are -- homeowners, tax payers, voters, residents that have lived here for 25 - 30 years and had our own homes when it came time to move into condos. They tell me there was a site plan approved years ago. I recognize that nothing we say here tonight is going to change outcome. I guess the reason I am here tonight there is another development proposed east of us. I want to, at this time, tell you that we expect the same consideration in the future developments that was given to the people on the east side of Newburgh. This berm serves no reason other than to protect these people on the east side of Newburgh. We feel that we have the right to expect the same protection and the same consideration you would give to a free standing neighborhood. Mr. Smith Thank you for coming. I think you recall during past public hearings we spent extra time with condo owners. We do not feel they are second class citizens. I believe we spent some extra time to accommodate the condominium landscaping. 1[000 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, 4 Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #2-26-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 86-5-1-21 (rehearing) by David W. Schostak for Newburgh/Six Mile Ltd. Partnership to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.O. , C-4 and C-4II, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-5-1-21 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changes in zoning will provide zoning districts that accommodate the proposed uses on the subject parcels. (2) The proposed changes in zoning will assist in the implementation of the Future Land Use Plan recommendation for the subject land area. (3) The proposed changes in zoning are 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. tMr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • 9866 Airs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-10-1-31 4 (rehearing) by Suad Shatara to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in Section 32 from RUF to R-7. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating Newburgh Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60 ft.) adjacent to the subject parcel in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. In addition, if the site is developed as a multiple-dwelling area, there are no City storm sewers readily available to service the site. The petitioner was not present. James Hollowell, 26825 Ann Arbor Tr. : I want to state my feelings that I think a multiple dwelling there would ruin the character of the neighborhood. We already have a new development on the west side of Newburgh Road - apartments - and it is a non-fenced area. I get a fair amount of traffic through my yard because of school facilities and I feel that to put multiple dwellings in this area would create more traffic and ruin the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Morrow: Has the petitioner contacted you? ILMr. Hollowell: No, he has not. Neil Sudendorf, 9116 Newburgh: Like the other gentleman said it is all RUF, both sides, with the exception of the American Legion Hall. Why change it? I have many traffic problems with the school much less apartment complexes. I would like to see it remain RUF. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-10-1-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #2-27-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 85-10-1-31 (rehearing) by Suad Shatara to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail in Section 32 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-10-1-31 be denied for the following- reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is not in the best interests of the City of Livonia because it represents spot zoning which is contrary to good land use and zoning practice. (2) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that are prevalent in the area since two similar but larger multi-family projects were approved in the area last year. (3) The proposed change of zoning will not promote an orderly and logical development of the lands along Newburgh Road as envisioned by the Future Land Use Plan. 9867 (4) The proposed change of zoning would not be a comprehensive solution to the development of land 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-53 by Michael Southers to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt, south of Terrence Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the, Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this proposal. There is also a letter in the file from James Kline stating his opposition to this petition. Michael Southers, 18555 Bainbridge: I would like to add a couple of things. The reason I am asking for this change, I am planning to put in a restaurant and I would like to have a submarine sandwich shop. I would like to have seating. People at lunch time like to have a place to go and sit down. Correct me if I am wrong, but with the C-1 use I could still have a sandwich shop. I just want to put seats in there. IL Mr. Morrow: I can appreciate where you are coming from but this is spot zoning within a C-1 district. That is what we are talking about here tonight. I cannot support this on the basis of spot zoning and set a precedent. The proposed use is a waiver in C-2. Mr. Southers: Could I still apply to operate a submarine sandwich shop? Mr. Morrow: In a C-1 you could have a take out food restaurant but no seats. Whether or not you could appeal that I do not know. We go to Zoning Board of Appeals to get out of hardship. Mr. Soranno: Is this the only center you have explored? Mr. Southers: I have explored others but all other centers have exclusive rights to pizza or the rent is more than I can afford. Perry Sutfin, 29366 Terrence: I am strongly against this. We have one sub shop already there and I am tired of picking up rubbbish. I think changing it to C-2 is putting your foot in the door. Mrs. Opalinski, 29100 Terrence: The people who owned property when it was P.S. requested C-2. They were denied and the owner had come up to me after meeting and he said he didnt think C-2 would go through but he wanted C-1 so that is why he asked for C-2. I don't know if it is the same owner or not. It is not what he proposed. Mr. Smith: He will have to live up to plans. It is coming along. 9868 5 Mrs. Opalinski: The whole thing is they tell you one thing and then they come back with something else but I am against restaurant in that area. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-53 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #2-28-87 RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-53 by Michael Southers to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt, south of Terrence Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-53 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning represents spot zoning which is contrary to good planning practice. (2) The proposed change of zoning would invite similar petitions for a change in zoning on adjoining property to the C-2 classification and thus erode the local commercial character of the shopping center. liP0 (3) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses which are not in character with the surrounding 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-54 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Myrna Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16 from P.S. to R-3. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this proposal. Pamela Bacon: I just want to tell you that I think it is an excellent idea and it will be real nice. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-54 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously approved, it was #2-29-87 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-54 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to 9869 Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Myrna Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of 4 Section 16 from P.S. to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-54 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. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide a zoning district which reflects the existing residential use of the property. (3) The proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends low density residential land use for the subject 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-1-2-1 by Malak Associated, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto repair facility on the east side of Middlebelt, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 liof Section 25. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating they note that Middlebelt Road has not been dedicated to ' its fullest extent (60 feet) adjacent to the subject site in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. In addition, there are no City maintained sanitary sewers or storm sewers readily available to service the site. Charles Tangora, representing Petitioner: The petitioner, who is actually Auto Village, has picked this site after a lot of study. The concept is very new but in other parts of the country has been proven to be successful. As you can see it is right next to the Cadillac plant and across from the Ford plant, a possible source of business. We feel the type of operation they are going to have is strictly auto service, no retail. One of the things that we have asked for in the petition is a 60 feet setback in M-1 district for two reasons, it gives us a better visibility to the traffic that drives up and down Middlebelt and also moves it towards the west 40 feet from residential development. The type of usage is auto service, tune up, possibly a muffler shop, install tires. Things in that nature. No retail type of store where you have people coming and and buying things. I would like to have Mr. Malak come forward just to review the site plan and rendering. They have developed this after driving around the country. Mr. Smith: Did you hear anything that would surprise you in the letter from Engineering Division? 4 Mr. Tangora: No sir. 9870 John Malek, 24725 W. 12 Mile, Architect for Developer: As Mr. Tangora has mentioned earlier, this is a concept that has been developed, and I hopefully will be repeated in this state. The concept will not only fit into your community but in other places in the state. We have tried to dress the building up. We have added a more residential look so it can fit into residential area. We have tried to control this site so users would offer a clean and well maintained parking lot and operation. We have a fenced in location which will be shielded from residential area by a 6 foot high wall. We are setting back approximately 300 feet from Middlebelt and there is a building that will shield any parking that will occur overnight. We have attempted to try to offer Livonia landscaping in accordance with the ordinances and we believe that the use in this particular zoning is appropriate to the zoning. If you have any additional questions, we will be happy to answer them at this time. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any interest in property to south? Mr. Malek: The developer or owner only owns that portion that crosses between the lines. Mr. Morrow: Do you have option to purchase. Mr. Malek: There is a purchase agreement in effect on that property. Mr. Soranno: I have mixed feelings about this property. A couple of questions that maybe you could answer. I believe in the auto I[: parts, in your previous concepts, you included a transmission shop. Could you do that also. Mr. Malek: I think we have to separate the two proposals That was to be constructed in a commercial area. This particular automobile center is being developed to house service types of operation. At this time we are opening up to batteries, tune ups, etc. Purely for service. Mr. Soranno: Briefly describe your storage of parts. Mr. Malek: We do have space on site between two buildings. This area is shielded from traffic and residential area. In addition we are also looking for some area behind buildings. Mr. Soranno: What about storage of overnight vehicles? Would that be in back? Mr. Malek: The area that is fenced would allow for overnight storage (Mr. Malek pointed out area on map). Mr. Soranno: Do you know the distance between the nearest resident to easterly part of building? t Mr. Nagy: 195 feet - depth of lot. Corner of building to back of lot line is approximately 70 feet. 9871 1[Mr. Soranno: One of the things I was thinking about is rather than ask for a waiver, why couldn't you just use some of this from the back and put it in front? Mr. Malek: The site has been studied. The rectangular parcel of land will support only a rectangular building. We have to offer something for the tenant to keep them alive. Mr. Morrow: Should zoning be approved and you should go forward with project and you do back up to residential area, what would be your hours of operation? Mr. Malek: We are not requesting a change of zoning. It is my understanding that zoning is appropriate. Mr. Morrow: What would your hours of operation be? Mr. Malek: I would assume the hours would be the hours that are established by other businesses. Mr. Smith: Would I be right if I said they would be shopping center hours? Mr. Malek: Possibly. Laurie Schwartz, 11903 Haller: I am directly behind proposed building. I am very li: much opposed to it because I feel there is very little privacy. All we have is our woods to keep us from Middlebelt. A 6 foot wall is not a pretty sight to see. We are concerned with the automotive nature of it. There are already two automotive repair facilities on Middlebelt. They are not always that busy. I do not know that they would do all that great a business there. Haller Street is already being used as a test track. We are afraid that this facility will also come around corner and use our street. We are concerned about the trash. We feel closed in. I am very much opposed and I know my neighbors are though they couldn't be here with me tonight. Mr. Vyhnalek: What was the noise level during the summer with the kids playing minature golf? Ms. Schwartz: We hear it a few times but all we had to do was call them. We really don't hear the noise. The trees really do help us. There is a lot of crime especially with Wonderland. People cut through woods after doing some robbery at Wonderland mall. Mr. Kluver: I look upon this as an area where the vision of the City was defined as M-1 zoning industrial belt. I look upon that as an area where we have traditional M-1 and look upon it as a traditional development. Now is the time when we should have prudent use of that area and this project does not support this type of use. 9872 Mr. Morrow: This is one of the petitions where you anguish. I agree with Mr. Kluver but I am sure we are not going to have minature golf there forever and I am going to vote in favor of granting this waiver. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #2-30-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 87-1-2-1 by Malak Associated, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto repair facility on the east side of Middlebelt, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-2-1 be approved subject to the granting of variances with respect to front yard setback and landscaping requirements by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the following conditions: (1) That the Site Plan, including building elevations, marked project 8622 dated 1-7-87 prepared by Malak Waitkus Associated, Inc. , Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3 (3) That retail sales is prohibited, except as an accessory to an auto repair facility. for the following reasons: (1) That all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543 have been complied with. (2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9873 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was . #2-31-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules _ of Procedures requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 87-1-2-1 by Malak Associated, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an auto repair facility on the east side of Middlebelt, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-1-2-2 by Harold Thomas Nursery requesting waiver use approval to utilize property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile Road in Section 23 for the rental of Ryder Trucks. Mr. Nagy::4 IL There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in our file from homeowner Kenneth Morden of 29426 Linda Ave. stating he is opposed to this petition. We also have a letter from homeowner Kathryn E. Nell of 29438 Linda stating she does not support this petition. Larry Thomas, 14925 Middlebelt: We had Ryder trucks for three years and we parked them in my shop. We have red trucks and yellow trucks. Ours are a little bit bigger. Mr. Smith: How many trucks do you own? Mr. Thomas: All together we have 30. We keep two or three Ryder trucks during week but on big holiday weekends we have eight or more. We shuttle them back and forth. They are in back not out front where you can see them. Mr. Smith: You have 30 trucks? Mr. Thomas: Not all of them are Ryder trucks. Mr. Soranno: Are trucks used for your business. Mr. Thomas: We use them in spring. I used to rent them for my own use in Mr. Soranno: spring. We use two or three ourselves in spring. The remainder? It is another business for you? Mr. Thomas: 1 Yes. • 9874 Mrs. James Purkiss, 29552 Linda: We have been suffering from dirt and filth from the nursery and no trees and I am sure he knows that. However, we 1[: are talking trucks tonight. Everyone knows the traffic on Middlebelt. It is bad enough to have all the trucks. We have to expand but we don't have to have yellow Ryder trucks setting out in front of the nursery and backing in and out. It is getting so we can't sit in our yards. It is too noisy. We are retired and we don't need this harassment. I can't understand what Ryder trucks has to do with a nursery. I can understand the big red trucks, which are beautiful and I really don't object to them. I think something should be done. Mayor Brashear said Livonia would be a beautiful city. I hope you folks will do something about this. Mrs. Milek, 29464 Linda: Our back yard is adjacent to lot. We moved here in 1959. Our living room and den are in back and all we see are these great big yellow trucks. We love our back yard and all we see are these Rider yellow trucks. I don't think we should have to live with this. Before it was beautiful with evergreens and trees so then he moved the evergreens over to the Taco Place and puts in Ryder trucks. What is next? Thank you. Mrs. Geistert, 29610 Linda: I live in the second house from nursery. We get all the noise and dirt. There are piles of dirt all around. I wish someone would go and look at his property in back. It is a complete contrast to front. With all the trucks you have there already, Ryder rental trucks is one more thing to contend with. I can't take a nap in the afternoon. There are mornings when we are woke up early Saturday and Sunday mornings. Who needs Ryder rental trucks too. Mrs. Sobolewski: Give me an example of how many Ryder trucks you see during week? Mrs. Geistert: 5 or 6. But to be honest, sometimes they are parked by the piles of dirt. There was supposed to be a greenbelt. I haven't had much cooperation when I have asked him to do other things. He has even yelled "get off my property." The whole nature of it has changed. I don't know if any of you have come and looked at it from the back. Mr. Thomas: One comment. Bill McDonald recommended putting the dirt up. Mr. Vhynalek: Why do you chose the south end instead of the north end for Ryder trucks? Why don't you put them next to Taco Bell? Mr. Thomas: For the last 15 years we have had our driveway on that side and I cannot afford to change the driveway. Mrs. Hildebrandt: Question for Donna. Did you state there was supposed to be a greenbelt. Mrs. Geistert: There was supposed to be a greenbelt along Beatrice side. 9875 Mr. Thomas: We meet every recommendation that the Zoning Board gave us and it was inspected by Bill McDonald. Mrs. Hildebrandt: You stated Bill McDonald told you to put the pile of dirt there? Mr. Thomas: Yes, it would be a good barrier. Ruth Walker, 29568 Linda: I have not lived there as long as some people. I moved in there ten years ago and when I moved in Harold Thomas Nursery was there and I thought it was an addition to the rest of my back yard because you could not see the ground level of nursery. Now the grade level is much higher. You see the trucks coming. I can look in that way and I still can see. There is a big difference in my yard and it is much more dirtier. I put glass in porch but all my neighbors complain about the dirt. When we sit in living room this is what we see. It has changed in ten years. I don't know whose fault it is. Pretty soon the kids can ski off this. If I were in business I would like to try and help my neighbors enjoy their scenery. It just seems to me there should be a better rapport here. Theodore Milek, 29464 Linda: I am related to the other lady who was here. We share the same bed together. She is my wife. I just want to say a picture is worth 10,000 words. I invite this Board, and you Larry Thomas, to come to my house and see what we see every day looking out the window towards the property with these huge yellow trucks. These trucks are twice as high as the trucks he uses for his nursery. In addition to this I would like to find out for sure just exactly what this petition is for. Does that include the 20 foot high stack of wooden pallets you have stacked up there? Mr. Smith: No. Mr. Milek: He has them piled in southwest corner, about 20 feet high. That is another ugly sight. What are you going to do with this Mr. Thomas? Mr. Thomas: I hope to use them. Mr. Milek: When the original Mr. Thomas was there it was a beautiful place It appears that since Larry has taken over, things have taken a turn for the worse. I am opposed. Mrs. Sobolewski: If he moved the trucks to any other location on the spot, would that satisfy you? Mr. Milek: : I think you hit the nail on the head. I would like to sit down with him about moving. If he could consider an outsider's view. Would you want to do that Mr. Thomas? 10; Mr. Thomas: We have been in front of City Council. I have done everything I was suppose to do. 9876 Mr. Milek: I am opposed to that. 1[ a Mr. Vyhnalek: You said you could move them to center of property. Could you point that out. Mr. Thomas pointed area out on map. Mr. Vynnalek: How far from where you are now? Mr. Nagy: North by 200 feet. Mr. Morrow: Harold Thomas Nursery was here before I moved in and I am sure he has a prosperous business and what we are faced with tonight is Ryder trucks being rented on Middlebelt Road. There is another request for Ryder trucks on Plymouth. I voted against that one on Plymouth. The only difference between that petition and this petition, this petition is even more closer to residential area and for that reason I can't support petition but I respect Mr. Thomas' right to request it. Phil Pepera, 29536 Linda: I oppose this petition and agree with Mrs. Purkiss and Ted and the others. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-2-2 closed. ILOn a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #2-32-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 87-1-2-2 by Harold Thomas Nursery requesting waiver use approval to utilize property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile Road in Section 23 for the rental of Ryder Trucks, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-2-2 be denied for the following reasons: (1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general standards set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) That the proposed use is incompatible with the adjacent residential uses in the area. (3) That the proposed use will cause additional traffic to and from the site such that it will overburden the site and the adjacent major thoroughfare. 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: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None 9877 El Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-6-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.02(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 2.08(10) and (11) by amending the definitions regarding mobile homes. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously approved, it was #2-33-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Petition 86-12-6-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.02(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 2.08(10) and (11) by amending the definitions regarding mobile homes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-6-4 be approved for the following reason: (1) The proposed amendment will bring the City of Livonia's Zoning Ordinance into compliance with State Law with respect to the definitions of terms relating to Mobile Homes and Mobile Home developments. 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat for Mayflower Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating there appears to be no problems connected with this proposal. We also have a letter in the file from the Fire Division stating they have no objections to this development and a letter from the Wayne County Office of Public Services stating the project does not access a county right-of-way and therefore their office has no interest in this development. John Mahn, Agent for Mayflower Development: I have nothing to add. Mr. Smith: We have one question from the preliminary study. The house that is already located on subdivision plot and how it is shaped and is there someone living in there now? Mr. Mahn: They put close to $60,000 into home. They are going to refurbish home. 9878 'Mr. Smith: Would house look out of place there? I understand front of house faces Gill Road. Have they already remodeled the face of the house. Mr. Mahn: The house itself is quite old and it is build on southern plantation type of house. The front yard would be first lot. Mr. Smith: Is there a door facing subdivision street? Mr. Mahn: Yes. Mr. Smith: Is door well done? Mr. Mahn: They haven't touched exterior yet. Mr. Smith: It came up that maybe it would look out of place. Do you think so? Mr. Mahn: The Mayflower Development Company doesn't think so. There was some thought that the house would be less in value but other than that the people who bought it said they would match in color, sort of earth tone. Mr. Vyhnalek: You mean that house is going to face to west and next house is going to face north so they will be looking right into the side of their house. IL Mr. Mahn: Lot 9 and 10 go together. Mr. Nagy: Why create two lots, when one larger lot is all that is needed? Mr. Mahn: I did not make that up. Mr. Vyhnalek: Can you change that? Can we make that a provision. Mr. Nagy: Absolutely, the preliminary plat can be changed to make one larger lot. Victor Moccia, 34374 Fonville: I enjoy the trees but I know we can't hold up progress. My personal opinion I like the property the way it is. We have a serious problem with water pressure in that area. During summer I cannot do more than one thing at a time. There may be some serious problems with the addition of 12 more homes. Mr. Smith: I think the Engineering Department will handle that. Mr. Moccia: They are welcome to come to my house and see there is a problem with the water. to Mr. Smith: You should call the Water Department. This will not affect your water. Mr. Nagy: I would urge you to talk to the Water Department. 9879 ILRobert Labadie, 19509 Norwich: I have two questions. What kind of house will be built on property. Is it the same type of homes that are there? The second question, what will happen to the trees? Will the builder try to preserve trees? Mr. Smith: I'm sure the answer to that is positive. Bill Russo, Builder, 35345 W. Seven Mile Road: The proposed houses that are going in subdivision will be approximately 1600 square feet. Prices will start $110,000 - $150,000 . Any developer that knows his business will keep the trees. They will be brick homes. Mr. Morrow: What is zoning district? Mr. Nagy: R-3. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat for Mayflower Estates Subdivision closed. Mr. Morrow: I offer approving resolution provided when final plat comes back lots 9 and 10 which contain existing home be revised to show one larger lot. IL Mr. Kluver: I would also suggest in final plat significant number of trees be tagged so they would remain and construction would be monitored by Inspection Department. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #2-34-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 10, 1987 on Preliminary Plat for Mayflower Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Preliminary Plat for Mayflower Estates Subdivision be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed preliminary plat complies with all applicable Ordinances and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. (2) The proposed preliminary plat provides a reasonable solution to the development of the subject land. AND, that to the extent possible all existing trees located outside of home building sites and roadways are to be preserved. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. } Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9880 Mr. Smith announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and 4 the Commission will proceed with the regular meeting agenda. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-35-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on January 27, 1987 for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, the same is hereby amended by changing the designation of property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between I-275 and Newburgh from medium density residential to office, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed land use designation will encourage uses that are compatible with surrounding existing and proposed development in the area. (2) The proposed land use designation of general office complies with the locational characteristics of office use as found in the Planning Commission's adopted Goals and Policies for development. (3) The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan is in keeping with the developing character of lands along the I-275 Freeway corridor. f 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 Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-36-87 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 south side of Grand River Avenue west of Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P. FURTHER that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. r 9881 4100 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously to adopted, it was 1 #2-37-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Canterbury Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Shadyside Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat is drawn in conformance with the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) All financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. (3) The Department of Engineering and Building recommends approval of the Final Plat. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-38-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 530th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings CO held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 1987 are approved. ILMr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-39-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-8-64 by Aldo Liberatore requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads in Section 12, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #86-355, Sheet 1 prepared by Melonio and Ugorcak, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (2) That Building Plan #86-355, Sheets 2 & 3 prepared by Melonio and Ugorcak, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (3) That Landscape Plan #86-355, Sheet 1 prepared by Melonio and Ugorcak, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed on site prior to building occupancy. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 531st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Donna J. Naidow, Secretary ATTEST: C. Russ Smith, Chairman jg 9881 • (2) All financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. (3) The Department of Engineering and Building recommends approval of the Final Plat. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-38-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 530th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 27, 1987 are approved. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-39-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-8-64 by Aldo Liberatore requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads in Section 12, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #86-355, Sheet 1 prepared by Melonio and Ugorcak, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (2) That Building Plan #86-355, Sheets 2 & 3 prepared by Melonio and Ugorcak, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (3) That Landscape Plan #86-355, Sheet 1 prepared by Melonio and Ugorcak, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be installed on site prior to building occupancy. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 531st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. iir)-61-Y"4—a s Zr-1.-cr' Donna J. Naidow, ecretary /C3A)12°'Q) Z14 ATTEST: C. Russ Smith, Chairman j8