Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-03-24 9905 MINUTES OF THE 534th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 24, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 533rd 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 approx- imately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Herman Kluver Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Michael Soranno Richard Straub Donna Naidow Jeanne Hildebrandt Members absent: *R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, 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; otherwise the petition is ilitterminated. 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 87-1-1-1 by Thomas E. Goebel to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from RUF to R-1 and P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the petitioner, acknowledged and agreed to by Mrs. Ethel Spens, requesting that the petition be amended to have the south 360 feet zoned in the R-1 zoning classification, and the north 250 feet in the P.S. What that would do is have the line separating the R-1 and P.S. zones even with the zoning line of the property to the west. There is a letter in the file from Larry G. Ehlers, owner of Lots 62 and 63, and from Ervin A. Ehlers, owner of Lots 52 through 61, stating that they have no objection to the rezoning proposal. There is also a letter in the file from the Engineering Division noting that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent of 60 feet, and that they have no objection to the petition from an engineering standpoint. Thomas E. Goebel, 28200 Seven Mile Road: I want to confirm that the six lots to the west are residential and that my plans would be to develop the six lots in back in residential. The drawings will show a dedication of tan additional 30 feet along Harrison to expand it from a 30 foot to a 60 foot right-of-way. This will allow for development and continue to let people building down there. I have a tentative agreement with the neighbor to east for a temporary easement. • 9906 Mrs. Sobolewski: The letter from Mrs. Spens -- she would like to see the line of this P.S. zoning line up with the first lot? ILMr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you understand that, Mr. Goebel? Mr. Goebel: Yes, I am purchasing the property from her. John Hunt, 19004 Brentwood: My complaint would have been that I didn't want to see the P.S. going behind my lot but that line has been moved up and it is more acceptable to me. Does anybody have any idea of how deep these lots are and if they are big enough to have a street and lots? Mr. Nagy; The petitioner is providing 30 additional feet to expand Harrison Avenue. The lots would be 60' x 134' . Mr. Hunt: If they develop that corner in professional service, would the require- ments of the City require them to build a wall? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Hunt: I have no objection then. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-1-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #3-57-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-1-1-1, as amended, by Thomas E. Goebel to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from RUT' to R-1 and P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-1-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan recommendation for the area. (2) The proposed zoning districts will prevent any further westerly expansion of commercial zoning along Seven Mile Road. (3) The proposed zoning districts are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and uses in the area. (4) The proposed P.S. Zoning will provide a transition or buffer zone between Seven Mile Road and the residential uses to the south. 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. li., Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-1-1-2 by B. Roland Adams to rezone property located on the north side of 4 9907 Schoolcraft Service Drive, west of Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, from R-1 to P.S. IL Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states states that they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. There is also a letter in the file from Mr. and Mrs. Young who state that they object to this petition and to any solid brick or stone fence. They state their concern that the owner may attempt to have the property rezoned to commercial in the future. B. Roland Adams, 17550 W. Outer Drive, Dearborn Heights: The property fronts on Schoolcraft which is 90% commercial and professional service. I feel the property is best suited for professional service and I would like to develop a professional service building there. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you down the property? Mr. Adams: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you owned it? Mr. Adams: A couple years. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you try to buy any other vacant property to the east? Mr. Adams: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: You realize that the property to the east has been before us and the IEW Council before and was shot down? Mr. Adams: Yes. These are unusual lots. 400 feet deep. I believe it was planned for an Elks hall at one time. Mr. Vyhnalek: This would be spot zoning right in the center. - When I look at it now, I am not convinced otherwise. Mr. Adams: There is some P.S. to the east. Mr. Vyhnalek: I realize that. Mr. Kluver: Does the Future Land Use Plan specify this type of category? Mr. Nagy: The future Land Use Plan reflects the established use of the area which is low-density residential. Mr. Kluver: There is a Future Land Use Plan which is used to plan commercial and residential businesses. This land is planned for residential and this proposed development is in conflict with the plan. Mr. Soranno: Have you made any attempt to develop this for residential purposes? Mr. Adams: No, there is a home on it now that I rent out. I would hope to develop a professional service building. I felt this parcel had very good possibilities for professional. I don't think too many people are interested in building homes on the Freeway. i 4 9908 Mr. Kluver: There has been residential development in recent years, very success- ful single family homes. Paul Overmyer, 37619 Summers: I oppose this petition. There are homes on both sides of this already. I agree that the homes are close to the Freeway but they are occupied homes. This is not on the corner but right in the middle. I believe that rezoning this is really not relavent. There is a lot of vacant commercial buildings in the area. I don't think the character of our neighborhood has changed to the extent that re- zoning is being compelled by anything at this time. It is now a Freeway Service Drive and not as desirable a location for homes as it might have been but I don't think the area has reached the point where it should be bulldozed down. I believe smaller houses could be developed. Jack Parinello, 38100 Schoolcraft: I purchased my home three years ago and enjoy it. I have had some problems being on a surface drive but I don't mind it. If they make that into a commercial type of office building, it will increase the traffic. You can't get on the Freeway from that area without literally going across Schoolcraft against the traffic. I think it would be unsafe being there. We also have across the street several almost vacant buildings which could be used for commercial type business. I don't think you are doing anybody any favor by load- ing the area with empty office buildings. Gerald Delisle, 37645 Summers: I object to this. I am concerned with this vacant property but I felt comfortable that the City would not build some 1[0 commercial building there. I agree with Paul. Ronald Pelley, 37593 Summers: I live on the corner and I agree with everyone else. I bought the house last March. With that size lot, if it is a large building it is going to bring in a lot more traffic and a parking lot in the back would encourage more vandalism in our area with the alley- way. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-1-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted. #3-58-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987, on Petition 87-1-1-2 by B. Roland Adams to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Service Drive, west of Richfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, from R-1 to P.S. , the City Planning Commis- sion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-1-2 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan recommendation of low-density residential land use for the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would constitute spot zoning since it would not expand an existing similar zoning district and would be unlike any surrounding zoning district in the immediate area. 9909 (3) The proposed change of zoning, if approved, would tend to encourage similar requests for changes of zoning on adjacent property, which requests would be also in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan. 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 87-1-1-3 by Theodore & Diane Manolakas to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to P. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this proposal. Theodore and Diane Manolakas, petitioners, were not present. Robert Craggs, 36254 Smithfield, Farmington, Michigan: I own the property east of the subject property. The petitioner shows no desire to take that build- ing down. I have no objection to the parking rezoning but when will the building be demolished? It is an eye-sore. Mr. Smith: That has been ordered down. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is your business, Mr. Craggs? 1110 Mr. Craggs: It is the Allstate Insurance building. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is your property zoned? Mr. Craggs: Commercial down to the start of this proposed rezoning. Harrel Sutton, 33825 Plymouth: I am just west of this property. I feel a lot of the neighbors off Richfield would like to see this developed as R-1. Mr. Vyhnalek: If we suggest it come down just to the end of the building? Mr. Sutton: I would have no objection to that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this itemand Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #3-59-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-1-1-3 by Theodore and Diane Manolakas to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to P, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-1-3 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would result in an encroachment of non-residential zoning into a residential neighborhood. 9910 (2) The proposed change of zoning would be in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends medium-density residential land use for the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would prevent the development of the area for residential type uses in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan and the developing character of 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 87-1-1-6 by Dominic Soave to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt and Brentwood in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, from P.S. to C-2. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division notes that there are no City maintained water mains along Eight Mile Road, east of Middle- belt Road, and it may be necessary for the petitioner to seek approval from the City of Farmington Hills to utilize their water system on the north side of Eight Mile Road. John Carney, 18518 Farmington Road: I am here on behalf of the petitioner who has an option to purchase this property subject to the rezoning. We know the water main problem is there and that we may have to contact Farmington Hills to utilize their system. Mr. Soranno: Was this property rezoned a couple years ago to P.S.? Mr. Nagy: Yes, in June of 1985. Also, the adjoining lot to the east, Lot 350, was rezoned at that time to the office classification. Mr. Sorrano: It was felt at the time that that was suitable zoning? Mr. Nagy: Yes, a good buffer use separating the property to the south from the adverse affects of the mile road traffic Mr. Kluver: How long has he owned the property? Mr. Carney; He doesn't own it. He is purchasing subject to rezoning. Norman Akarakcian, 3359 Bloomfield Shore, Orchard Lake: I am the owner of the property. I have been working on that piece of property for almost twenty years to find an appropriate use. We have tried for commercial. Two years ago office was in demand for the area. I spent a considerable amount of money developing office plans. Around the corner on Middlebelt an office was built which has been vacant for two years. There is no demand for office buildings now. The most appropriate use for this land at this time would be for commercial zoning. There is a demand for commercial in this area. t4 Mr. Vyhnalek: You have owned it for twenty years? 9911 Mr. Akarakcian: Yes, twenty-three years. It has been vacant for twenty years, and it was vandalized very badly. I have spent a lot of money to find a j proper solution for development of this area. 11, Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the size of the lot? Mr. Akarakcian: One acre. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the building on Middlebelt that is vacant? Mr. Nagy: It is north of the junior high school. Two office buildings were put up by Roy and Johnson, back to back, which have been vacant for some time. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are they P.S.? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Soranno: Do you own the property to the east also? Mr. Akarakcian: No, not the east. Mr. Soranno: When you came before the Commission a couple years ago, wasn't that part included. Mr. Akarakcian: Yes, because the owner of the property was begging me to take his piece and put it together. 110 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, ,• Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-1-6 closed. 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was ##3-60-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-1-1-6 by Dominic Soave to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt and Brentwood in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 from P.S. to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-1-6 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would provide for additional commercial uses which are already prevalent in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would encourage additional requests for a change of zoning to a commercial zoning category on properties to the east, thus increasing the strip commercial development pattern along Eight Mile Road, which development is not consistent with good planning policy as adopted by the Planning Commission. (3) The proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area. li; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance X1543, as amended. 9912 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Soranno, Hildebrandt, Kluver, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Smith ILNAYS: Vyhnalek ABSENT: Morrow 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 87-2-1-7 by Dr. Lawrence Singer to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Brentwood in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from RUF to P.S. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Division, in a letter dated February 10, 1987, states that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent of 60 feet in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. There is a letter in the file from Center Office Associates in support of this rezoning petition and letters from Larry G. Ehlers and Ervin A. Ehlers stating they have no objection to the rezoning petition. Dr. Lawrence Singer, 34244 Boston Court, Farmington: I have practiced on Seven Mile Road and Deering for six years. I would like to put a building on this lot. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that building going to be for you alone? Dr. Singer: I will occupy about one-third and hope to have a medical office in there. 11, John Hunt, 19004 Brentwood: Is he really going to build this? The tought that goes through my mind is that less than one mile away on Middleble we have buildings zoned professional service sitting there. On Eight Mile, we have land presently zoned professional service and the other petitioner wants the zoning changed to commercial because of the vacant buildings over there. The doctor wants to go to professional service. Over the years, this is the most livable thing that has been presented on this property but I am leery that someone is going to try to change it to C-2. Mr. Smith: Everybody has a right to petition but now we are talking about profes- sional services. Dr. Singer: I have intentions of having this building built and in being in there myself. Thomas Goebel, 28200 Seven Mile Road: There is a demand for office space and I also hope this will go through. Mr. Kluver; The Future Land Use Plan does support this zoning so it is within the blueprint of the City. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-1-7 closed. 11: On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was • 9913 ##3-61-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-2-1-7 by Dr. Lawrence Singer to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Brentwood 111: in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-1-7 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan. (2) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a transition or buffer zone between the heavily travelled Seven Mile Road Thoroughfare and the residential uses to the south. (4) The proposed change of zoning provides for a better alternative land use to that of strip commercial 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-2-1-10 by Robert E. Craver to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUFC to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition from an Engineering stand- point. There is also a letter from William A. and Shirley Patterson in opposition to the rezoning proposal. Robert Craver, 19391 Whitby: I have been a Livonia resident for about thirty years. I have always wondered what development would take place in the future. I have seen the northwest corner developed. I was attracted to the southeast corner because of the size. Early in 1970, we had property on Five Mile. I think eventually we will see some development on this corner but I think we can do much in the way of landscaping and by putting something low-profile as opposed to being obtrusive. This would not be a speculative building; not for resale or rent. Mr. Straub: That corner may be developed in a non-residential way but I think the City would do almost anything to maintain the residential character of that area and I can't support this petition for that reason. Mr. Craver: On the map on the screen, Lot #2 shows it is divided once in the middle. On the map I have, I see five splits across that property. I think this property was split at one time for the purpose of developing residential but apparently it was not marketable. Anne Sheppard, 16970 Merriman: Are there any other areas in Livonia zoned similar to this? • 9914 Mr. Smith: There is a lot on Seven Mile and Merriman zoned residential. Mrs. Sheppard: I am wondering about the Master Plan. 10 4 Mr. Smith: It shows residential. Mrs. Sheppard: I am opposed to any development other than residential. We have had five new homes in five years built in the immediate area that are attractive and successful. I feel that this kind of change would negatively influence the integrity of the neighborhood. We bought here because of the large lots. I knew what the property was zoned when I bought and had high hopes that it would stay that way. Also, security problems would increase. I feel very secure living here and we don't have any security problems as far as I know now. There are buildings down Six Mile that have always had for lease signs on them. I ask that this be denied. Mrs. Ramljak, 16950 Merriman: I oppose this. I moved in a year ago and I like the area. There are vacant buildings on Six Mile. Mary Bowers, 17142 Merriman: I agree with my previous neighbors and everything they said. Mrs. W. Lynch, 17275 Merriman: I have the lot next to the Church. I am against any commercial or professional building around my house. Jane Johnson, 31054 Munger: I moved in here on account of the large lots. This development would not do justice to the neighborhood. There is a Lbuilding not too far from here that has a lease sign on it for a year. Mrs. Shattock, 31032 Munger, was present and ojbected to the petition. Heidi Busby, 31284 Six Mile, was present and objected to the petition. Mrs. D. Coeman, 31020 Six Mile: Most of those lots are 700 feet deep. I was approached two months ago to see if I wanted to sell my property. I live here and want to stay here because of the country atmosphere. Lot #4 was approached also and he said yes. I put eight semis full of top soil to make my property level. I wouldn't put that much in dirt if I wasn't planning on staying there. If he is going to put in business like gas stations, etc. , what is the point in my putting so much money in my property. I called the City before buying my house and they assured me that that piece of property would have a house built on it, so I figured I could buy the house across the street. I was told by the Building Department that this was the only corner in Livonia that is still RUF and there are no other retail businesses on the other corners at the intersection. Mr. Vyhnalek: I think she is misleading with gas stations and retail. Those are commercial uses and P.S. zoning is requested. None of those uses could go on the property. Mr. Smith: Somebody's interpetation is not proper. The zoning says what goes on a piece of property. If it is R-1, a home will go on it. 9915 Mr. Vyhnalek: At Seven Mile and Merriman there is RUF property. As a Commissioner, I don't see Six or Seven Mile with any commercial and we have turned IL down other petitioners under the same situation. Mrs. Joel Baynes, 16939 Merriman: I have lived here fourteen years. It was tried before and you turned it down and I hope you do again. Mrs. W. McKee, 31447 Six Mile Road: My home is 1-1/2 years old. Five or six years ago we wanted to sell our property for a Montessori School because we couldn't afford to build but we were denied. So, we got enough money together and built a home on the property. Now that we have put our money into the home, if something like that went up the area would go down. We all have children -- 12 to 14 under the age of ten living in the area and I am afraid that professional, or otherwise, will result in much more traffic. I would like to see that area kept residential. Mrs. J. R. Matthews, 21469 Six Mile: We are in the same situation. We've been here for almost three years. We don't want anything but residential. Mrs. Charles Brant, 17001 Merriman: I am against the petition. Glen Lottie, 30320 Six Mile Road I have to keep coming down here and fight. I am against this rezoning. Louise Howes, 16965 Merriman: I am opposed. Iii, John McKenna, 30885 Six Mile: I have lived here 37 years. When I bought, it was RUF and it was not supposed to change. For many years I have had to come to these meetings to object to spot zoning. The recent trend has not been to go to zoning other then residential. Mr. Craver: I appreciate the concerns of the homeowners. I know nobody like to have change, but I have heard some statements that are not the case and which I think are misleading. My petition is not for gas stations and other retail uses and I wonder if it would be advisable to request a tabling motion so I can meet with the area residents. My aim was not to alter the area but to protect the area. Also, one of the things I like on that property is that you can go into the property without altering the landscaping. The trees would not have to be removed. It would be my recommendation that if the residents would like to discuss it to see if we could come up with something acceptable to both the residents and myself. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-1-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #3-62-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-2-1-10 by Robert F. Craver to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFC to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-1-10 be denied for the following reasons: 9916 (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends retention of the low-density residential land use for the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the City's policy of maintaining the intersection of Six Mile and Merriman Road free from non-residential type uses. (3) The proposed change of zoning will encourage similar requests for changes of zoning on adjacent properties and further erode the established residential character of the neighborhood. 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 87-1-2-3 by Jarvis Jones for waiver use approval for outdoor sales of nursery stock on property located on the north side of Joy Road between Hartel and Oxbow in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this petition. Jarvis Jones, 13983 Nine Mile, Warren: I tried to get this zoned C-2 but it was not granted so we changed our plans and now in order to let our business function, we need a small area for outdoor sales. ILA site plan was shown to the Commission and discussion was held regarding it. Mr. Kluver: What would have to be done to accommodate that plan? Mr. Nagy: The Ordinance says there must be a fifteen foot rear yard. He either must corrects his plan or takes the appeal process to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Straub: The petitioner would have no problem in having it re-drawn according to the Ordinance? Mr. Nagy: He wants to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals anyway about the require- ment of the wall. He doesn't want a wall to cut him off from property he owns in back. Since he is going on the wall, he can do this at the same time. Mr. Jarvis: I think it best to go to the Zoning Board on both things. Mr. G. Wolfe: My father purchased this property ten years ago with hopes of developing it. The' climate on Joy Road has not been the greatest. I feel this proposed development will be an asset. He is not buying it for speculation. He presented a nice plan for a building with landscaping. The rear portion of the property, about 2-1/4 acres, backs up to a side yard with no residents who are affected, so it would not be a detriment to any homes in the area. If anything, it would improve the area. 9917 Martha Miklosky, 29031 Olson: We have been here since 1940. Our understanding was that a building was to be built on the property and be attractive to the area. The southeast of Livonia has always been neglected. Recent building along Middlebelt has come along and enhanced the area. This nursery type business would do no good for anything. We could end up with tons of gravel and sand, different types of fertilizers and chemicals. Any water runoff from this property comes on to our property. We are not allowed to plant a shrub or a tree because of the storm sewer. Would he be allowed to put these things on the storm sewer. Mr. Jarvis explained his plan in detail to Mrs. Miklosky. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-2-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was X13-63-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-1-2-3 by Jarvis Jones for waiver use approval for outdoor sales of nursery stock on property located on the north side of Joy Road between Hartel and Oxbow in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-1-2-3 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on March 31, 1987. 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 87-2-2-4 by Isam Kashat for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with an existing party store located on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates that the have no objection to this petition. John Carney, 15818 Farmington Road, Attorney representing the petitioner: I would like to remind you that Mr. Kashat had an offer to purchase this property and one of the contingencies was the license. It was turned down. The Planning Commission approved the request but the City Council denied it. At that time, he had one of two options. He could either not close the transaction or purchase the property. When he pur- chased the property, he paid $140,000. One of the problems is that he has been there for a little over a year and he is not doing very well. For improvements, he would have to go to the bank for a mortgage. He would like to get an SDM License and make his improvements which have been approved by the Planning Commission. In order to put in a parking lot, he had to improve the building. Resident: - The petitioner wants a license for a party store but there is no party store. There is a video and T-shirts. The City did not allow a license a year ago. In your wisdom you decided there was no need for additional dispensing of beer and liquor here because there are enough of them. There are churches in this area. We had problems 9918 with Lawson's. I would like to say that the petition was denied at that time for good reasons and I think you deny this for the same reasons. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-2-4 closed. *Mr. Morrow entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Soranno: I guess I am a little concerned with what has changed since the last time. We will have the same situation. I don't believe there are any changes on the site plan. All the changes are incorporated now. Mr. Soranno: What is the time table? He has a problem. Mr. Nagy: The Ordinance would require him to complete all his improvements within twelve months. Mr. Vyhnalek: He cannot get the license until he makes all the improvements and they are inspected. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Straub, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-2-2-4 by Isam Kashat for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with an existing party store located on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-2-4 be approved subject to the following conditions (1) that the subject site be improved as depicted on the Site Plan dated 12/10/85, prepared by James L. Krupa & Associates, which is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; and (2) that the landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to support the proposed use. (2) All waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Zoning Ordinance #543 are being complied with. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: • 9919 AYES: Hildebrandt, Straub, Soranno NAYS: Kluver, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith I: ABSTAIN: Morrow Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the resolution failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #3-64-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-2-2-4 by Isam Kashat for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with an existing party store located on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-2-4 be denied for the follow- ing reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the pro- posed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed uses will overburden the site with additional traffic. (3) This general area of the City of Livonia is presently well served with similar type uses as is being proposed. 1[0 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Straub ABSTAIN: Morrow 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 87-2-2-5 by C & C Properties for waiver use approval for general office uses within an existing building located on the northeast corner' of Stamford and Schoolcraft Service Drive in Section 21. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objection to this petition. Louis Campana, 18766 Blue Skies, petitioner, was present. Mr. Soranno: What is the reason for this request; do you have a tenant? Mr. Campana: Mr. Crabill of Crabill Industrial Realty. Mr. Soranno: Have you had a problem with the Professional Service zoning? 9920 Mr. Campana: No, but next door to the east we have a technician that makes eyeballs and to the west we have Transamerica, both in general office, and we have a tenant for general office. 1: There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-2-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #3-65-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-2-2-5 by C & C Properties for waiver use approval for general office uses within an existing building located on the north- east corner of Stamford and Schoolcraft Service Drive in Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-2-5 be approved subject to adherence to the pre- viously approved Site Plan and other conditions as required by Planning Commission Resolution #5-133-86 under Petition 86-4-8-24, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies in every respect with all of the special and waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the pro- posed use. Iii (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (4) There is little or no difference in the impact on the site as a result of the use of the building for general offices as opposed to professional offices. 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-2-2-6 by Marriott Corporation for waiver use approval to utilize a Class B Hotel License within a hotel proposed to be located on the east side of Laurel Park Drive North, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this proposal. • Marvin Kramer, 32400 Telegraph, Birmingham, representing the petitioner, was present and distributed brochures to the members of the Commission. Mr. Kramer: I have handed out a brochure showing a three-story motel with 150 rooms with a courtyard owned by Marriott Corporation, a publicly held corpora- tion. We requested the waiver at the request of the administration so li: that we can obtain the liquor license. The Marriott applied to the 9921 State of Michigan for a special B License. The License coming out of Lansing will not effect the quote for the City's existing Licenses. We are putting these courtyards in other communities. We estimate the cost at 6 to 8 million dollars, and I think we are in accordance I!: with the Ordinance. Mr. Morrow: Do you have a completion date in mind for the operation? Mr. Kramer: I would guess within a year. Mr. Kluver: Can the 1,000 foot requirement be waived? Mr. Nagy: It is waivable at the Council level. Mr. Kluver: Even though this type license has no impact on the existing quota, has it the same standards? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Michael Polsinelli, 14416 Yale: This is consistent with the proposal as well as the balance of office buildings in the area. I think both the hotel develop- ment and the need for the liquor license is consistent with our presenta- tion and we hope that you favorably approve this request as well as the waiver of the 1,000 feet. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-2-6 closed. 110 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #3-66-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition 87-2-2-6 by Marriott Corporation for waiver use approval to utilize a Class B Hotel License within a hotel proposed to be located on the east side of Laurel Park Drive Nor, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-2-6 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1,000 foot separation rule as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of Zoning Ordinance #543 by the City Council and adherence to the previously approved Site Plan and other conditions imposed by the City under Petition 86-4-8-25, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) 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 os Ection 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing reslution adopted. 9922 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-1-3-1 by the City Planning Commission to vacate certain existing north-south alleys located north of Joy Road between Hix and Stonehouse in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31. 1: Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Detroit Edison Company states that they have no objection to the proposed vacating provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing alleys to protect their exist- ing equipment, and if the reservation of an easement is not desired, they request that the vacating of the subject alleys be postponed until they have had the opportunity to arrange for the relocation expenses with the property owners. Consumers Power Company, in its letter, states they have no facilities in the subject area, there- fore no objection to the petition. We recommend that you approve the vacating subject to retention of the easement for the Detroit Edison Company. I think it is cost pro- hibitive to the area residents to have the equipment moved. This matter was precipitated by a case where a request was made by a home- owner to vacate the existing public alley at the rear of Lot #13 of Golden Ridge Subdivision becuse a survey revealed his existing garage was situated in the alley easement. It was discovered then that several alleys in the area platted as part of the Subdivision were never developed and the petition was expanded to include all those alleys. Mr. Morrow: What would we do in that case regarding the easement? Mr. Nagy: We would reserve the easement and the property owner could request to vacate the easement around his garage. Mark Lambert, 8905 Houghton: How would this vacating effect me? Mr. Nagy: Your Title will show that you will not only own the lot you have but also the west one-half of the adjoining, vacated alley. The alleys were never constructed but the City maps still show them. The City will vacate its interest in the alley and your property Title will show that you have that property subject to the easement. Mr. Lambert: Are you allowed to build on the easement? Mr. Nagy: The utility compnay will retain an easement. As long as you leave Detroit Edison enough room for their utilities, they will probabaly allow you to build providing an easement is still retained to pro- tect their equipment. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by .Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #3-67-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 24, 1987 on Petition by the City Planning Commission to vacate certain north/ south alleys located north of Joy Road between Hix and Stonehouse in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-3-1 be approved subject to the retention of full-width easements over all of the 9923 subject alley rights-of-way to protect existing public utilities, for the following reasons: (1) The subject alleys are no longer needed to provide public access to any adjacent properties. (2) The subject alley rights-of-way, if vacated, will be returned to the City's tax rolls. (3) The alley rights-of-way can more advantageously be used in private ownership. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, announced the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #3-68-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 532nd Regular Meeting Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 24, 1987, are approved, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ILadopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #3-69-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 533rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 10, 1987, are approved. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resoluton adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #3-70-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission nos rebyGrecby ofmoend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by he approval to erect an awning sign at 19170 Farmington Road be approved subject to the following conditions (1) that the Awning Plan prepared by RoyalvOak saand lBirmingham Ten ent & Awning Company which is hereby app a Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. li: On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was 9924 #3-71-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-5-8-28 by Victor International requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a hotel and office building on the east side of I-275 between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in Section 6, be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that the Revised Site and Landscape Plan, Sheet LS-1, dated 3/9/87, prepared by Neumann/Greager Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 534th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 24, 1987, was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. CI PLANNING COMMSION .n Donna J. Nai w, Secretary ATTEST.(- C' !/(:1Vc C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac