HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1984-02-14 9069
MINUTES OF THE 468th REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 14, 1984, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia,
held its 468th Regular Meeting 6 Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting 6 Public Hearings to
order at 8:00 p.m. , with approximately 80 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Judith Scurto Donald Vyhnalek
Joseph J. Falk Donna Naidow Sue Sobolewski
Lee R. Morrow Jerome Z i mme r
Members absent: *Herman Kluver
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director;
and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission will make a recommendation to the City
Council who, in turn, will conduct a public hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver use request and the petition is denied by the Planning
Commission, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal , by letter, to the City
110 Council for relief; otherwise the petition is terminated.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 84-5-1-13
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of Zoning
Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the southwest corner of
Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from
P to C-1 and C-2.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated January 6, 1984 in the file from the
Engineering Division that does not indicate any objections to
this proposed rezoning.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-5-1-13 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-17-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-5-1-13 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 23.01 (a) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on
the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the North-
east 1/4 of Section 11 from P to C-1 and C-2, the City Planning Com-
• mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
84-5-1-13 be approved for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a more reasonable
and logical zoning pattern for the subject property.
(2) The proposed change of zoning will adjust the zoning lines com-
mensurate with the existing uses in the subject shopping center.
I
•
9070
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given
in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
I Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-12-1-22
by University Village Partnership to rezone property located north of
Five Mile Road, west of Harrison in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13,
from P.L. to R9-1 and P.S.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file dated 2/9/84 from the Traffic Bureau
indicating a possible traffic problem involved with the petition
in relation to the proposed emergency access. There is a letter
dated 2/10/84 from the Fire Department regarding their ability
to navigate this property and have adequate water supply within
• acceptable distances, and a letter dated 1/18/84 from the Engineer-
ing Division stating there is an existing 8" public water main
through the site and the building layout may be in conflict with
the water main and its associated 12' easement.
*Mr. Kluver entered the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Stoy, Architect representing the petitioner, was present.
Mr. Spiro, University Village Partnership, petitioner: The intent of the petition is
to rezone this land to provide additional facilities for the aged
of the community. The convalescent home is one particular level
of care; usually residents will be there for about a year and re-
cuperating from surgery. This requires a medical staff and care.
The home for the aged is different and licensed differently by the
State. It is a facility that would take elderly people who function
just somewhat on their own. The senior citizen use will be for
people who can function on their own.
Mr. Andrew: You have a purchase agreement from the Board of Education subject
to rezoning and, I assume, waiver use and site plan approval?
Mr. Spiro: Just rezoning.
Mr. Zimmer: In making this request, does the petitioner see a need to expand
and cover more ground to handle two different care levels? Are
there more buildings proposed?
Mr. Stoy: There isa home for the aged - one building. The senior citizen
use is another building which will be attached to the school . Those
are the two buildings proposed. The existing home will remain.
The home for the aged will be on the P.S. property.
Mr. Zimmer: Are they ambulatory; able to drive an automobile?
toMr. Spiro: They are ambulatory.
' Mr. Zimmer: Most of those residents may have a car?
Mr. Spiro: Most of those residents would not have a cat but that doesn't -an
none of them would have a tar. The settle? I t 0A. ,ii
411
•
9071
Mr. Vyhnalek: How big an expansion to the school are you planning?
ILMr. Stoy: We look at a 120 bed unit which will be a combination of the new
structure and the existing school . About double the size. We may
take some of the school facility and utilize that for senior citizens
and their needs.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How do you plan to control the exit on Harrison?
Mr. Stoy: We don't really need that but in terms of planning, we should provide
for two means of ingress and egress to the site. We can restrict
the traffic onto Harrison. We will take into consideration every-
thing the Engineering letter says.
Mrs. Scurto: At the study session, there was discussion as to equating this
to Professional Village. Are you still saying this complex is
comparable to that facility?
Mr. Stoy: Yes.
Mrs. Scurto: Do you see any future office facilities in your P.S. district for
the convalescent care facility?
Mr. Spiro: No, I don't seeany additional building use in the P.S. or the
R9-I .
Mrs. Scurto:11,
We can assume that the care facility in the P.S. District will
generate less traffic than a medical facility?
Mr. Spiro: The new P.S. will generate significantly less traffic than my
existing home at the south. There is one-tenth the staff because
the type of nursing provided is that less critical .
Mrs. Scurto: Will there be eating in a central facility for both facilities?
Mr. Sprio: In the home for the aged, the residents would be eating in a com-
munity area. in the senior apartment complex, there would be two
or three meals available in a restaurant-type service area. There
will also be a dining area.
Mr. Morrow: Inasmuch as you are going into a public land school type facility
and you are asking for P.S. , have you done anything in the surround-
ing neighborhood to let them know what is going on here?
Mr. Stoy: A month ago we had an informal meeting and we made a presentation
to them. Based on some of their comments, we adjusted our site
plan. We moved the parking and a few other things.
Mr. Spiro: After the meeting and redesign of the original site Plan, I sent
a second letter to the residents of the area informing them that
we are changing some of the things on the site plan and it has been
on display at our business office at the convalescent home. I have
told everybody in the neighborhood that I am a citizen of Livonia
tor and I grew up here. We intend to manage these facilities and we
have been in the City for twenty-five years. We consider this our
neighborhood, also,
Mrs. Sobolewski : Do you have any other convalescent homes within the City of Livonia?
1
• 9072
Mr. Spiro: I am affiliated with the Dorvin Home on Middlebelt.
1Lw Mr. Garland, 15809 Harrison: Mr. Spiro said for the last month there has been a
changed site plan for us to look at. He sent the letter January 31st.
I went to see it but there was no one there. I think he had the
meeting to find out what we objected to so he could change it.
They discussed a three-story building. I will have 120 vehicles
living in my back yard. Originally the parking lot ran up against
my property line. Traffic on Harrison will be a problem. And, none
of you would want a three-story apartment building in your back yard.
Obviously, this building has to be used for something but three or
four stories in my residential back yard would not be it.
Mr. Zimmer: What is the limitation on height in R9-I Districts?
Mr. Nagy: Four stories. Forty feet.
Mr. Zimmer: What was your feeling about living next door to the school when
it was in operation?
Mr. Garland: That is why I lived there.
Mr. Zimmer: What about the use -- do you have any other feelings as to use?
Mr. Garland: The traffic situation on Harrison would be a problem. He discussed
at the meeting that It would be possible to put the multi-storied
building in the front and the single story in the back. Why it is
in this fashion,now, I don't know.
11,
Mr. Zimmer: You don't have so much objection to the use as to the height of
the building?
Mr. Garland: Yes. Something has to be done with the property but there is much
less residential abutting the proposed single family than where
they want to put the multi-storied apartment building.
Charlotte Eickroff, 28900 Rayburn: My main concern is that we are the only paved
road off any main intersection. Rayburn goes right into the
property and we don't want it rezoned so that at a later date he
will come in and open that up. Our street is not made to handle
that kind of traffic. The school bus leaves children off and picks
them up at the corner. This would cause a great amount of danger
there. We want to make sure he can't open up the street in the
future for traffic coming down our street. And, the kids are used
to playing at this school .
Mr. Andrew: We can't condition rezoning, only waiver use approval , but at any
point where residential zoning touches professional service zoning,
he is required by Ordinance to erect a wall .
Mrs. Eickroff: There are a number of large trees on this property and we would
want the landscaping left so we don't have to look at all those
buildings. Right now, with the trees, the school is not visible.
9073
Mr. Ziemer: How tall is the school?
1[10{
Mr. Spiro: Forty feet.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Where do you plan to expand the school?
Mr. Stoy: To the west, .
Richard Zischke, 29085 Roycrofts 1 wouldn't have anything against the use with the
R-9, but an R9. 1 would allow for four stories in height. i believe
a four-story building is not in character withthe neighborhood.
Mr. Andrew: What is the height of the proposed addition to the school?
Mr. Stoy: Three stories, or two stories.
Calvin Pope, 28543 Broadmoor: I abut this property. I object to the multi-storied
building. The residents there will be looking down into my
property. I know the property has to be used for something and
I am sympathetic because we need homes for the elderly but I have
to look out after my own property investment.
Robert Ostrander, 15400 Harrison: I was told by the builder that they have to have
access on Harrison. I agree with the letter from the Police Depart-
ment.
1110 Lee Jacobs, 15360 Harrison: There are 120 beds in the main unit and then they are
adding on for the home for the elderly. I would not want an exit
on Harrison. This is a residential area and I can't go with a
four-story building. Single family, okay. I am opposed to the
height.
Mr. Zimmer: What is needed to accommodate a drive for this facility?
Mr. Nagy: A minimum of 30' according to what the Police Department usually
requires.
Lillian Edney, 15405 Harrison: I object to a four-story building and an exit on
Harrison.
T. Larsen, 15423 Harrison: We object to the high-rise building and to the entrance
on Harrison.
George Shumski , 28999 Roycroft: We live on a dead-end street and I don't know how
they will get into that place on Harrison without opening up one
of our streets.
Mr. Andrew: We have seen only a preliminary site plan indicating no access
on Harrison at all .
Mr. Jacobs: This is a residential area and the highest building in the area
is two stories and i think this building should conform to the
IL neighborhood.
Leo Weber, 28997 Broadmoor: You mentioned there would have to be a wall . Is there
any restriction on the type of wall?
Mr. Andrew: That is part of the site plan approval process. It could be brick ;
•
9074
or poured concrete.
110 Mr. Weber: Could i t be a greenbelt?
Mr. Andrew: if it ever gets to the point of site plan review, this Commission
has no choice but to include the need for a protective wall . The
petitioner has the right to ask for a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-12-1-22 closed,
Mr. Zimmer: I think we need to do something with the vacant school but some-
thing that represents a minimum kind of intensity of use. I would
like to table it and talk to the architect and owner and have them
find a way to minimizethe height not to exceed the existing build-
ing height. Another way would be to approve the P.S. zoning and
deny the R9-I for the reason that these school buildings are
intensive structures and I don't think we need to increase their
imposition on the neighborhood.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was
#2-18-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 83-12-122 by University Village Partnership to rezone
property located north of Five Mile Road, west of Harrison in the South-
west 1/4 of Section 13, from P.L. to R9-I and P.S., the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 83-12-1-22 until the
Study Meeting to be conducted on February 21 , 1984.
ILA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Naidow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimlmer, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver, Morrow, Scurto, $obolewski
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew: Will the architect be prepared to discuss in detail the height of
the proposed R-9 structure at the Study Meeting or 2/21 or 3/6?
Mr. Stoy: February 21st will be fine.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-7-1
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts
of Michigan, 1931, to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of
Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located
north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in Section 9.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated 2/14/84 in the file from the Parks & Recrea-
tion Department indicating that they are in favor of the proposed
swap of land as is the Parks & Recreation Commission.
I[ Mr. Morrow: Is this classified as a passive recreation park.
IL
r. Nagy: Yes, it's Just open space.
•
9075
Mr. Zimmer: When was this park acquired by the City?
Mr. Nagy: In 1969,
William O'Keefe, 35232 Bennett: I don't understand the proposal . Indirectly, is
1[0
this going to be used for residences?
Mr. Andrew: Yes.
Mr. O'Keefe: We have four subdivisions falling within a 1-1/2 mile radius of this
plot of land. We have residencesin the area that they haven't been
able to sell. Now, we are turning around and rezoning another plot
of land for homes. This property has been designated as flood plain.
Additional homes and streets will give us additional water problems.
I am in favor of retaining the park.
Mr. McManaway, 18551 Laurel : I have lived here for many years. The acreage all around
this area are natural forests. My objection to the change in the
Master Plan is that there is high:density residential surrounding
this area and this is a flood plain with a high population of wild
life. The only vacant land in this area will be only vacant fields
which are cut all the time. I believe it should be left vacant as
it is or developed by the City as a park area.
Mr. Zimmer: Who owned it before the City? Did the school sell that to the
City?
Mr. Nagy: No, the City acquired it from private property owners.
I,,,
Ronald Hammer, 35010 Six Mile Road: I was in the Corps or Engineers for 25 years.
What is the provision for run off water once you put in homes and
pavement? How was that property acquired by the City of Livonia --
public bonds? Is it legal if they did that, now to sell it?
Mr. Nagy: It was acquired through bonds.
Mr. Hammer: For what purpose?
Mr. Nagy: Open space purposes.
Mr. Hammer: The wild life is a good teaching tool and I don't see no reason for
opening that up. We are at the bottom of this land and what are we
supposed to do with the water run-off?
Mr. Varga, 18100 Wayne Road: If this is residential back there, will there be an
easement to put in new drains to take care of over-flow?
Mr. Andrew: We can't answer that question.
Mr. Varga: i would suggest that the City provide more passive park area.
Frank D+Angelo, 35196 Bennett: The s*p does not show that this creek was re-routed
1 ilhir some two to three hundred feet. Also, from that location h r is
flooding for about 150 feet. You are �`r
cuttings o f 1� 10,, �, s : '_
of this 'area and I don' t dee h €'g w you den � �� IIT >�
, �����
the flooding in the heavy season.
9076
Patrick Flannery, 18000 Wayne Road; That nature stream bed runs through my property.
It was re-routed but this is not a stream. It is a sewer. What
will happen to the streamif they develop the property. I assume
they will have to extend Curtis out to Farmington to handle the
traffic.
Mr. Andrew: I doubt they would extend Curtis. •
Gerald Wilson, 35030 Six Mile Road; Nothing has been done to the portion of the stream
that is on my property. The other part has all been taken care of.
This will ruin my piece of property. I want to keep the park.
Mr. Flannery: I call this a storm drain, not a stream.
Dale Mason, 29500 Puritan: I feel the City should be involved in City business and
not be involved in real estate. When is the City going to get out
of the real estate business and back into the people business? I
understand it's against the law for the City to be in the real
estate business.
Deno Piergentili , 18661 Laurel : There are all kinds of children's games over there.
Carl Bell , 18728 Laurel : I can' t see the need to exchange land Just to expand Whisper-
ing Willows Golf Course.
Ronald Munger, 35147 Lancashire: I am opposed to this petition.
tvMr. Falk: We have gone through this every time we talk about this. I think
the school property will be there twenty years from now. No one
will buy it. The School Board won' t sell it. I am convinced from
the arguments tonight that this should stay as it is.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-1-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was
#2-19-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1-7-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Act
285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , to amend Part V of the Master
Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School & Park Plan, by deleting
property located north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in Section 9,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition
84-1-7-1 .
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion Is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
1111 w..
ea 00,
•
9077
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-1-2
1[0
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of
Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located north of Six Mile
Road, east of Wayne Road in Section 9 from P.L. to R-4B.
Mr. Andrew: Comments made on item #3 are applicable to this item also.
•
Carl Bell , 18728 Laurel : If this is developed, I would assume there would be about
90 dwellings and about 180 cars to exit the area. I am fearful
that somebody would open up Laurel for through traffic.
Richard Cochran, 18201 Laurel : Why did the City decide to sell this land?
Mr. Andrew: We didn't. The only question before us is the question of whether
or not this should be rezoned,
Mr. Zimmer: The reason for both of these actions is clear to me. The City, in
its wisdom, thinks it is a good idea to expand the park in the north.
That is a legitimate idea. In an attempt to do that and minimize
their costs, they saw an opportunity to trade some land. The guy
who ultimately ends up with this land is obligated not to hold land
or be in the real estate business so has no choice but to sell the
land.
Mr. CochrantI I think for the good of Livonia this should be left as it is.
ii3O Resident: What would be the advantage to rezoning this now to R-4 lots. Who
would benefit?
Mr. Andrew: The School Board would benefit because they could sell it for resi-
dential lots.
Mr. Flannery: I have talked with some real estate people and this land seems to
be the prime land in Livonia and a lot more valuable than the piece
up by Bicentennial Park.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman,
declared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-1-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was
#2-20-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1-1-2 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located
north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in Section 9 from P.L. to
R-4B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition
84-1-1-2 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed zoning change is in conflict with the Master School
and Park Plan which plan designates the subject area for open
space passive recreation,
110 (2) The proposed change of zoning and use thereby permitted would not
promote the orderly growth and development of the area.
(3) The existing zoning classification is the most appropriate zoning
classification reflecting the planned public use of the property
regardless of whether it is contined to be owned by the City of
9078
Livonia or conyeyed to the Board of Education,
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public 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; Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Yyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver, Sobolewski
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-10-2-36
by Ventura 8 Associates, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to use
an existing building located on the northwest corner of Middlebelt
and Puritan in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 for general office
uses.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Fire Department stating
they have no objection to this petition, and a letter from the
Traffic Bureau stating that the narrow 16' wide driveway could
create some difficulty for drivers entering and leaving the site
simultaneously and for traffic approaching on Puritan Avenue
in the presence of slowly turning vehicles. A letter in the file
from the Engineering Division indicates that Puritan has not been
dedicated to its fullest extent at this location.
Kenneth Ventura, Ventura & Associates, Inc., 9215 Michigan Avenue, Detroit: We pro-
pose to convert an existing residence' into a residential insurance
office. We propose to remodel the exterior of the building and to
add some landscaping and parking.
Mr. Ventura discussed the proposed site plan in detail with the Commission and interested
persons in the audience.
Dale Macy, 29500 Puritan: When was this rezoned to P.S.?
Mr. Nagy: In 1978.
Mr. Macy : When I came down here, I had some discussion with Mr. Appicelli
that if we went along with this rezoning there were several things
he would like to do - like bulldoze down the building and put up
a low-profile, Early American family business building. Under
those circumstances, I didn' t object. He was not going to do it
for speculation. Three days later the property was up for sale.
Now he is back here wanting to put in a business in an existing
building he said he was going to tear down. The man lied.
Mr. Andrew: I fail to see where he is lying. He didn't tell the City he would
tear the building down.
Mr, Macy: s he did. He told us a pack of lies and la he is back with a
, I � ri “N1 ► 004
Mr. Andrew: Do you object to that building?
9079
•
Mr. Macy: I object to everything. I think the building should be torn down.
IrL Two other parties including a policeman in the area were made to
tear down buildings and to put up new ones. Why doesn't Mr. Appicelli
have to tear down this eyesore? This is probably the worse house
in the neighborhood.
Mr. Andrew: We are trying to do something with this building now. Are you
opposed to that?
Mr. Macy: I object to everything because he hasn't lived up to the condition
set down by the Zoning Board. I don't trust him because he hasn't
lived up to what he said before.
Mr. Andrew: Who did he tell he would tear the building down?
Mr. Macy: When it was rezoned to P.S.
William Walbridge, 29600 Wentworth: This house is 45 year or more old. You are tearing
up everything down along Middlebelt and putting in new. I am opposed
to this.
Mrs. Scurto: Who owns this property now?
Mr. Ventura: Mr. Appicelli .
Mr. Macy: This is like putting perfume on a pig. To dress it up and two or
110 three years down the road it is a slum again, and everybody there
follows suit.
John Damian! , 24651 Westgate, Redford: I will be purchasing the property. I am an
insurance agent for Farmers Insurance. The home will be in excellent
shape as you can see from the drawings. The building has been
structurally OK'd by the City. I think this will be an asset to
the community.
Mr. Ventura: In this case, Mr. Damiani will own the business and maintain it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-10-2-36 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adoptec
it was
#2-21-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 83-10-2-36 by Ventura & Associates, Inc. , requesting
waiver use approval to use an existing building located on the northwest
corner of Middlebelt and Puritan in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 for
general office uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 83-10-2-36 be approved subject to the
following conditions :
(1) that the Site Plan, Sheet 1 , Revised 2/13/84, prepared by
IL Ventura 6 Associates, Inc, , Architects, which is hereby
approved shall be adhered to;
II ; 11; i Uplij II $,4111 t ll � �iih �� N � � �II44 1 I � i�i� � i11 II II tp,F
it
9080
•
(2) that the Building Elevation Plans, Sheets 2 and 3, Revised
2/13/84, prepared by Ventura & Associates, Inc. , Architects,
L
which are hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(3) that a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Commission for approval within thirty (30) days from the
date of this resolution; and
(4) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the
building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
,
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal complies with ail of the special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and
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 exist-
ing uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-2-1
by Sisters Chicken & Biscuits requesting waiver use approval to con-
struct a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Hartel and Camden in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 25.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating
that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent
and a letter from the Fire Department stating they have no objections
to this petition. We also have a letter from the Traffic Bureau
stating that the plan appears to be satisfactory relative to
vehicular traffic and parking. We had a phone call from the Wayne
County Road Commission saying they found no problems with the plan.
George Cueter, 19802 Mack, Grosse Pointe Woods: Our company has brought into
Livonia several operations and we have added a great deal of tax
base and the population of the community over the years have changed
their eating habits. Sisters Chicken & Biscuits is a new concept
for chicken. It is a full-service, sit-down restaurant with a drive
thru window. For family convenience, we have pick up. We have made
all changes requested by the Planning Commission at a previous meet-
ing. We have our architect here if the Commission has any questions.
to Mr. Falk; Where is there a Sisters Chicken & Biscuits?
of
9081
Mr. Cueter: The closest would be at Eight Mile and Dequindre. There is one
on Woodward between Eight Mile and Nine Mile in Ferndale. It is
a subsidiary of Wendy's international .
110 Mr. Vyhnalek: You eliminated the parking in the front?
Mr. Cueter: Yes, and increased the landscaping.
Mr. VyhanelK How many parking spaces do you have.
Mr. Cueter: Fifty-one and we have reduced the seating to eighty-six to comply
with the Ordinance.
Mrs. Sobolewski : The parking spaces removed from the front -- will that be implementec
with landscaping?
Mr. Cueter; Yes.
Mr. Andrew: Could you operate without a drive-thru window?
Mr. Cueter: Not really. It is a convenience for people who want to drive up and
take their food home.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chaim
declared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-22-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1-201 by Sisters Chicken 6 Biscuits requesting waiver
use approval to construct a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Hartel and Camden in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 84-1-2-1 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the City of Livonia which,
among other things, is to promote and encourage a balance and
appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar
type uses as is being proposed.
(3) The proposed use will be incompatible with and detrimental to the
adjacent residential neighborhood to the north which is already
surrounded with nonresidential uses which tend to decrease the
livability andamenities of the area and threaten the peace,
tranquility, comfort and general welfare of the residents.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
ILwith 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, Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Vyhnalek, Falk
ABSENT: None
I I 'oi I''°il !II tII 14 .II$111' i
•
9082
s
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-2-2
by Twin Valley Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct
general office buildings on the north side of Schoolcraft Service
Drive between Merriman Road and Berwick in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 22.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating
that there are no problems connected with this petition.
Donald Summers, 24189 Twin Valley Court, Farmington: We proposed to construct four
buildings, 16,000 feet, immediately east of the present complex.
The architectural motif, layout and landscaping will generally
follow the same lines as the existing complex. We seek waiver use
approval for general office and medical usage.
Mr. Summers presented a site plan which was discussed in detail by the petitioner, Com-
mission and interested persons in the audience.
Wayne Tutor, 31629 Scone: I have no objection to a one-story building.
Stewart Headley, 31605 Scone, was present and expressed no objections.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many feet of berm?
1 Mr. Summers: Twenty feet.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-2-2 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidaw, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-23-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1-2-2 by Twin Valley Corporation requesting waiver
use approval to construct general office buildings on the north side of
Schoolcraft Service Drive between Merriman Road and Berwick in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-1-2-2 be approved subject
to the following conditions:
(1) that the Site Plan, Sheet 1 , dated 12/16/83, prepared by
David Lubin, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to;
(2) that the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be
installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition;
(3) that the Building Elevation Plans, Sheet 2 and 3, dated 2/14/84,
libe prepared by David Lubin, Architect, which are hereby approved
shall be adhered to; and
1
9083
(4) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the
110 buildings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit;
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposal complies with all of the special and general
standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06
of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
(3) The proposal will provide for additional general offices to serve
the needs of the community and will be, at the same time, 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-2-4
by Andrew Ansara requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing
restaurant located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh
and Fitzgerald in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating
there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal.
Charles Tangora, Attorney representing the petitioner: We are seeking waiver use
approval to extend and to change the facade of the Big Boy Restau-
rant to an atrium affect. Approximately 75% of the restaurants
have already changedto an atrium. This involves some interior
changes also. We have changed the plans as suggested at the study
meeting. I think the suggestions were an improvement. We have put
in landscaping, of course, and a ramp. These have been changed to
reflect the actual layout of the parking with striping. The
location of the air aconditioning was a question but it is felt
that the existing air conditioning equipment is sufficient so there
won't be any addition.
Mr. Andrew: What about the dumpster?
Mr. Tangora: The trash and rubbish that was on the ground was a result, we feel ,
of the snow in making it not possible to close the gates, has been
cleaned up.
Mr. Nagy: The dumpster was not in the enclosure when we visited the site today.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, are you satisfied with the revised landscape plan?
ILMr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is a good proposal but I am still concerned about the dumpster.
Mr. Tango - ! We have a problem with the commercial removal company. They will
be addressed tomorrow.
-
9084
Andrew Ansara: We will inform the company to put the dumpster inside after it
it is dumped or we will find another company.
g 1[0
Mr. Falk: Where do your employees park their vehicles? On Saturday and
Sunday, you have young people working there. Can you ask your
employees not to park behind the building but in places provided for
employees thereby alleviating causes of accidents?
Mrs. Scurto: I would like to do something about the bottle storage sitting out-
side in the back. If there no place inside where they can be stored?
Mr. Ansara: They usually are.
Mrs. Scurto: The day I was there the bottles were outside, the trash was not
inside and there was a car parked in the back.
There was no one wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman,
declared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-2-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-24-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1-2-4 by Andrew Ansara requesting waiver use approval
to expand an existing restaurant located on the south side of Six Mile
L Road between Newburgh and Fitzgerald in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 84-1-2-4 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the revised Site Plan dated 2/14/84, prepared by Architecural
Design Consultants 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) that the Floor Plan, Sheet #2, dated 2/14/84, prepared by
Architectural Design Consultants which is hereby approved shall
adhered to; and
(4) that the Building Elevation Plan, Sheet 4, prepared by Architectural
Design Consultants which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
for the following reasons :
(I) The proposal complies with all of the special and general waiver
use standards set forth in Section 11 .03 and 19.06 of zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
(3) The proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses in the area,
•
,, 0
i fl 111111 il WHO IPP? /iii ii I ti Uhl 1 1 ii �► �wiii 4111 al 00i , tilti 11 b:
9085
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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-6-1
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of
Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 18.42 of Ordinance #543 by
incorporating regulations relating to the installation of roof disc
antennas.
There was no one present wishing to be regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman,
dedlared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-6-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-25-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 18.42 of
Ordinance #543 by incorporating regulations relating to the installation
of roof disc antennas, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 84-1-6-1 be approved for the following
reason:
(1) The proposed Zoning Ordinance language amendment will provide the
1 City of Livonia with added control over the location and nature
of disc antennas which is necessary to ensure that the rights
and interests of the public are protected.
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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-1-2-6
by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to construct
and operate a restaurant with a drive-thru window on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Roycroft in the South-
west 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating
that there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this
proposal . A letter from the Traffic Division states that the pro-
posal appears satisfactory. There is a letter from the Fire De-
partment stating they have no objections to the petition. Letters
from two citizens, Catherine M. McBride, 29201 Roycroft, and Clara
Grendys, 29239 Roycroft, state that they object to this petition.
William L. Roskelly, petitioner: We have correspondence from the Wayne County Road
Commission and they have given approval of the geometrics on the
two approaches. We have submitted revised drawings with the changes
as requested.
Mr. Andrew: You are the etiitioner from the sta, d hint thatyou are th ,ie�r
p p kka� ;
iI 4
lay, .� � � �ki;�t
ei f it i! i i
�1 14,11 Ili
14 $0'1 iz;-�.� r ' � 1 All ��1 1 II il �� �� �
• 9086
rather than the owner?
Mr. Roskelly: Yes.
Mr. Andrew: Does the company own the property at Five Mile and Cavour?
Mr. Orthner, representing Burger King Restaurants, 30100 Telegraph, Birmingham: No,
sir, not directly at that intersection.
Mr. Andrew: Do you control any property there?
Mr. Orthner: No.
•
Mr. Andrew: Do you have a license to use a piece of property there?
Mr. Orthner: No.
Mr. Andrew: Do you have a lease?
Mr. Orthner: No.
Mrs. Scurto: Is the acquisition and building of this Burger Kind in lieu of
closing one somewhere else in the City, say Seven Mile and Middlebelt'
Mr. Orthner: Absolutely not.
Mr. Zimmer: Who owns this property?
to Mr. Orthner: I believe Mr. Weinstein. We have an offer to purchase and this is
contingent upon rezoning and waiver use approval .
Mr. Zimmer; Did he control the property when it was Modern Electric?
Mr. Orthner: Yes, I understand that the business was his.
Mr. Andrew: Do you have to have a drive-thru window?
Mr. Orthner: We feel it is imperative to our business.
Mr. Zimmer: What are yournormal hours of operation?
Mr. Orthner: 10:00 a.m. to midnight.
Mr. Andrew: Seven days a week.
Mr. Orthner: Normally speaking.
Mr. Orthner: The access to Cavour is to alleviate some of the traffic from
Middlebelt and the property directly to the north. Part of our
offer to purchase provides for the access from Cavour across the
rear of our property.
Mr. Zimmer: That was the condition of the current owner?
II1 P i- Ete. Yes .
9087
Mr. Andrew: It must remain free and unobstructed.
ILIMr. Orthner: Yes.
Mrs. Scurto: What determines your switch to 3:00 or 4:00 a.m. as the closing
hour like some of your restaurants?
Mr. Orthner: That would be up to the individual operator where there is a need
for it.
Mrs. Scurto: The neighborhood certainly does not need another restaurant that
is open late.
Mr. Morrow; Is 7-Eleven any kind of a fast-food restaurant - other than the
to-go oven.
Mr. Nagy: Yes , they have that.
Mr. Morrow: The traffic situation and the number of services from Five Mile Road
up to Eight Mile -- I don't see any shortage of restaurants in that
area.
Rita Morin, 29219 Roycroft : Our property would abut this property and it is difficult
and getting out of our street. The litter from 7-Eleven which is open
Ronald Morin 24 hours and from McDonald's is unreal now. They could pick up trash
bags every day.
Mark Nemeth, 19191 Roycroft : The traffic and the litter concern me.
Mr. Orthner: The existing restaurants we have in this community, for example on
Plymouth Road, have been upgraded physically and they are policed.
If you check for debris, you will see that site extremely clean. We
feel people need to feel comfortable with a building on the outside
or they will not go inside. Secondly, we cater to the people in the
neighborhood, too. About thirty of our employees are teenagers and
we try to pick teenagers from within a half-mile area so they can
walk to work. We have 150 employees at this restaurant now and I
feel we are helping the problems of youth employment.
Richard Murningham, 29020 Five Mile: I have 330' of frontage on Five Mile which I
personally for the last four to five years have maintained and
picked up. McDonald's have done a good job of policing. We will
have many elderly people in the back. I have no objection to the
proposed use of the property. I would like to see it developed in
an orderly manner. We have a very intense use of property at this
intersection and, also, it is the second highest accident corner
in the City.
D. Kurby, 29215 Five Mile Road: I own a restaurant on Five Mile and Middlebelt.
Competition is good but I think it is getting a little out of hand.
I am struggling trying to make a living. There is just not that
much business and I am opposed to this.
M by ould you ocate di reActly across the street from,McDonald's
,Ij '; i 'E� §1! 'iFt ei' sdctidn? j ! i i �i
9088
Mr. Orthner: There was an available piece of property. Site utilities.
Developmental possibilities were feasible and the zoning.
1[1; Mr. Falk: The only objection I have to your facility is the location.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-1-2-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-26-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to • Public Hearing having been held on -February 14,
1984 on Petition 84-1,24 by William L. Roskelly requesting waiver use
approval to construct and operate a restaurant with a drive-thru window
on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Roycroft
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-1-2-6 be denied
for the following reasons:
(1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and Master Plan of the City of Livonia which, among other
things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix
of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is
being proposed.
(3) The location and nature of the proposed use and its relation to
streets giving access to it will be such that the traffic to and
from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will
unduly conflict with and significantly add to the normal traffic
of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-27-84 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Revised Landscape Plan submitted in connection with a condition of
approval of Petition 81-1-2-1 by J. D. Dinan requesting waiver use
approval to construct buildings for general office uses on property
located on the southwest corner of Brentwood and Eight Mile Road in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 , subject to the following conditions:
(.1) that the Landscape Plan for Building "A" in the Hearthstone
Medical Center, dated Feb. 7, 1984, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to, and further, that the previously approved
Landscape Plan for Buildings "C" and "D" shall remain in full
force as documented; and
9089
(2) that all landscaping as shown on the approved plan for
Building "A" shall be installed on the site by May 1 , 1984
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew .
NAYS: Scurto
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-28-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 84-2-,8-4P
by Robert B. Craggs requesting approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct
an addition to an existing building located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in Section 33 subject
to the following conditions:
(1) that Site Plan #84-1080, Sheet SP. , prepared by Fred J. Horner,
Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan #84-1080, Sheet 2,
prepared by Fred J. Norner, Architect, which are hereby approved
shall be adhered to; and
(3) that a revised landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning
Commission approval within thirty (30) days.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution •
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer andcseconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was
#2-29-84 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 467th Regular Meeting held by the
City Planning Commission on January 31 , 1984 are approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Falk
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 468th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held by the Planning Commission on February 14,
1984 was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTES • /
Jos h creta`ry
Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman
AC J