Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-07-09 15045 MINUTES OF THE 727th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 9, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 727th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann Jack Engebretson Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow Members absent: Patricia Blomberg Daniel Piercecchi Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-1-8 by Richard W. Bame requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Beatrice Avenue between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from M-1 to R-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present? The petitioner was not present. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience that is interested in this matter? 15046 Teresa Hamilton: My husband and I own the property immediately south of this land and our concern is where the house will be placed on the lot and wondered if you had any information in that regard? Mr. McCann: It is restricted within the City ordinances to the placement of the house on the lot. I think Mr. Nagy can help us on this. Mr. Nagy: The minimum front yard setback in an R-2 is 30 feet so from the right- of-way line, which generally is defined by the City sidewalk, the building can be no closer than 30 feet to that area. Plus you would have a 30 foot rear yard, and each side yard is 6 feet, combination of the two is 16 feet. Mrs. Hamilton: The petitioner is not requesting any variances? Mr. Nagy: He just indicates his purpose is to construct a single family home on the property. Mrs. Hamilton: That answers our question. Thank you. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-1-8 closed. "m" Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman I will make an approving resolution. Normally we don't do this if the petitioner isn't here but I think this is the right way to get rid of a piece of property that is there. It is all residential now. I think it is a good move and therefore I will make the approving resolution. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #7-122-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-5-1-8 by Richard W. Bame requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Beatrice Avenue between Eight Mile Road and Morlock Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2 from M-1 to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-1-8 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning decreases the amount of industrial zoned land that encroaches into a predominately residential area; 15047 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide an opportunity to develop the subject land as residential in harmony with the adjacent residential uses. �... 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation of"Low Density Residential"for the subject property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: I am not sure we can answer this but do we know whether the petitioner is the property owner or is it contingent upon the rezoning? Mr. Nagy: The application is signed by the owner, which is Richard W. Bame. He signed it as the owner. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-1-9 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road between Northland Drive and Bretton Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3. Ne" Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal. They did note that Gill Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. We have also received a letter from Dorothy Reynolds of 19751 Gill Road stating she has lived at this address since 1953 and she wanted to inform the Commission that she had no objections to this petition. Lastly, we have received a letter from Faith Brun of 19795 Gill Road stating she lives next door to this property and has no objection to the rezoning of this property to two single lots. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come down and give us your name and address and tell us what you are intending to do. Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What I would like to do is split the property into two lots 82 1/2'x 225' to build two brand new homes. These homes would be around $240,000 to $250,000, full basement, attached garage. I will answer your questions. Mr. Alanskas: I am sure at that price they will be all brick? 15048 Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Paul Derwich, 34575 Fairfax: My property adjoins the rear of the subject property in the northwest section. I was very curious as to the type of home Mr. Soave was planning on building. His petition before the zoning committee here was somewhat non-descript,just indicating that it was a home consistent with the area. While the homes are relatively new, it is an area that has ranches of 2,000 sq. ft., but a home a block and a half down is nearly 5,000 sq. ft. I certainly have a concern looking out on that property that the home will be of a size that will be consistent with the lot size that will be available once it is split. Mr. McCann: We did get the price of a $240,000 ranch, which would give you the impression it is going to be a very lovely home but can we get an approximate square footage? Mr. Soave: Certainly. For a ranch around 2100 to 2200 sq. ft. and for a colonial around 2700 to 2900 sq. ft. Mr. McCann: All brick? Mr. Soave: Yes sir all brick. Mr. McCann: This builder has done a number of homes in the City and they are all beautiful. Mr. Soave: If I can add, I live about 9 to 10 houses away from there, so I want to have it look nice. Mr. Derwich: The other concern I have is that currently in the northwest section of that there is a vacant dog kennel that is quite overgrown with bushes and weeds. The fence along the north side and the west side has angle brackets with barbed wire type of material, chicken wire, all along it and what not. I was wondering if Mr. Soave was going to vacate that as well and demolish it along with the house that is on the premises. Mr. McCann: Are you familiar with that Mr. Soave? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. I will take it down. 15049 Mr. Derwich: It is along the north property line and the west property line. It has the angle barbed wire type material and the kennel with the big overgrown bushes that is not being used. Mr. Soave: That would be moved anyway. Mr. Derwich: Those are my concerns. If the petitioner can show he is willing to vacate that, I will be very pleased. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-1-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #7-123-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-5-1-9 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road between Northland Drive and Bretton Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-1-9 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; ti.. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for maximizing the use of the subject property; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the adjacent zoning district 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-1-10 by John DelSignore requesting to rezone property located north of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles Road and the I-96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19 from R-1 to C-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. 15050 Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. Nor. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please step up and give us your name and address and tell us what your plans are. Tino DelSignore, 39000 Schoolcraft: The plans for this is additional parking and possibly future rental space for our building. Mr. Alanskas: I understand you are going to switch property with the K of C. Mr. DelSignore: We are proposing that right now. Mr. Alanskas: They have not responded back? Mr. DelSignore: They have not at all. Mr. Alanskas: What if you rezone that to C-2 and you have it on the other side. How can you use it? Mr. DelSignore: We will just shuttle. There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-1-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was 7-124-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-5-1-10 by John DelSignore requesting to rezone property located north of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles Road and the I-96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19 from R-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-1-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will permit the subject property to be developed consistent with surrounding uses in the area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning will eliminate spot zoning in the area. 4) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation for the subject property of"commercial". 15051 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, *to. as amended. Mr. McCann: Before we call the roll I will say for the record that I have represented the DelSignores in the past. However, it has been in excess of the one- year requirement and I am not representing them in any matters at this time. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#661-95, proposing to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, known as George's Livonia Gardens, from RUFC to C-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter signed by 8 residents that live on Canterbury. This letter reads as follows: We want the Commission to know that we strongly oppose this property to be rezoned to C-1 (Local Business). *law Some of the reasons that we oppose this rezoning are: 1. This property joins our Hidden Pines Subdivision, a quiet home community that is well maintained. 2. This property has been operating against the present Zoning Ordinance for a long period of time. The owner should be made to comply with zoning laws just like the rest of us taxpayers. If the owner has a need to expand his business, he should seek to relocate, not to rezone in our residential area. 3. This corner of Merriman and Seven Mile Road has a high accident rate, some of which must be caused by the traffic that pulls in and out of the small parking area in front of George's stand. We don't need, nor want, more congestion in this area. 4. The current temporary shelters that have been erected to protect the plants, etc. certainly are not an enhancement to our area. We would suspect that if this property would be rezoned to C-1 we would have more of the same. 5. Presently there are bags of garden supplies piled behind the current structure. With rezoning, would more supplies be brought in for resale? Those of us that live closest to this property do not want this type of storage to back up to our residential properties. We trust that the Commission will make the proper decision for everyone concerned so that we can remain a quiet, well maintained community. We have also received a letter from John D. Dinan, Partner in Merriman Mall, stating they are the owner of property on the northwest 15052 corner of 7 Mile and Merriman known as Village Fashion Mall and Medical Buildings. Presently we have 2 vacant stores in the mall and the Medical Building on the north end of subject property has been vacant for over a year. Therefore, we are opposed to any rezoning C-1 Commercial as it would lead to a possible strip center and create more vacancies at this intersection. Therefore, we would request that you deny this proposal for the above reasons stated. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I am concerned about paragraph 2 of the first letter you read, the underlying premise that the property has been operating against the zoning ordinance for a long period of time and that the owner should be made to comply with zoning laws like the rest of the community and the rest of the taxpayers. Could you explain to the audience how it comes about that this commercial business has been operating at that location as a non-conforming use in that zoning district, please. Mr. Nagy: The establishment of both the residential use of the property as well as the produce stand which sells fruits, vegetables, flowers, etc. has been established well beyond establishment of Zoning Ordinance 543. So it is a valid non-conforming use in the sense that the uses of the property were lawfully established at the time those uses were first placed upon the property. Although the property now, in its entirety, is zoned in the residential classification, the use of the property for those purposes is continuing in what we would call a valid non-conforming use status. So, therefore, while it is not complying, it is not illegal in the sense it is a valid non-complying use. Mr. LaPine: In regards to the same letter, I think the residents of that area are under the wrong assumption. I think they believe the owner of that property is asking for the property to be rezoned and that is not the fact here. It wasn't the owner that asked for the property to be rezoned. The City Council asked us to look at the possibility of rezoning the property. It isn't the owner asking for the rezoning. He wants it to stay the way it is, the way I understand it. Mr. McCann: I agree with both comments. We don't have a petitioner tonight because the Planning Commission is the petitioner at the request of the City Council. At this point I will go to the audience and those people that wish to speak for or against this petition, I would appreciate it if you would come down and give us your name and address and state your reasons for or against this petition. Jamie Nicolau, 19004 Canterbury: With me is my wife Deanna Nicolau. My wife and I signed and concurred with the first letter that was read dated June 26, ,,� 1996. My wife and I are strongly opposed to this petition. We 15053 recently moved into this new subdivision in August of last year. Had we known that this was up for rezoning, we would not even ,` considered this subdivision. We have two young children and we would not even have considered this particular subdivision. We enjoy it as the letter states. It is a very quiet home community and it is well maintained. We would not want to see any change. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #7-125-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 on Petition 96-5-1-11 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#661-95, proposing to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, known as George's Livonia Gardens, from RUFC to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-1-11 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will be detrimental to and not in harmony with the adjacent residential uses in the area; 'taw 2) That the proposed change of zoning would encourage other similar requests for change of zoning on adjacent properties; 3) That the proposed change of zoning is not required for the existing uses on the subject property to continue; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of"Low Density Residential"land use. 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-5-1-12 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#661-95, proposing to rezone property located on Seven Mile Road just west of Bicentennial Park in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 5, known as Glenda's Market, from RUFC to C-l. 15054 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. r... Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. Mr. McCann: Again, this petition is the same as the prior petition. This is a request from the City Council for the Planning Commission to review this and hold a Public Hearing so we are the petitioner in this matter. I will go directly to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-5-1-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-126-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-5-1-12 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#661-95, proposing to rezone property located on Seven Mile Road just west of Bicentennial Park in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 5, known as Glenda's Market, from RUFC to C- 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-5-1-12 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning would constitute spot zoning in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; 3) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of"Recreation-Open Space"; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning is not required for the existing uses on the subject property to continue. 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-1-13 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, 15055 west of the I-96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.O. and P to C-4 Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Kal Jabara: I am a partner of J-P Properties. Our office address is 388 S. Main Street, Plymouth, Michigan. The thing I want to point out about our request for rezoning is twofold. Number one, it will generate less traffic than offices based on the Traffic Engineer's study. The traffic will not all come in at eight or nine in the morning and all leave at five o'clock at one time. The traffic had been a concern when we had our other initial rezoning. The second reason is that this is an immediate use for the property whereas we did not have immediate use for the office zoning and would have had to wait until we got a tenant sufficient to start an office building or to sell the property to someone who wanted to build an office building. We thought initially that the office was a good use there but the scenario has changed somewhat and this all happened with our contact with Marriott and we feel because it ,411., is all Marriott product, they are very substantial, that it is just all around a better use for the property. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Jabara, when you say it is ready for immediate use, I assume that you have some sort of agreement with the user? Mr. Jabara: We have a contract for the Residence Inn, which is the piece that is currently zoned C-4 from the last rezoning. Dave and I intend to own the Fairfield Inn and have it managed by Marriott. They, as a corporation, do not own Fairfield. It is all franchised but they will manage them for a franchise fee. The Town Suites, which is also extended stay but much less expensive than the Residence Inn, with a little smaller unit and little less amenities, would be by Marriott. Mr. Morrow: I guess what you are saying is it is fairly firm. If you are granted the zoning, you are prepared to go forward with the project. Mr. Zabara: We are prepared to go forward without a question on the Residence Inn and on the Fairfield. The Town Suites, they are still determining whether they want to build it or they will have one of their established franchisees, who they will select, doing that property. 15056 Mr. Morrow: The reason I asked, some of the zoning that has gone before us in the past, we have heard some of the uses and we recognize zoning cannot be conditioned but lately the track record hasn't been good on zoning and then something developing. Mr. Jabara: It will happen here. I can't promise you on the restaurant site yet. Mr. Morrow: Well that is another issue. I just wanted to get that clarified and not conditioned or anything,just for my own personal edification on the potential for moving forward should the zoning go through. Mr. Jabara: I can assure things will move forward without a question. Mr. LaPine: The one concern I have, we have the senior citizen housing back there, then there is another house back there. What is that house? Mr. Jabara: That house that is sitting there, that will be moved off the property. Mr. LaPine: One of the big issues we had when we talked about the office buildings and the restaurant, was once again we only have one way to get in and get out of this property and that is off Six Mile Road, and I understand you did try to negotiate with Schoolcraft College to try to get an exit out to Haggerty Road. Apparently that is not going to happen. Mr. Jabara: Not immediately. They are not prepared to do that at this time. We think it will happen eventually. We are subject to widening Fox Drive 10 ft. wider than it presently is for fire truck reasons, and also to establish a 60 ft. right-of-way there. That is part of the condition of the City. Mr. LaPine: Will each individual hotel have its individual parking? Mr. Jabara: They will all have their own parking. Also, there will be no food facilities and no liquor in any of the hotels. Mr. LaPine: That was my next question because usually the Fairfield Inns, which I have stayed at, they have a continental breakfast, which I have no objection to, but per se restaurants would not be in any of those three hotels? The only restaurant you will have is the one you have a location for if and when you get a restaurant? Mr. Jabara: When we get the right restaurant. Mr. LaPine: The construction, I know what the Fairfield Inn looks like, a Residence Inn I have seen one, but I don't know this other hotel you are talking ,,,� about. Is it a lower-priced Residence Inn? 15057 Mr. Jabara: An extended stay hotel. *41.1. Mr. LaPine: By extended stay, that is a couple of weeks? I guess what I want to ask, what is the difference between a Residence Inn and the Town Suites? Mr. Jabara: It is a relatively new product by Marriott for people that don't want to spend the money for a Residence Inn, basically. Mr. LaPine: Are there any of those in the Metropolitan Detroit area? Mr. Jabara: No, it is brand new. Mr. LaPine: These are all Marriott operations? Mr. Jabara: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Is one depending on the other? By that I mean will they all go in or is there a possibility two may go in and then at a future date they may decide they are oversaturated with hotel rooms in that area and one could be eliminated? Mr. Jabara: The only one that could be in question of the three would be the Town Suites. There is no guarantee until someone commits to it. We don't know who will be building there yet. If that does not get built as a Town Suites, with the C-4 zoning we can still do office there. Mr. LaPine: You are telling us tonight, I think Mr. Morrow asked this question, I just want to clarify, the Fairfield Inn and the Residence Suites that is a go for sure. Mr. Jabara: Absolutely. Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this petition. Tom Malcolm, 38952 Reo Drive: I am located in Quakertown Subdivision directly south of this property. A few of the residents of the subdivision did sit down with Mr. Jabara and his staff from J-P and we talked about the proposal and I thank him for allowing us to be there, and we do admit that now that the original rezoning has occurred, which is something we obviously were opposed to at first, we do find this proposal being somewhat lesser of two evils. We do agree with the traffic pattern. I am not an expert myself on traffic engineering but I would think it would be somewhat of an improvement. My concern is, and mainly it 15058 came out of the discussion dealing with the AMC theaters that you talked about a few weeks back, was talk about chasing business away from something that already exists. I see three hotels going here that are going to be directly west of an expressway where four other hotels are on the other side, two of them owned by Marriott, one of them also owned by J-P Properties, which is the Best Western. What I am concerned about is what you were all talking about, the hotel being built and then possibly taking business away and would they ever succeed. Obviously you will build one but will the third one ever show up? So we are concerned about oversaturation of hotels. I understand this will be Marriott's first intersection with all five of their subsidiaries altogether at one intersection, the only place in the country, so maybe I kind of look at this as maybe a test pilot thing on the part of Marriott. I am hoping it will be successful if it happens but I don't like being a guinea pig in this situation. Of course as residents we are concerned about the traffic. We are concerned about Schoolcraft not being cooperative in the sense of, if nothing else, selling the property to J-P to build a road to Haggerty. That doesn't seem to be something that is in the works right now even though Mr. Jabara said it could be something in the future but we certainly would like that to be a condition of something to happen before things are built. We are concerned even if they do widen Fox Drive that it is not going to help the traffic situation. Even with hotels there is going to be an increase in traffic. As residents we are concerned because we are landlocked in the �.. Quakertown Subdivision and according to all the traffic reports I have read there is no way they can put traffic signals at our entrances and there is no way we can add more entrances to our subdivision. So we are concerned about being more landlocked. Also, considering Northville is doing all their development on the west side of Haggerty, obviously in an year's time that is going to add to the traffic problems. Again, we just want to make sure you remember us and our concern that this might be oversaturation and we are also concerned about traffic. We just want to make sure our concerns are brought up with you and the City Council if it gets that far. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-6-1-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebret son, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #7-127-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-6-1-13 by J-P Properties requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road, west of the I-96 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.O. 15059 and P to C-4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-6-1-13 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses and zoning districts in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are normally found adjacent to expressway interchanges; 3) That the traffic generated from uses permitted by the proposed zoning district will be more compatible with existing traffic in the area; and 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses which are currently not available 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. LaPine: I just wanted to say to the gentleman that was up here, my first reaction when I looked at this for three hotels was the same reaction that he had, it seems like a lot of hotels in one area, but then we got this letter in the mail talking about an article in the Free Press about hotels and this morning there was another one saying there is a shortage of hotel *low rooms now. My gut feeling is that is not the complete truth. I think there may be room for some additional hotels but it's their money and I have a lot of confidence in the Marriott Hotel Company. I think they do a good job. I only wish Schoolcraf3 would be a little more cooperative so we could get a road through there. I think that would relieve a little of the congestion that this proposal may cause but I am very much for it. I think it is probably the best we can get at that location. Mr. Morrow: I wanted to clear up one thing, should Town Suites not come to fruition, that the site could be developed as office. I just wanted to verify that was accurate that under C-4 you can build two to four-story offices in the C-4 classification. Mr. Nagy: That is true. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-2-21 by Yvonne and Adnan Khazouz requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited 15060 service restaurant in an existing building located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Van Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating he has no objection to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The parking areas need to be repaired and restriped. 2. Landscaping at the northwest and southwest curb cuts need repair. 3. Dumpster enclosures in the east parking area need to be repaired and cleaned up. 4. The north side of the building needs to be repainted. 5. Barrier free parking spaces need to be properly identified. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Yvonne Khazouz, 18251 Fremont: We are trying to get approval for a Middle Eastern restaurant. Mr. McCann: Did you get a copy of the deficiencies? `ow Ms. Khazouz: I got a copy. I have to talk to the landlord. Mr. McCann: Did you have an opportunity to talk to the landlord? Ms. Khazouz: I was waiting for approval. Mr. McCann: I think it might have been better to do that first. Ms. Khazous: Me and the landlord were waiting for approval. Mr. McCann: Is your landlord here tonight? Ms. Khazouz: No. They live in New York. Mr. Alanskas: By Middle Eastern do you mean like chicken shawarma? Ms. Khazouz: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: John, if they wanted to add an additional six chairs, could they do that? Mr. Nagy: If you condition it on a certain limitation, then they would have to come back. If you leave it open ended, so long as they met the parking °�- they could add those chairs. 15061 Mr. Alanskas: You have no plans on having tables and chairs outside in the summer months? Ms. Khazouz: That would be nice but I am planning on having more carry out than sit down. Mr. Alanskas: For the pita bread, do you have your own oven there or do you bring it in? Ms. Khazouz: I buy it. Mr. Morrow: I just want to follow up a little more on the landlord input. Did you get the impression that if the use was permitted, that he would go forward to correct the inspection deficiencies? Ms. Khazouz: He is going to help me as much as he can. He can approve me up to $10,000 on fixing the building on the outside but the rest is going to be on me. Mr. Morrow: Should we approve this, we will probably condition it that those inspection things will be taken care. Secondly, you have not signed any agreement have you? You are waiting for our approval? Ms. Khazouz: We are waiting for approval from you. Mr. LaPine: Is this property owned by Mr. Samuels? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Do you own a restaurant now? Ms. Khazouz: My brother-in-law does. Mr. LaPine: So this will be your first? Ms. Khazouz: Yes my first. Mr. LaPine: What are the hours of operation going to be? Ms. Khazouz: From lunch time to dinner time. Mr. LaPine: Say from ten o'clock in the morning until seven or eight o'clock at night? Ms. Khazouz: Yes. 15062 Mr. LaPine: Saturdays and Sundays? rr.. Ms. Khazouz: I don't know about Sunday. Mr. LaPine: You say primarily you will be catering more to carry out? Ms. Khazouz: It depends on how it goes. I don't know how it will go in Livonia. Mr. LaPine: I would caution you that $10,000 doesn't go a very long way when you have some of these items. That is not a lot of money when you are making repairs. I would think you would want to take that into consideration when you are negotiating with the landlord. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do you know if any citations were issued regarding any of these deficiencies? Mr. Nagy: I think the Building Inspection's policy generally is to inform the applicants of any deficiencies and then wait and see if the matter is going to be corrected as a result of the applicant's use of the property, and should that fail, then they would go back to revisit the site and cite the landlord at that time. Mr. Engebretson: What kind of cooking will you be doing at this facility? Ms. Khazouz: Meat pies, spinach pies, shish kabob. Mr. Engebretson: It sounds like it is a rather extensive menu that will involve cooking. The interest in asking that question has more to do with how you are going to ventilate the kitchen area and what kind of odors are you going to be putting into that neighborhood? Even a bakery with good fresh bread smells wonderful for a short period of time, but 24 hours a day it could become a nuisance. Some restaurants put in scrubbing equipment that will capture all the odors before the ventilation occurs to the outside atmosphere. I am trying to ask you what your plans are in that regard. Ms. Khazouz: Engineering is going to work on that. Mr. Engebretson: John, I don't know about Middle Eastern kitchens but tell me what kind of assurance we will have that as this construction occurs that it will not create a nuisance there? Mr. Nagy: All the kitchen equipment will be inspected by the Wayne County Health Department, the Air Quality Division of the county, that does 15063 those kinds of inspections for the city and they will have to comply with all those standards regarding air filtration, etc. Mr. Engebretson: You are aware of all those things? Ms. Khazouz: Yes. Mr. Engebretson: What about garbage? How are you going to be handling your waste materials? Ms. Khazouz: I have to ask the landlord how they do that or the City. Mr. Engebretson: There are disposals, there are compactors, there are dumpsters. There are many ways to deal with getting rid of trash, particularly options for a restaurant-type operation. It sounds to me like you haven't really thought through many of the details as to how you are gong to operate this facility. Ms. Khazouz: I have someone helping me. Mr. Engebretson: Where is that person? Is he here tonight to answer these questions? Ms. Khazouz: No. Mr. Engebretson: Assuming you move on from here to the City Council, it would be my recommendation to you that you attend that City Council meeting a lot better prepared. Please understand I am not wanting to be belligerent with you, but I think these are questions that really need to be answered so this gives you the opportunity to find out what the areas of interest are and then when you go that next step to the City Council you can be a lot better prepared because I would like to see you be successful. Mr. LaPine: You said you have an individual you work with and he owns a restaurant at the present time. Can you tell me where that restaurant is located? Ms. Khazouz: I don't know. He sold it to his brother. Mr. LaPine: The restaurant his brother owns, is it Middle Eastern? Ms. Khazouz: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Where is it located? Ms. Khazouz: Schaeffer and Michigan Road in Dearborn. 15064 Mr. Morrow: I read the Inspection report but I didn't bring the copy with me tonight. Are most of those comments based on the center itself and not so much `„ on this property? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. This is just one suite within multi suites. Mr. Morrow: It is not confined specifically to this location. Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Morrow: I don't know if this is my place or not but my advice would be that the landlord take care of all those things because it doesn't affect you. It is his center and very likely if it isn't taken care of with your petition, as the Planning Director indicated, they are going to come back and issue citations and then he will be required to do it on his own. I would be extremely careful before you start sprucing up his center for him to get your use. It seems like it should be the other way around. Ms. Khazouz: I was waiting to talk to him. Mr. Morrow: You said if he couldn't do it for $10,000, you had to pick up the difference. Maybe I wasn't following it but I thought I heard you say he would take care of it up to $10,000 and then you would have to pay the rest. I think he would spend all the money to get you as a tenant. I am just cautioning you to be careful before you say you are going to spruce up his center for him. Mr. McCann: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition: There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-6-2-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #7-128-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 96-6-2-21 by Yvonne and Adnan Khazouz requesting waiver use approval to operate a limited service restaurant in an existing building located on the east side of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road and Van Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-6-2-21 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the number of customer seats shall be limited to no more than 24 •... seats; 15065 2) That the site deficiencies which are outlined in a letter dated June 24, 1996 from the Inspection Department shall be taken care of prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *" Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Cross Winds Court Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Stamwich and Merriman in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Parks and Recreation Department stating they found no discrepancies or problems in this plan as submitted. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no objections to this development provided adequate hydrants are provided for Cross Winds Road and cul-de-sacs. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the proposed layout but they will require sidewalks on both sides of the residential street north of Six Mile Road (adjacent to the excepted parcel). Further, driveway access to Lot 1 should be restricted to the new residential street. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here? Leo Soave, 34822 Pembroke: What we propose is a 21 lot subdivision. Again, these '"� homes would range from $250,000, full basement, full brick, three to 15066 four bedroom homes. As part of the rezoning petition we agreed with the adjacent homeowners that we would provide a 15 foot undisturbed greenbelt on all three sides of the property. I will answer your questions. Mr. Morrow: I think at one time the church also found a little bit of a problem with this residential development. Has that all been straightened out? Mr. Soave: Yes that was part of the agreement. Mr. Morrow: So everyone seems to be happy in the area? Mr. Soave: They should be satisfied. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Soave, when would you expect to start construction on this? Mr. Soave: As soon as we get approval. Mr. Engebretson: I understand that you would start immediately but when is your best estimate when that would be? Mr. Soave: I would like to start this fall. It will take me that long to get it approved. Mr. Engebretson: Would you construct a couple of models there? Mr. Soave: We have plans for two models. Mr. Engebretson: What are the size and price ranges of these homes? Mr. Soave: About 2200 sq. ft. for ranches and 2600-2800 sq. ft. for colonials. They will be priced about $250,000. Mr. Engebretson: All four bedrooms? Mr. Soave: Three bedrooms on the ranches and four bedrooms on the colonials. Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal. Patti Vandongen, 30523 Bobrich: I have negotiated with Leo about the greenbelt. I am just wondering when we are going to get the exact details of the landscaping. Mr. Nagy: We do have a recommendation that after the preliminary design and layout is approved, before the final plat is submitted, an actual 15067 landscape plan be submitted to the Commission for your review and approval, at which time then we will know better which trees will be retained and how many, and what kind of site disturbance, if any, occurs so you can make a more proper evaluation as to what is needed to create the screen that has been promised. The landscape plan will come back at that time so we can more properly address this issue and no final plat will be approved until that landscape plan is done to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Vandogen: Will we be notified? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mary Smith, 30419 Bobrich: My biggest concern is water. It is always wet back there and it always floods. I want to know what he is going to do about the water. Mr. Nagy: There will be rear yard drains put in to catch the water. When the houses are constructed and proper grades are established in relation to the finished grade of the home to the rear yard, the water will be intercepted within the appropriate rear yard drains to the underground storm sewer system and brought out through piping to a drain on Six Mile Road. It should really correct any problems that would occur as a result of this storm sewer system being put in. Ms. Smith: I just don't want it in my back yard. Mr. McCann: According to the Director of Planning that should alleviate the problem. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the approval for the Preliminary Plat for Cross Winds Court Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #7-129-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 9, 1996 on Preliminary Plat approval for Cross Winds Court Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Stamwich and Merriman in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Cross Winds Court Subdivision be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and to the following additional conditions: 15068 1) That a landscape plan for the proposed 15 foot wide greenbelt easement located along the west, north and east property lines shall be submitted to the fir., Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the Final Plat; and 2) That a plan for the required entrance marker shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the Final Plat. for the following reasons: 1) That the Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with all applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance; 2) That no City department has objected to approval of the Preliminary Plat; and; 3) That the Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable and well designed land use solution to development of the subject land. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. d.. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #138-96, to hold a public hearing on an amendment to Section 18.58(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to require with respect to all OS, C-1 and C-2 zoned property, the City Planning Commission shall review the site plan and submit a report and recommendation to the City Council for its approval (deleting the two-acre exception for OS and five-acre exception for C-1 and C-2). Mr. McCann: Any new information Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: No additional information. Mr. McCann: We need a motion to set a public hearing. 15069 On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-130-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.58(a) of the Zoning Ordinance to require with respect to all OS, C-1 and C-2 zoned property, the City Planning Commission shall review the site plan and submit a report and recommendation to the City Council for its approval. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 725th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held on June 4, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #7-131-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 725th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 4, 1996 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 726th Regular Meeting held on June 18, 1996. Mr. LaPine: I will move to approve them. I would also like to inform the Commission that I did give the minutes back to our secretary and had some changes made to some of the remarks I had made and they have been incorporated into the new minutes. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-132-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 726th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 18, 1996 are approved. 15070 Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 375th Special Meeting held on June 25, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #7-133-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 375th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 25, 1996 are approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-8-10 by Ronald J. Tetrault, on behalf of Livonia Auto Body& Repair, requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the commercial building located at 27780 Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster and Deering. The petitioner is planning to add an addition to the rear of their existing building. The new addition will be 2,160 sq. ft. in size. The existing building is 2,850 sq. ft. in size so if this is approved and completed the building will become 5,010 sq. ft. in size. This is a non- conforming building because of the front yard setback from Joy Road, therefore, the petitioner had to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals before presenting it to you. They have the variance so by virtue of the variance they are a conforming building. Parking on the site, they are required to have 15 parking spaces. The site shows 26, which would include four for the proposed storage area. The new building would be constructed out of concrete block and painted to match the existing building. Mr. Morrow: Is there any change to the south elevation as opposed to what exists there now? Mr. Miller: Nothing is shown here. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner in the audience tonight? Would you come down and tell us why you need the addition. Ronald Tetrault, 27780 Joy Road: I would like to point out a couple of features. I think putting the addition on would solve problems and add to our building. One of them is the fact that our building now only uses the front 15071 entrance and what this would do, this would alleviate some of the driving that occurs right on Joy Road. I know several people would `„ like to see that. I know there has been some concern about the size of the building. Actually as it turns out, the size would be almost identical to that of our next door neighbor, Livonia Home Improvement, as well as the rear setback would be almost identical. We feel that being able to park the cars inside would also help as far as keeping the vehicles. As it is now, and I think anyone in the neighborhood would attest to it, the vehicles that are damaged are always kept in the back lot and this would even further keep them inside the building. Mr. Alanskas: In the summertime you don't do any removal of fender parts, etc. outside the building? Mr. Tetrault: No, it is all done inside. Mr. Morrow: Now that you are going to have those bays to the rear, I was out there but I can't remember how close you were to some of the neighbors. Do you normally work with your doors open in the summertime? Mr. Tetrault: In the summertime I do. There is only one roll-up door on the back side of the building, which would be the elevation you are speaking of, and that one is normally open during the summertime. *tar Mr. Morrow: Have you had any complaints from the neighborhood about the noise? Mr. Tetrault: No, as a matter of fact when we were at the Zoning Board of Appeals we had no opposition and we had a total of three neighbors that were there on our behalf. Mr. Morrow: I know sometimes, not necessarily with your type of work, but other shops such as tire shops and that, sometimes the people get these "boom boxes"turned up and it can be a disturbance to the neighborhood. Is that something that occurs at your shop? Mr. Tetrault: No. We just have the three owners working there so hopefully we won't do that. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #7-134-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 96-6-8-10 by Ronald J. Tetrault, on behalf of Livonia Auto Body& Repair, requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the 15072 commercial building located at 27780 Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, subject to the following conditions: *taw 1) That the Site& Building Elevation Plan by Ronald J. Tetrault, as received by the Planning Commission on June 18, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That all work is to be done inside the building. 3) That there shall be no outside storage of used or junked auto parts. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-8-11 by VC-6 Associates, on behalf of Rite Aid Pharmacy, requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 27401 Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Inkster. This property has already received site plan approval to build a 9,000 sq. ft. commercial building. That was on January 17th of last year. The petitioner since then has rezoned the property to the south to `ok.. allow for the expansion of the building, and that is what is before you tonight. The proposal is for a 11,180 sq. ft. building to be located on the site. Parking, they are required to have 60 parking spaces for the commercial building; the site shows 60 parking spaces. Landscaping, they are required to have 15% and the site shows 15% so they are conforming in all those regards. The elevation shows the lower half of the building will be brick with a stucco type dryvet along the northern half of the building. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward. Joseph Rokicsak, 32535 Schoolcraft: A little history on the site. Originally we had a Perry Drug Store that was going to go in the site. Perry Drugs was subsequently bought out by Rite Aid Drugs. Rite Aid Drugs does not like to go into a smaller site. They requested if we could possibly enlarge the building to fit their standard prototype store. They added some architectural features, added brick to it. They changed it significantly on the outside from what we had originally intended. We feel it is a better-looking building, aesthetically speaking. We are here hoping that it gets approved. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was 15073 #7-135-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 96-6-8-11 by VC-6 Associates, on behalf of Rite Aid Pharmacy, requesting approval for all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance#543 in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 27401 Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet No. SP 1.0 dated April 23, 1996 prepared by Bowers and Rein Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the parking spaces for the entire site shall be double striped; 3) That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet No. LP1.0 dated April 23, 1996 prepared by Bowers and Rein Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all new landscaped and sodded area and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet SPA-2 dated June 11, 1996 prepared by T. Rogvoy Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the trash dumpster area is to be enclosed on three sides with the same brick used in the construction of the principal building and the wooden enclosure gates, when not in use, shall be maintained and closed at all times; 7) That this approval does not authorize consent of any signage shown on the plans. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Engebretson, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, LaPine ABSENT: Blomberg, Piercecchi Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Mouna Harake requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 19251 Southampton Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. 15074 Mr. Miller: The petitioner called at five o'clock this afternoon and asked to have his item postponed. Mr. McCann: Since it is on the agenda we need a motion to table this item. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #7-136-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Mouna Harake requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 19251 Southampton Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 until date uncertain. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 727th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on July 9, 1996 was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION j Robert Alanskas, Secretary ATTEST: �- �� . �• / : James C. McCann, Chairman • jg