The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPLANNING MINUTES 1990-06-12 11130 MINUTES OF THE 602nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 12, 1990, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 602nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. William LaPine, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 60 interested persons in the audience. Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Raymond W. Tent Brenda Lee Fandrei Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. LaPine 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 do not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been sour . 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. Tent, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-1-13 by Richard Lewiston for Donald & Patricia Ridout, George Koja, Eleanor Koja, John & Annette Armstrong, Alfred & Josephine Orlando, Anthony & Dolores Bell and Raymond & Joann Orlando, requesting to rezone property located between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Road, west of Newburgh Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to R-7. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department of the City of Livonia has sent a letter stating with reference to previous petitions related to this same site area, some sections of the site may be considered as wetlands. The petitioner should review this matter with the Department of Natural Resources under the provisions of the Wetland Protection Act. Should the site be developed as R-7 zoning, it will be necessary to detain all storm water runoff from the site. Further, it may be necessary to loop a proposed water system from St. Martins Street to the water system near the intersection of Pembroke/Victor Parkway. Signed by Gary Clark. We have a letter from the Detroit Edison Company. I have reviewed the above captioned petition with respect to our land needs and the location of Detroit Edison overhead or underground facilities in the general area. The Detroit 11131 Edison Company has no objection to this petition, however we do maintain overhead lines on these properties that would conflict with any construction. Please inform the developer that we will need a a" site plan as soon as possible. The Detroit Edison Company will need eight to ten weeks to relocate our equipment, provided all necessary permits and rights of way can be secured. If I can be of further assistance, please call me on 397-4079. Signed by Frank J. Weimert, Service Planner. That is the extent of our correspondence. Richard M. Lewiston, president of Lewiston-Smith Realty Corporation: Although the petition states that I appear for the owners of the property, I am at the present time the conditional purchaser of each of the two parcels sought to be rezoned. The property consists of 15.9 acres, consisting of two parcels, one of which are the Ridout's parcel to the west and the other parcel is owned by the balance of the people. Each parcel is approximately 8 acres. We seek to rezone the land to the R-7 classification to permit us to build a luxury rental residential community to be known as Cobblestone Village Apartments which will consist of 138 dwelling units. Each dwelling will be two bedroom, two bath units. Each would contain 1100-1200 sq. ft. Each unit would have its own two car attached garage. We would expect each to rent upwards to $1,000 per month. We have prepared certain graphic materials. This is a plan which indicates not only the proposed site plan for the residential community, but indicates the juxtaposition of the community with regard to surrounding land uses. Immediately west is the Victor Corporate Park. To the north are public lands except that portion now being constructed for the United States Post Office which has a modest effect upon this `om. parcel. South all the way to Seven Mile Road are RUFC parcels. The project proposed would consist of 23 six-unit buildings, a recreation and administration building, a water feature which would also serve as the retention pond spoken of by Mr. Clark in his letter to Mr. Nagy. That water feature would be landscaped and planned with aeration devices. All of our entry to and from the project is restricted to Pembroke. No access is proposed either from St. Martins or areas east or west. The development proposes 75' of berms along the easterly and southerly boundary to protect the residential uses to the east and south. It is very substantially influenced by the major developments we expect to occur by Victor Park and by the availability of Pembroke. We have attempted to design the project so that it is influenced by and compatible with Victor Park so that the effects on the neighbors are minimized to the maximum extent possible. This is a larger drawing of the site. Only about 17% of the site is used for building purposes. The balance is for landscape and roadway purposes. Because every building has its own integral garages, parking on site is minimized. We don't have the sea of autos usually on a project this size. The berms are more clearly delineated. They occupy the entire 75' required set back area to screen neighborhood properties. Architecturally, the buildings will be brick, stone and wood construction designed to appear as mansions. Individual entrances into each of the units. There is a courtyard fronting the entire building. Garages are an integral part of the building. Front and rear would still be the same brick, stone and wood. Development 11132 would be tied together at all entrance points by entry gates, by extensive landscaping throughout. From a zoning standpoint, the juxtaposition of this type of project next to an office parcel and adjacent to public land, has been repeated several times in the area from Six Mile to Eight Mile west of Newburgh Road. At the north end of Victor Corporate Park, you will find a R-7 parcel with the same juxtaposition. The same situation is repeated in the Six Mile to Seven Mile corridor. These are always difficult petitions especially in a community as decent as Livonia. We have had several petitions before the City Planning Commission and City Council. Each one of them of course was individual. This was a particularly beautiful site. In my experience, I thought the location lent itself beautifully to this community. I think we can design a project that is compatible with our neighbors and surroundings. We do have a long term reputation in the community to operate a project of this character. We have been in apartment construction and management since 1939. During that time we built a great many apartment developments. North Park, Eastland Village, River Oaks, Regency Square, Regency Park. All projects were award winners and a credit to their surroundings and still lovely to look at 30 years later. This is a site at least equal to or better than those projects. There is an open question on this site regarding the existence of State regulated wetlands. Some several years ago a blind application was made to the DNR involving just the west 8 acres for determination of whether wetland existed or not. No plans accompanied this request. No expert met the state on this. From that application came back the determination that wetlands might exist. When we acquired this property, we caused our own expert to go view the site. Our expert brought to our attention changes that occurred in the area since 1988 that have greatly influenced whether wetlands exist or do not exist on that property. Victor uses a site which is absolutely coextensive with this property. There is no reservation of wetlands adjacent to this property. The construction of St. Martins tended to drain the site. The construction of Pembroke Road has had an effect. It is our expert's opinion that no more than 3 acres of wetlands potentially exist on the site. There is construction on both sides. We have a great deal more work to do with DNR in that regard. If it is a wetlands, it will be a wetlands whether the land is zoned RUF or R-7 and can't be used. It ought to be a neutral factor. Since I can't get a determination from the DNR in less than a year, I believe the effect would be negligible. I respectfully ask that the two questions be separate. Mr. LaPine: John, assuming that we rezoned it, he would still have to get approval from the DNR to do any building. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is a correct statement. Mr. LaPine: That parcel to the right, is there someone living in that house? Mr. Lewiston: Yes, I am told there is. Mr. LaPine: Have you tried to purchase that property so it would be a squared off area? 11133 Mr. Lewiston: I would like to try and purchase it. It is extremely poor living conditions. Mr. LaPine: Pembroke would be the only way in or out of this project. Is that correct? Mr. Lewiston: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Because of this, when the Victor project is completed, there will be a lot of traffic around that. Are you going to have a guard door there? Mr. Lewiston: Yes, a control gate. Mr. Tent: Do I understand that if the DNR does not acquiesce to your request as far as wetlands, you will discontinue your project? Mr. Lewiston: No. I would have to go around it. It would be the same project. If the wetlands do exist, it would be in the southerly end of the project. Mr. Tent: Have the other units been $1,000 a month rentals? Mr. Lewiston: Some have been more. My North Park Community is $1,500 and fully occupied. They are next to Northland Shopping Center. Mr. Tent: If we were to grant you the zoning, have you had any history in the past of abandoning your projects, selling it and let someone else have it? Mr. Lewiston: No. I have come forth with every project I have been involved in. I have been in business since 1963. I have bought a lot of land in that time and sold very little. Mr. Morrow: You would go forward with the project regardless of the wetlands? Mr. Lewiston: Yes. If the wetlands would have any effect, the effect will be felt south and we would still be left with a relative rectangle and this would be landscaped open space. Mr. Vynalek: Have you ever had any condominiums developed? Mr. Lewiston: Yes, we have had some over the years. Mr. Vynalek: Have you thought of condos here? Mr. Lewiston: I have. Every once in a while a parcel of land presents itself to you that is so superb, that has such a long life, you hate to sell it. You want to he associated with it for a long time. I have the same feeling for this parcel of land. This is one of those parcels. The problem with a condominium development is that you build it and sell it. I maintain my properties as well or better as they maintain theirs. I would like to have that opportunity to do the same here. 11134 Mr. Vyhnalek: The water runoff, would that retention pond handle the full 16 acres? fir. Mr. Lewiston: Yes. The retention pond has two purposes. One is to take enough volume so that water can be held and doesn't enter the drain at more than agriculture rate of runoff. It is really a question of volume area for the water. Our water feature can be adjusted as to depth so that we will have whatever the cubic acreage foot involved is required for that retention. On a site of 15 acres, I suspect our retention requirements would be somewhere between 1 and 1-1/2 acres in cubic foot terms. From that would be a pump. There would be two mechanical devices; an aeration device and pump which pumps the water out. Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Nagy, would you describe the density as far as this project is concerned,the parameters and what is required? Mr. Nagy: Under the maximum allowable density, the maximum would be 10 units per acre for two bedroom units and 12 units per acre for one bedroom units. This project is is 8 to 8-1/2 units, so it is well under the maximum. Mr. Gniewek: This project is different because it is using more land for less building? Mr. Nagy: I think it is a little different in the sense that unlike more conventional apartment projects you might see where you have open surface parking, because you have attached garages, that takes up Soar more available land area and thence the lower density. Mrs. Fandrei: The project you spoke of in Southfield, is that north of the theatre? Mr. Lewiston: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: And how old are those? Mr. Lewiston: 1954. Mrs. Fandrei: And you still have control of those? Mr. Lewiston: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: They do look good. Do you have any in this area? Mr. Lewiston: Yes. Pilgrim Village on Lilly and Joy Road in Canton. Mr. Engebretson: I believe you said you prepared this proposal to be compatible with Corporate Park and that the effect on the neighbors would be minimized to the maximum extent. I wonder why if you are concerned about minimizing the effect on the neighbors, why you wouldn't consider putting in single family homes in there and being even more compatible? 11135 Mr. Lewiston: That wouldn't necessarily be true. Perhaps the adjacent residences would be compatible, but if you go further north toward Pembroke, those locations would not be the very best, single house locations. Now— I think you would be sacrificing a great many single family residences in this vicinity. I don't think that Pembroke with its traffic load would be a desirable place for houses. I think we are going to find ourselves in an office-type environment in the next ten years. We try to recognize the normal concerns of adjacent residents, however, I don't always agree with them. We at least neutralize our effect. I think our effect is beneficial. I think a beautiful architectural structure is beneficial. Mr. LaPine: The parcel right now is completely wooded. I would assume you are not going to cut all the trees? Mr. Lewiston: We do it in multi-stages. We remove as needed. Mr. Gniewek: About the utilities, as far as the electricity is concerned, it will be underground? Mr. Lewiston: All underground. Ronald Olszewski, 37616 St. Martins: One of the major advantages that attracted myself, as well as the neighbors I know that are building on St. Martins, was the fact that the area is maintained as a rural type of rustic atmosphere. The purpose of the 1/2 acres was to keep that rural atmosphere. The only problems that I personally would have is that this development coming so far south encroaches onto St. `r. Martins and violates the integrity of a residential development. One of the things that is important is that all the developers have the foresight to make sure that they maintain the integrity of each of the area developments. I am concerned because I know this area back here has some wetland areas. Why hasn't one of the other board members questioned why this area couldn't be cut off? Why can't this still be maintained for residential in keeping with the integrity of the street along with Northland? Why does it have to encroach on to St. Martins? This is a concern I have and a concern of other neighbors up the street. There are residential homes all the way to the end of the street. Mr. LaPine: I would say that the home that you are building is 2 to 3 times the cost of some of the other homes down St. Martins. Mr. Olszewski: The rural aspect is what sold me to buy that 3/4 acre and build a home that size. I would be willing to challenge this board that if this area here is maintained, you will find homes built like mine. Look what is going on just the other side of Newburgh. This area Ns. 11136 could be maintained as a rural area with well-developed homes and a good strong tax base. Mr. McCann: I think what you are saying has a lot of merit. One of our concerns is the amount of density of projects going in. This project does have a lot of merit, but I agree with you that it is encroaching on a residential type of area. If he were willing to go along with your suggestion and divide that up for 3/4 acre lots to join the rest of the area, would you have a problem with the project going in behind you? Mr. Olszewski: No, I personally do not have a problem with the project. It looks very nice. I have some questions in my mind about the runoff. There are a couple of artesian springs here. This area is low and constantly flooded. There is constant water runoff toward St. Martins. I have concerns about the development of this property especially if it starts flooding my property. Mr. McCann: It may stay as wetlands. Mr. Olszewski: If it will stay 1/2 acres, I have no problem. My concern is the fact that this street is RUF. That is what attracted me to the street. Mr. Vhynelek: Mr. Olszewski, did you have any problems with the DNR when you built on your lot? vor Mr. Olszewski: No, not with the DNR. As far as the ground being wet, there were some development problems. Mr. Vyhnalek: They had to approve that, right? Mr. Olszewski: Absolutely. Gary Markwardt, 37785 St. Martins: I live across the west edge of the west parcel here. The house you mentioned before is occupied by an elderly lady in her 80's who has lived there for many years. I would like to support Mr. Olszewski's comments. I am not opposed to the development of the area north of the line. I would prefer condos myself because people actually own what they live in. It is a well maintained street and many houses with people who take pride in what they own. When you own something, you take much better care of it. The area that that opens up to St. Martins should be maintained as residential. I have been in the area 12 years and I always hoped the area would be residential. Unfortunately, Victor has changed that somewhat. In terms of wetlands, I can tell you that on the other side of the berm west of me, Victor has dug a rather substantial trench that has running water in it about a foot deep constantly. I also know that on the easterly edge of that property, there is water constantly running in the ditch. It is a wet area. I would like to encourage the members of the board that this area that abuts St. Martins stay as residential. I can support the project to the north. Along St. Martins, a berm doesn't do it. I 11137 have a berm to the west of me and what it is is an 8' high pile of weeds. I would hate to see something like that to the north. Joe Komos, 37715 St. Martins: I just want to agree with Ron and Gary that the street should stay residential. Ron has built a beautiful home there. I would like to see it residential. As far as having properties to the north that will be rented out and with the berm there, people will have access to St. Martins. You don't know who is going to be coming over that berm. By having residential property along St. Martins, you know who is there. Steve Gilson, 37605 St. Martins: I did have water when I built 3-1/2 years ago. I am across the street from here and I would like to see the road zoned residential like it is now for the first 300 feet or so to keep it rustic. That is why I bought my lot. Kevin Sullivan, 1221 Pine Crest Drive, Union Lake: I don't know about Mr. Lewiston's construction ability, but North Park was built in the 60's and they do run a good management team. Carol Sata, 37741 St. Martins: I agree with these gentlemen. I would very much like to see the front lots maintained as single family residences. The area there is very wet. Across from my home you walk in 10' to 15' and you start to sink. Mrs. Fandrei: I have to support the neighbors. I think the first 300' north is more appropriate for homes, but I am concerned about the high water table. I live in the area and my sump pump is running during the drought. My concern is that the builder's retention basin may not be adequate. My largest concern is rezoning this to R-7 when there will not be decisions made from DNR for at least a year. Knowing how our economy is and how things change, what we have experienced in our request for offices recently have shown great changes in that area alone. Personally, I am not ready to rezone to R-7 until we know what kind of answers we will get from the DNR. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-1-13 closed. Mr. Lewiston: I agree with my neighbors too. We would be agreeable to the drawing of a line extending east and west across the front of the property and preserving south of that line in the existing zoning classification. This is a magnificent house and deserves consideration and secondly, that area of the site is that area the DNR might consider as being wetland. That would always be the area on the site for wetlands. Eliminating it from the property to the north eliminates the wetlands consideration. There has been considerable improvement in drainage since the road was built. The volumes of water I see are way down. I suspect when we build an internal storm sewer system it will activate much of the water problem. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was Nr. 11138 #6-369-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 90-4-1-13 by Richard Lewiston for Donald & Patricia Ridout, George Koja, Eleanor Koja, John & Annette Armstrong, Alfred & Josephine Orlando, Anthony & Dolores Bell and Raymond & Joann Orlando, requesting to rezone property located between Pembroke Avenue and St. Martins Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to R-7 be tabled until June 19, 1990. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Gniewek, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei. NAYS: LaPine ABSENT:None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 90•-5-1-14 by Hobbs & Black Associates, Inc. for St. Mary's Hospital requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 20 from P.O.-I (high rise professional office-6 stories) and RUF (one family residential-1/2 acre lot) to P.S. (professional service) . Mr. Bakewell 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 that our records indicate that there is a 62 foot wide easement across the parcel in question for the open Bakewell (County) Drain. They have no objections to the proposed rezoning. We also have a letter from Detroit Edison Company stating they have no objections to this petition, however we do maintain overhead lines on these properties that would conflict with any construction. Please inform the developer that we will need a site plan as soon as possible. The Detroit Edison Company will need eight to ten weeks to relocate our equipment, provided all necessary permits and rights of way can be secured. Signed by Frank J. Weimert, Service Planner. Joe Hoadley, Hobbs & Black, architects for the project. The zoning is being requested so that we can develop and construct a 120 bed nursing home and home for the aged. There are 91 beds in the nursing home and 29 beds for the home for the aged. This facility is a 54,000 sq. ft. single story, residential looking structure. The nursing home will be developed under the Livonia City regulations, as well as the Michigan Department of Public Health and Michigan State Fire Marshal. The rezoning request will develop 19.9 acres and it is zoned from P.O.-I and RUF to P.S. which is the zoning classification for nursing homes in the City of Livonia. The entire northern 11139 boundary of the site is owned by the Felician Sisters 1/2 mile wide and 1 mile north and south. The area that we have designated for the nursing home is directly to the west of the existing hospital. I show this site plan as it shows the complete frontage of the property that is currently owned by the Felician Sisters. This is a copy of the site plan landscape plan. It represents a 54,000 sq. ft. single story structure located 770' back from the centerline of Five Mile Road. It is located about 190' to the west of a north-south internal drain on the site. The paving associated with the furthermost edges of the property represent about 42-45' distance between the property line and the parking and dropoff areas. Access to the site is done from two different points. The main entry is off of Five Mile about the west of center of the parcel requested, and it will act as the primary entrance for families and residents. The service entrance and employee entrance will be off of the existing hospital service drive off Levan Road. Currently, 85 parking spaces located on the site plan distributed among 3 distinct areas so that we don't end up with one lot. There will be one lot for staff in back of the service road. One lot is basically for the nursing home and visitors, and a small lot for visitors that come for the people who are living in the home for the aged facility. We have basically two separate uses going within the building, therefore, we have two separate entries. We have basically two nursing home units with 45 beds on one side and 46 on the other. We have 29 home for the aged type of uses and they have their own separate entry. There is a separation for the users of this type of facility. Architecturally, it will be a one-story brick building with sloped pitch roofs, slight overhangs, siding on gables. Very residential looking, much different from existing hospital units. Currently the Bakewell Drain does cut across. We are planning to put in at least the equivalent of a 10' diameter drain to accommodate the flow of the Bakewell drain without backing up to the west. Mrs. Fandrei: I think this is a very fine idea. I think this is a badly needed facility in our area. The property north of the drain you are requesting to be rezoned to P.S. Do you have a plan for that area? Mr. Hoadley: No. There are currently no plans for using that property. The overall area for this proposal was included because the access road was in that area. We thought it needed to be rezoned to in the same zoning we are developing for the housing project. Mrs. Fandrei: I would be in support of the petition to the point of having the north parcel between the drain and Five Mile not zoned P.S. I would like to not have that rezoned. Would you have a problem with that? Mr. Hoadley: No. We did add that parcel to the petition because of the access road. We had the understanding that the access road would have to have the same zoning that the development was to be zoned. Mr. Morrow: Would there be a problem turning the P.O.-I back to the RUF `r. 11140 classification and take it out of the intense use? Would that be a difficulty? Mr. Hoadley: That was requested when the hospital was developed. The way it was originally established. Mr. Morrow: Do you have a problem returning the zoning from P.O.-I to RUF so the zoning would have the front yards as RUF and the rear yard as P.S.? Mr. Hoadley: I don't believe there would be a problem with that. It was simply a zoning line that existed. Mr. Morrow: That way we would only have the two classifications William Macik, 36956 Five Mile Road: I am not against any home for the aged. I maintain my property across the street there and from the location they are proposing to build, it is right across the street from my house. There is an island that separates me. I would like some consideration for maybe berming this to reduce the level of traffic and noise it will cause there. Mr. Morrow: This is a zoning request and the petitioner will take that under advisement when they submit a site plan. Mr. Ramsey, 15307 Williams: I don't have any objection to the aged home, but I do have an objection to the access off Five Mile Road because it will increase the flow of traffic. There are only two entrances to the subdivision to the north which is directly across from the site. `. The eastbound flow of traffic will be affected for the left hand turns going to the subdivision versus all of the left hand turns going west down to the hospital. I would like to suggest an alternative route for the entrance to this nursing home. They have a boulevard-type entrance northeast across from the parcel to the north that goes into St. Mary's. Couldn't they use that same entrance and make an entrance instead of going out to Five Mile? Mr. LaPine: Mr. Ramsey, this will be addressed when we see the site plan. Mr. Longyear, 15338 Fitzgerald: You were saying the first shift will have 30 people. How much traffic will you create with this home? How many with the home for the aged? Mr. Hoadley: 30 people on each shift, 120 people that will live in the home for the aged, and maybe 20 people coming in through the service drive in the back. Mr. Longyear: How far off the back is the structure? Mr. Hoadley: From the center line of the road, it is 770' back. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-5-1-14 closed. fir. 11141 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was Noir, #6-370-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-5-1-14 by Hobbs and Black Associates, Inc. for St. Mary's Hospital requesting to rezone property located on the south side of five Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the northwest 1/4 of Section 20 from P.O.-I and RUF to P.S. The City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-5-1-14 be approved as revised to delete that portion north of the Bakewell Drain for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that will compliment the adjacent hospital use. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is appropriate for the subject location. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. rr Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-2-11 by Katherine Yaffe requesting waiver use approval to operate an A & W Restaurant within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the SE 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from William MacDonald of the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the Inspection Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from Arnold Klinger, Fire Marshal, stating they have no objections to this proposal. Another letter from Robert Thorne of the Traffic Bureau states that they proposal is acceptable as submitted and lastly, a letter from the Engineering Department stating that they have no objections. Detroit Edison has no objection to this proposal. Jeanne Hildebrandt, General Manager of Livonia Mall Shopping Center: At the current time Livonia Mall is on an expansion, adding a fourth major to our center and we would like to add another restaurant. Mrs. Yaffe and I have just concluded an agreement for her to join the center. She currently has an A & W Restaurant in Universal Mall, one in Oakland Mall and handles several food operations in the other mall in Livonia on Plymouth Road. Mrs. Yaffe is here tonight and can explain the seating for the A & W Restaurant. 11142 Katherine Yaffe: I am doing a garden-type setting with 70 seats with flowers to make it attractive to fit into Livonia Mall. °► Mr. LaPine: Is this a full service A & W Restaurant? Mr. Yaffe: Correct, but it is counter service, no table service. Mr. Vyhnalek: Upon entering your A & W, you go into the garden setting, can you walk from the center to the mall area? Ms. Yaffe: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: I was hinting at keeping the trash and papers inside. Could these people go out and sit on a bench? Mrs. Yaffe: That would be difficult to do. We are going to have planters all around. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many seats will be out in the patio? Ms. Yaffe: We have 70 seats and they go out into the space, but I don't know how many go out into the patio. Mr. Vyhnalek: How high are these planters? Ms. Yaffe: Three feet. Mr, Vyhnalek: How many employees are you going to have? '4111. Ms. Yaffe: On any shift, probably 5. Mr. Vyhnalek: And your hours of operation? Ms. Yaffe: Same as the mall hours--11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any outside seating? Ms. Yafee: No I don't. Strictly self-contained. Mr. Tent: Your original proposal was for 64 seats. Now you say there are 70. Mrs. Yaffe: I'm sorry. It is 64. Mr. LaPine: When they go up to the counter, is the food put on paper or plastic? Ms. Yaffe: It is put on paper plates on a tray. Mr. LaPine: After a person is finished, is he responsible for putting the stuff in the trash? Ms. Yaffe: No, we have a bus person who will do that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-2-11 closed. 11143 On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-371-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-4-2-11 by Katherine Yaffe requesting waiver use approval to operate an A & W Restaurant within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the SE 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-4-2-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Floor Plan and Elevation Plan dated 4-20-89, as revised, prepared by Michael P. Vanloon, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the maximum number of customer seats shall not exceed 64. 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. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. `.. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-5-2-12 by Livonia Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a service bay addition to an existing car dealership located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Milburn Avenue in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Robert Thorne of the Traffic Bureau stating that the proposal is acceptable as submitted. Engineering Department has no objections to the proposal. Arnold Klinger, Fire Marshal, has no objection to the proposal however, consideration should be given to providing an adequate water supply for the required fire suppression system (pursuant to Section 1002 of the B.O.C.A. , 1987, Building Code) . Lastly, the Edison Company states that they have reviewed the captioned petition and with respect to their needs, please inform the developer that we will need a site plan as soon as possible. The '41411. 11144 Detroit Edison Company will need eight to ten weeks to relocate their equipment, provided all necessary permits and rights of way can be secured. Joe Hammond, Schonsheck Inc. , designer and builder of the project: What we are proposing is approximately a 12,000 sq. ft. addition to the south side of the existing service bay addition. At the time we will be doing the construction, we will be adding landscaping across the front of Plymouth Road, as well as screening the parking lot on the east and west sides. The majority of the overhead doors will be removed. We will have a simple drive through entry into the new service bay and drive out the end of the building. The entire outside of the existing building, as well as the new addition, will be painted to match and new landscaping will be irrigated as your ordinance requires. Ms. Fandrei: The service bays on the north-south building, are these going to be painted also? Mr. Hammond: Yes. The entire outside structure will be painted. Ms. Fandrei: How long has it been since there's been any updating on this property? Mr. Hammond: The current owners have had the project for the last 11 years, and Chrysler has owned the project since 1964. Ms. Fandrei: One of my concerns is all the barbed wire around the property. That is not legal in this zoning. I would request that it all be removed. Mr. Hanmnond: It will be removed. Mr. LaPine: You have overhead doors that go over a couple of bays. You are not planning any quick oil change operations in the area? Jack Holden, 19450 Whitby: I am the service director for Livonia Chrysler-Plymouth. We want to stay competitive in that area too. I think there is a misunderstanding. The doors that you can see through are not drive thrus. The only drive thrus are our service write-up area which allows two cars at a time. The front door will be replaced. We have no plans for a quick oil change. Mr. LaPine: Is this dealership Chrysler owned or do you own it? Mr. Holden: Chrysler Corporation Realty owns it. Mr. Gniewek: They are putting some new lighting on the property. Could you describe it? Mr. Hammond: It's standard exterior building wall-mounted, rubber shielded. As far as location is concerned, there is one on the overhead door and one a little farther to the west. hr. 11145 Mr. Gniewek: Any lighting in the parking lot area? Mr. Hammond: None in addition to that which is currently there. Mr. Vyhnalek: Regarding the roof mounted mechanical equipment, are you going to have new equipment? Mr. Hammond: There will be an approved system for handling exhaust. It will not be a roof top unit. If we do put anything on the roof, we will submit a detail for a roof top appliance screen. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are just going to do mechanical work there, no painting? Mr. Holden: In the service bay area, we are not doing any painting. All the painting that is done is done in the bump shop area. What we are adding is strictly service. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is that area going to be air conditioned? Mr. Holden: There are no plans for it now. Strictly heat only. Mr. Tent: Regarding the lighting, will the lighting be on all night? Is it shielded away from the abutting neighbors? Mr. Holden: It is a form of security lighting. It is directed downwards to expose the side of the building and a little behind it. Mrs. Fandrei: Are there any plans for updating the signs? Currently our program 'Nuris to have ground signs. Mr. Hammond: At this point, no, there has not been any discussion. Mrs. Fandrei: Would you be open to updating the signs? Your very large corporate sign. Mr. Holden: The corporate sign is owned by Chrysler. Any changes would have to be done by them. Mrs. Fandrei: How long would that take? Mr. Holden: Probably 10 days. Mrs. Fandrei: So if we table this for 2 weeks, you could have this accomplished? Mr. Holden: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Does Chrysler have any type of monument signs that you are aware of? Mr. Holden: No, I don't believe they do. Mark Weldon, 30654 Elmira: I represent the homeowners on that street. I moved there 3-1/2 years ago obviously knowing it existed there. In speaking to the neighbors about their concerns, I guess the belief is that it has been both good and bad. Basically since I've been `. 11146 there, it's been OK the last few years as far as noise. There are other problems with it. They use our neighborhood directly south as a test site after they service the cars. If they expand, they will be servicing and testing more cars. I am representing about 10 of us directly behind the dealership. We feel that we don't have any real objections to the expansion given that they give us due consideration as far as our property values and our serenity. We request that they take the existing 5' wall and expand it to 7' . A similar thing was done at Wonderland Center when AMC theatres expanded. It has worked out well there. It adds a measurable amount of peacefulness. We are proposing that they expand the wall and paint it at least every other year. We feel that given the amount of revenue they will experience with this expansion, this request is minimal. I have a letter more detailed that I would like to submit. Also, I request that that wall be taken care of before any construction begins. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Hammond, would your people be acceptable to raising the wall 2'? Mr. Hammond: Before discussing the wall, a little bit about the building structure. Right now, all of the residents on the south side of the project that look over the wall are looking at probably 20 doors which are going to be going up and down all day. In an effort to clean up that whole operation what we have is a continuous masonry structure. Now with one door located here, all of that activity will now take place within the confines of the building. So I think we really have addressed their concerns by the type of construction we are using. Not only that, but with no overhead doors other than one, it should eliminate a great deal of the noise. Mr. Weldon: That would definitely be an improvement although that area south is a pretty large parking lot. There is a lot of driving back and forth in there when the employees leave. They do squeal their tires. With a larger operation, there will be more cars driving around. If they have a P.A. , there will be that noise. We think the cost of that wall would be minimal. Mr. Hammond: There is currently a wall there which meets your ordinance for that particular use. We have tried to address the residential concerns by putting everything within the confines of the building. Mr. Vyhnalek: That's true, but they still have some good points. You still have more traffic, 12 more bays, there will be more cars coming in and you will be hiring more mechanics. Mr. Holden: I can appreciate their concerns. We talk to our employees when we hire them and tell them they are not allowed to park there. We are aware of the squealing tires. There is a written policy against it. There are some things you can't control. We will take the barbed wire down right away. I would be more than willing to meet with any representatives. I can't make a commitment for the owner of the building. Mr. Hammond: There has been some discussion by Chrysler about removing the sign 11147 that hangs across the front. Mrs. Fandrei: I am referring to two signs owned by Chrysler, the one you just mentioned owned by Chrysler and the used car sign. I would like to see both of those ground signs. Mr. Hammond: Again, those are owned by Chrysler. The one on the building we would be happy to remove. The ones on Plymouth Road would have to be cleared by Chrysler. Mr. LaPine: What kind of signage would be put there? Mr. Hammond: There would be small directional signs within your ordinance requirements. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-5-2-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-5-2-12 by Livonia. Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a service bay addition to an existing car dealership located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-5-2-12 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 6-11-90, as revised, prepared by James C. Garrison, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 5-1-90 prepared by James C. Garrison, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) That the landscape plan along with the two signs owned by the Chrysler Corporation come back in 30 days for review; for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all 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; 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 11148 AYES: McCann, Morrow, Gniewek, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kiuver. , Tent, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei ABSENT: None Now Mr. LaP.ine, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-372-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 8, 1990 on Petition 90-5-2-12 by Livonia Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a service bay addition to an existing car dealership located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Milburn Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 90-5-2-12 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on June 19, 1990. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-5-2-14 by Nazar M. A. Keer for Tarik Daoud requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing auto body and repair shop located on the east side of Merriman Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 26. vr• Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Rockney L. Whitehead, Sr. Inspector of the Fire Division, stating that that they have no objection to the proposal, however, because of the use group classification and total area of the proposed addition, there exists a strong possibility that the entire facility will be required to be fully sprinkled. If the facility is provided with an automatic sprinkler system, an on-site hydrant with adequate water supply shall be provided to supply such a system. There is also a letter from Robert Thorne of the Traffic Bureau stating the proposal is acceptable as submitted. The Engineering Department has no objections to the waiver proposal. Lastly, the Edison Company indicates that they have reviewed the petition and they want us to inform the developer that they will need a site plan as soon as possible as the company will need 8-10 weeks to relocate their equipment provided all permits and right-of-way can be secured. Nazar Keer, architect, Birmingham: On the existing building, there will be 6,000 sq. ft. that will remain intact. There are two buildings on the site that we propose to remove and replace with a new facility of approximately 12,000 sq. ft. It will be operated as a truck repair 1r. 11149 shop, bump and paint basically. Also a paint booth and alignment facility. r.• Mr. Keer: The proposed new facility will contain 9 bays, bay #9 being the paint bay. It will be self-contained. The remaining bays will be a repair shop basically. The bays are one way entry. Mr. LaPine: How high is that addition? How big of a truck can it accommodate? Mr. Keer: Standard semi truck. The building is the same height as the existing building, 21' tall. Mr. McCann: This has been traditionally a bump and paint shop. It sounds like you will be going into mechanical repair. Mr. Keer: No, we are just expanding. Mr. McCann: Are you expanding into the heavy duty truck market? Mr. Daoud, owner: We will have the capability of repairing larger trucks, yes. Mr. McCann: What about storing trucks? I noticed you have a couple of heavy duty trucks parked out in the rear. Mr. Daoud: Those are not our trucks. They are the clients' trucks. Mr. McCann: They've been out there for quite some time, haven't they? Mr. Daoud: No. *1111. Mr. McCann: How many bays are you going to have designated for heavy duty trucks? Mr. Daoud: Four for heavy duty trucks. Mr. McCann: You are going to store all your vehicles outside? Mr. Daoud: They will be stored as they come in for repairs. There is no storage per se. Mr. McCann: But you will keep them overnight in the back lot. It's gravel back there now. Do you intend to pave that? Mr. Daoud: Yes. Mr. McCann: Question to the chair. Isn't that area supposed to have been paved quite some time ago? Mr. Nagy: With regard to the previous occupant, yes. They had some extensions that were granted to them. With this proposal there are site plans submitted indicating that the area will be entirely asphalt. Mr. Tent: If we were to approve this, they couldn't get a Certificate of Occupancy until they do surface the parking? '4111. 11150 Mr. Nagy: By operation of the ordinance, they do have a two year period. If_ you want to rely on the ordinance and run it out for the full time limitation, they would have two years. We would have to add a r.► condition to foreshorten that period of time. Mr. Tent: I, as one commissioner, would like to shorten that period. I would like to have that almost immediately. A question to the petitioner. Are you the original owner? Mr. Daoud: No. I have owned that property since 1986. Mr. Tent: If we approve this, we would like you to pave the parking lot and not extend it for two years. Would that be amenable to you? The landscaping is great. Mr. Daoud: We will have to construct the facilities first before paving. Mr. LaPine: What Mr. Tent is saying, is that before we can issue a Certificate of Occupancy, we want to make sure that the paving is done. Mr. Daoud: We do intend to use the existing facilities in the process. Mr. LaPine: With heavy trucks, I assume we will have a lot of parts that are going to be taken off these trucks. Where do you dispose of them? Do you have a dumpster? Mr. Daoud: Yes, we do. We have a regular pick up. Mr. Vyhnalek: On an inspection on May 24, 1990, there were 6 cars, 2 truck tractors, 3 trailers, 2 pickup trucks, 2 Ryder trucks stored in the rear of your yard. Mr. Daoud: These are not storage per se. They are in for repairs. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you usually have that many vehicles waiting to be repaired? That's 15. Mr. Daoud: The cars that you are speaking of are cars I own and are waiting to be restored. The trucks are for repair. Mr. Vyhnalek: With this new addition, is that going to reduce the number of vehicles stored back there for repairs? Mr. Daoud: That all depends on the amount of business that we have. Mr. LaPine: Do you have the capacity now to repair trucks? Mr. Daoud: There is a limited capacity to repair trucks. Ms. Fandrei: You have approximately 10 drums of liquid waste behind your present building. They are paint cleaners, thinners, that type of thing? Mr. Daoud: No, they are empty drums for the rain water. Norr 11151 Mrs. Fandrei: Your manager told me they were full of waste. Mr. Daoud: No grease. We do not have grease. Mrs. Fandrei: I didn't say grease. I said paint, cleaner and thinner. They are liquid waste. Mr. Daoud: That will be picked up by the proper authorities. Mrs. Fandrei: He said they have been there for quite a while. He said you have a new company that will be doing this more often and leaving approximately 2 at a time. If we limit this, or put a condition that. only 2 were to be left at the building at a time, would that work for your operation? Mr. Daoud: We can do with 2 today, but we will need more than 2 if we expand. Mrs. Fandrei: I want to limit this. Will 3 work? Mr. Daoud: We can operate with 3. Ms. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, do you have an idea what would be approximate so we don't have an excess? Mr. Nagy: I am really not qualified to comment. If the problem is with keeping the barrels on the outside, perhaps you could condition it on keeping the barrels inside, therefore reducing the hazard. Mrs. Fandrei: If they are on the inside, is that more of a hazard? Mr. Nagy: I think that if the fire marshal is correct in his assessment, the building now has to be fully sprinkled, and the hazards would be minimal as opposed to outside. Mrs. Fandrei: How would you feel about storing inside, Mr. Daoud: Mr. Daoud: As far as sprinkling the building, that would be expensive. Mr. Nagy: I am riot asking you. It is a different code entirely and it is up to the Building Department. It is a different ordinance entirely and it is outside our jurisdiction. It is a matter between you and the Fire Marshal. Mrs. Fandrei: You have no choice, you must sprinkle. Mr. Gniewek: I am not sure that MIOSHA or OSHA would allow those particular things to be stored inside the building. More and more businesses are now being required to dispose of those things through professional organizations. They are not allowed to be stored outside the building. I think these are questions that will be answered whenever an inspector does come out to the location. I am involved with waste disposal and we are not allowed to store anything outdoors. It has to be taken away. Whenever a drum is *ft. 11152 empty, it is replaced with a full drum. Any drum that is empty is removed by the organization that supplies it. ``. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify thatauto repair shops also includes heavy truck repair? Mr. Nagy: It's a safe assumption. Mr. Morrow: It's supposed to be an up-scale auto repair for Corvettes, so we have gone from autos to semi trucks. Mrs. Fandrei: I am wondering if we should table this until we get some questions answered. Mr. Tent: I am confused. We are not permitting outdoor storage of vehicles. No outdoor parking or storage of cars. The petitioner has indicated that he is going to store those vehicles outside until he needs to repair them. Are we asking for no outdoor storage? Mr. LaPine: Any collision shop I've ever known, there is always outside storage until such time as parts are received and they bring them inside and repair them. You can't say no outdoor storage of vehicles because it is just the nature of the business. If it is a collision shop, it may take 3 or 4 weeks before they can even start on the vehicles. Carolyn, Farmington Hills: I am a manager at the body shop. I am answering the question as to the waste. We already have it scheduled to be picked up within the next 2 weeks. As far as parts, we try to have the '4111. parts there before we get the vehicle there. As far as the waste material, the inspector was out and said we were allowed 6 containers at one time. We are with a new company. The old one was not picking them up on a regular basis. They have to be labeled as to when they were started to be filled. They are very closely watched. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-5-2-14 closed. On a motion made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was #6-373-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-5-2-14 by Nazar M. A. Keer for Tarik Daoud requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing auto body and repair shop located on the east side of Merriman Road between Schoolcraft and Industrial Roads in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-5-2-14 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the Site Plan dated 6-4-90, as revised, prepared by Aboody Keer Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevations dated 5-14-90 prepared by Aboody Keer Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 11153 3) That the drive and parking areas shall be hard surfaced prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building. �.. 4) That there shall be no outside parking or storage of junked or inoperative vehicles, scrap material, debris, auto parts or other similar items. 5) That waste materials that are stored outside the building shall be picked up on a regular basis and limited to 5 drums at that particular location. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Gniewek, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Tent, McCann, LaPine ABSENT None Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-5-2-15 by Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for open-air sales of nursery stock on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from William MacDonald of the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating that the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient Parking - Based upon a four tenant building, 290 spaces are required (8 handicapped) . There are 219 spaces (4 handicapped) proposed - deficient 71 spaces (4 handicapped) . Based upon a three tenant building, 247 spaces are required. There are 219 spaces proposed - deficient by 2.8 spaces. 11154 Handicapped requirements remain the same. In either case, Zoning Board approval would be required. 'Nor 2. A detailed sign package should be submitted for review. 3. The protective wall needs minor repairs and should be painted in its entirety. 4. The rear and West building walls need to be painted. 5. Gutters and downspouts need repair and/or replacement. 6. The exterior building lighting needs repair. 7. The rooftop H.V.A.C. should be screened to reduce noise and visual pollution. 8. All lawn areas should have complete underground sprinklers. 9. All lawn areas require sod, not seed, as proposed. 10. See attached letters of March 3, 1987 outlining various concerns of neighboring property owners. A letter from Robert Thorne of the Traffic Bureau states the proposal is acceptable as submitted. The Fire Department has no objections to this proposal. The Engineering Department has no objections to the proposal. The Edison Company indicates that they have reviewed the petition and have no objections to the proposal. John Nuzman of Franks Nursery & Crafts: I want to say that the Five Mile and Levan area is the result of the continued success that we have enjoyed at our existing Frank's location at Schoolcraft and Inkster. It is one of our highest volume stores. Our market research indicates that due to the continued development of upper, middle and upper income housing in Livonia, there is additional demand for a second nursery on the west side of town. So as a result of our research, we have identified Five Mile and Levan as being a suitable site. We have been working with Bormans and Farmer Jack for about six months to coordinate the rehab of this shopping center. Back in March we met with the various neighborhood civic associations to address their concerns, to hear about the past problems with former tenants and to rectify those problems. I would like to introduce Ed Sheeran, our architect, to describe our plan in detail. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am curious, why didn't you take the whole building? Why didn't you take the other 12,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Nusman: We have a standard prototype sales area of 12,350 ft. and that is incorporated into any prototype building. We just took the existing building with the dimensions we have to work with and place in there a floor plan and stock room and as a result, there is 12,000 sq. ft. that is unsuitable for our needs. 11155 Mr. Tent: You are signing a lease, not buying it. Is that correct? Mr. Nuzman: Correct. Mr. Tent: How long is your lease? Mr. Nuzman: 17 years. Ed Sheeran, architect for Frank's: The entire existing building is approximately 42,000 sq. ft. Presently has one tenant, the drugstore. It is vacant easterly from there. We propose on the renovation of the building to add an entire new facia. On the easterly end, add this outdoor storage area. The total yard encompasses 20,000 sq. ft. and in that yard is a seasonal structure we call a polyhouse for plants. This is not really going to be constructed as part of this project, but we will get a separate permit for it later. The drive side has a screen wall beyond this and this abuts the residential property to the north. We intend to run a masonry wall in line with the back of this building. So there are really two screen walls along this side. On the easterly side and the side facing the main parking lot, we will build this up with brick piers and a black metal picket fence between those piers. This is approximately 125'x160' and inside there is the outdoor storage area, approximately 1/3 of which is underneath this front overhang. It is just a lattice structure. The facia is on 2 sides which blends in with the rest of the facia we are putting on the front of the building. The existing building is brick and what I intend to do is run this facia around the front of the building of this type of material. This is a simulated plaster and is very thin and applied on to an insulation board and applied directly over the existing facia. It is a mid-tone tan. The trim is green. We have some accent pieces. The color scheme will carry all the way down on the facia of the existing building. We will open up the windows. It is a retail store. Mr. Morrow: I would like to ask the architect to explain the outdoor area a Little more. Mr. Sheeran: The overall building is 17' . This type of facia and the covered portion is a standard feature on our outdoor storage area. It is 12'8" to the top. This pier is 6'4" tall. The wall between the piers is 3'4" and the remaining 3' is black iron fence. Mr. McCann: Besides plant life, what other materials are stored in the outdoor area? What part of the 20,000 feet is taken up by materials that don't necessarily have to be out there? You have a parking shortage, what about taking space inside that would create more parking if you don't need 20,000 feet of outside storage. Mr. Nuzman: There is 2,000' flexibility. We have 70 parking spaces for that store at Inkster and Schoolcraft. I understand your parking concerns and it is seasonal and we feel we have adequately addressed it. We are not anticipating long term users for tenant space next to us. `\r 11156 Mr. Tent: Why couldn't you pick up the remaining 12,000 sq.ft. Now you indicate you cannot use parking area, but you could eliminate part of storage outside and accommodate the 71 spaces needed if you stow picked up the 12,000' . I too am concerned about difficulties with parking spaces. The space you have on Schoolcraft, what are the sizes of the parking spaces? 9x18? Mr. Sheeran: Yes. Mr. Tent: That is against our ordinance. Mr. Nuzman: They are 10x20. Mr. Tent: I am concerned about the 71 spaces. Cut down on some of the project and some of the parking and I could support it. Jeff Wheeler, 36517 Roycroft: Are there 4 stores presently to go in there, or 3? Mr. Nuzman: 3 stores. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Wheeler, I would like to know the extent of involvement Frank's did in the neighborhood. Mr. Wheeler: They scheduled 2 meetings with representatives from the neighborhood organizations. They presented the same proposal as here and answered our concerns. I think for the most part the neighborhood would be adequately served and we would be satisfied. There are still some concerns to be worked out. Obviously, we would prefer to have a business as Frank's as opposed to others we have heard stow rumored. Jim Cleary, Engineering Department of Frank's: If I may, in reviewing Mr. MacDonald's letter. Obviously, the rear and west building walls will be painted in their entirety. The lighting would be repaired in our program. The roof top HVAC units would be removed and new units would be put up and screened. The lawn area will have a complete underground sprinkler system and sodded rather than seeded. Mr. LaPine: Will the parking lot be resurfaced and restriped? Mr. Cleary: The areas of the parking lot that are broken will be repaired and the entire lot will be sealed and restriped. Mr. Vyhnalek: Our notes state that you will have a screened dumpster and compactor. Mr. Cleary: The screened dumpster will be placed in the rear and the screened wall there and out of sight and serviced from the side. There are three things that are going to happen here. (1) we are removing the presently hydraulic lift there that was noisy. (2) the dumpster will be enclosed from the rear and serviced by a regular service company, and (3) by the nature of our business, there will not be a large volume of large trucks. Inside the building is a large compactor standard in our operations, which creates 30"x30" bales stow compacted which will go into the dumpster. 11157 Mr. LaPine: Outside plant material that you don't sell, is that compacted or hauled away? Mr. Sheeran: They are disposed of through the compactor and dumpster. Mr. LaPine: So everything goes into the compactor and into bales and then the dumpster. Mr. Sheeran: Mulches are stored inside the screened wall in the rear. People who are interested in purchasing would go to the rear and pick them up from the rear. Mr. LaPine: Tell me about this other building that was out in the yard. Mr. Sheeran: The polyhouse is a seasonal structure and used to house annuals in early spring. In the latter part of July there will be nothing there. The house is left up year around with the sides up. Mr. LaPine: Is this similar to the one we have on Coolidge and Nine Mile? Mr. Sheeran: It is a little better than that. Mr. Sheeran: That will have to go through the Engineering Department. Mr. Nagy: It is part of the site plan now and we are treating it as an integral part of this plan. Mr. Sheeran: In regard to roof top screening, it was a Bormans Food Store and `oir they had a lot of refreigeration equipment and condensing units there. There are approximately 3 or 4 big condenser units on the roof. We will remove them. There is one on the side which would be removed. Across the rest of the stores, the entire facility is served by roof top heating and cooling units. There are 4 that can be seen from Five Mile Road side and we intend to put a screen up on 3 sides approximately 5' tall. Mr. Vyhnalek: Why only on 3 sides? Don't the neighbors in back see it? Mr. Wheeler: It is 39' from the screen to my back yard. It is very visable. Mr. Sheeran: The equipment is 20 years old and it is not efficient. We will put in new equipment. Mr. Vhynalek: Shouldn't that all be on the site plan? Mr. Nagy: It is all there. We could add a condition that any roof top equipment will be screened from the residents to the north of the building. Mr. Wheeler: I would like to have it screened all 4 sides to minimize noise and minimize the visual effects. We also have a concern with the paving. We want it paved as opposed to top coat. Mr. Sheeran: The transformer for this building sits on the back edge. I don't 11158 know how we could screen that. It is huge. Other than that, the rest are conventional roof units. �► Mr. Tent: One of our conditions is that all roof top units shall be screened from public view. It should be screened. Alan Boyer, Civil Engineer from Freeland, Michigan. We prepared the site plan for Frank's Nursery. I wanted to point out a couple of things about the parking. We are dealing with a limited space and are attempting to use some of the parking spaces that are out there now and provide within that area a certain amount of landscaping that doesn't exist now. We try to make an effort to balance the site parking-wise for landscaping. Frank's is in the process of filing an application with the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to get a variance on the parking. They feel that the parking that is provided for is sufficiently provided for on the site plan. Mr. Tent: Is the 71 parking spaces provided for strictly for Frank's? Mr. Nagy: It is for the entire building predicated on a 4-tenant occupancy. If they confine themselves to 3 tenants, then it is only a 28 unit deficiency. Mr. McCann: Can we base our approval on a 3 tenant occupancy? Mr. Nagy: I don't think you can condition on how the landlord wants to lease his building. `'hr Mr. Nuzman: Frank's Nursery looked at the shopping center years ago. This location will be serviced only by a neighborhood market. Not high traffic users. Frank's Nursery does not compare this to the Schoolcraft-Inkster store. This is a neighborhood location serving an area of 3-4 miles. Mr. Tent: Congratulations are in order here for what you have done to the neighborhood. There was a lot of opposition here and you have quieted them and satisfied them. Mr. LaPine: John, the parking lot is not in the best shape and I don't think you can go out and patch. In my opinion it needs a complete resurfacing. Mr. Nagy: I think they will replace or repair that which is badly broken, and have any other areas resealed and resurfaced. Mr. LaPine: Those patches may hold up 4-5 years. In the meantime the rest of the parking lot will deteriorate and you will have the same situation. I think they should repave the whole thing. Mr. Morrow: What is the thickness of the top coat? Mr. Nuzman: Half of the parking lot from the building out to 60-65' will be resurfaced, so technically it is being resurfaced with asphalt several inches thick. It will look like a new parking lot. `err 11159 Mr. Engebretson: What is the top coating? How thick is it? Mr. Sheeran: 1-1/2" thick of top coat. Nosy There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-5-2-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-374-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-5-2-15 by Franks Nursery & Crafts, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for open-air sales of nursery stock on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan Road and Williams Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-5-2-15 be approved subject to a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a deficient number of off-street parking spaces and to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 6-8-90, as revised, prepared by Ledy Engineering Corporation which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Plan dated 6-11-90 prepared by Edward P. Sheeran & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) That the Landscape Plan dated 4-5-90, as revised, prepared by John Grissim & Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That all roof top HVAC units, existing and proposed, shall be screened from public view on all sides as needed; 5) That all repair and maintenance items (items 3 through 6) listed in a letter dated May 29, 1990 from the Inspection Department shall be taken care of prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 6) All window signage shall be limited to not more than 25%; for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the proposed use will provide for the occupancy of a large portion of a vacant commercial building and cause the entire site to be substantially upgraded; 11160 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. "r. 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, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-3-3 by James H. and Katherine McClain requesting the vacating of a 10 foot wide drainage easement across Lot 43 of Fitzgerald Gardens Subdivision located on the east side of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department stating that they have no objections to vacating the easement in question subject to the following conditions: 1 . It will be necessary for the owners of Lots 42, 43 and 44 to grant public easement areas to the City of Livonia to accommodate the proposed ditch relocation. 2. A permit will be required from the Department of Natural Nor. Resources to relocate the ditch. This permit has not been issued as of this date. The vacation of the above 10' wide easement area should be subject to the above conditions and should not be fully approved until the information has been submitted to this office. We are, by copy of this letter, forwarding to the petitioner three (3) Grants of Easement to cover the relocated ditch section. These instruments are to be executed by the owners of record and returned to this office along with evidence of a Department of Natural Resources permit. There is a follow-up letter from Gary Clark advising that this office is in receipt of three Grants of Easement covering the proposed ditch relocation across Lots 42, 43 and 44. It is our understanding that a permit application has been submitted to the Department of Natural Resources covering the relocation of this ditch, however, as of this date, a permit has not been issued from the above agency. We also have a letter from the Detroit Edison Company stating they have no objections to this petition. Jim McClain, 18226 Middlebelt: I am the owner of lot 43. First off, why all of a sudden does this situation belong to the Department of Natural Resources? The lot easements for my neighbors to the north and south have been submitted to Gary Clark and they have done the exact same thing that I have. The problems I am having with the DNR I understand many people prior to me have had the same situation. They operate at their own discretion. I have given them drawings 11161 and sections that I have had engineered and I have given them all correspondence. This has all been done on a personal basis. Mainly due to the direction of Gary Clark and Raul Galindo because they have the same situation from paving of Fitzgerald. Prior to that there was no indication that the DNR had anything to do with this property. It states nothing to that effect on my deed nor any correspondence from ZBA. This poped up about was 6 weeks ago. I have been personally dealing with DNR in person on a weekly basis and I attempted this afternoon since they are only available on Tuesday to indicate on some type of written documentation that based on all the information that they have received and all the information that Mr. Clark has received that they would more than likely be favorable to this relocation. They indicated to me that would not be possible. I asked, "Do you have any idea when it could be looked at?" He said, "It is on my desk and I will get to it when I get to it." I have a real problem. Why all of a sudden does it belong to DNR when people I know haven't had anything to do with it and have done the exact same thing? Mrs. Fandrei: Which people are you referrring to? Mr. McClain: Specifically, lot 26. Mr. Fandrei: They don't have a creek going through their property. Mr. McClain: They most certainly do. If not 26 it was 27. That creek is `, rerouted. I would be more than happy to meet you there in the morning. Mr. LaPine: What you need to do is reroute to build a house? Mr. McClain: I need to reroute it to put it where I want it or I have to put it back behind the Edison easement where my neighbors can see it. Mr. Morrow: Didn't we mention something about Fitzgerald coming through would solve his water problem? Mr. McClain: The original criteria when the road is to be paved, the drainage ditch would be terminated on the west side of Fitzgerald at Lot 28 and then run due south in the sewer system out to Seven Mile. That was the original plan. Mr. LaPine: When Fitzgerald is paved, would that alleviate the problem? Mr. McClain: No, because the easement evidently belongs to the DNR. Mr. LaPine: When you bought the property, did you get the title company to give you a clear title? Mr. McClain: It states on the deed there is a 10' easement on the property. But it was also an easement maintained by the City of Livonia in years past so I would assume it belongs to the City of Livonia. Mr. Nagy: Even though at the time the street is paved and the volume of water 11162 will be rerouted down Fitzgerald, there still will remain this property easement. It makes more sense to abandon the drain and the ditch will no longer have to be as deep and as wide, but it still `ruly remains that there will have to be some legal action to abandon the easement to satisfy your lending institution to get your loans to build your building. Right now DNR has jurisdiction. You must show that the DNR will allow you to reroute the ditch. Mr. McClain: What would that take? Mr. Nagy: You get a letter to this coitunission from Gary Clark saying you have satisfied all the requirements and this commission will act on it. Ms. Fandrei: I have a few concerns. You rerouted it yourself last summer. You have flooded the lot and the neighbors lot to the south, #42. I stopped to talk to that neighbor this morning. Their basement has been flooded because of your rerouting. There has been quite a bit of garbage collected on this lot. Why wasn't that rubbish removed? a 13 year old girl in the neighborhood cleaned the rubbish off that lot. My understanding is the road is going to be resurfaced and the lot is riot going to have any drain through it. In the meantime, you caused the neighbors quite a problem. Mr. McClain: I discussed that with the neighbor and I was more than willing to compensate them. Mrs. Fandrei: That is not my understanding. You said you could begin immediately to take care of that problem and that hasn't been done. Sr. Mr. McClain: I have not got the permit from the DNR. Mr. Morrow: It had been working very well until it was rerouted. I am concerned about the neighbors. Any type of flooding can cause a problem. Mr. LaPine: You rerouted this drainage ditch. Who gave you permission? Mr. McClain: No one. Mr. LaPine: We can't do anything until we get approval from the DNR and Engineering. We can't get you any relief until you get a letter from Gary Clark and the DNR. You are stuck until these items are taken of. Mr. Nagy: Our field inspector indicated to us that he has a committment from you that you have been notified by him to restore the ditch back to original. This was on December 14, 1989 from Harold Pryor. Mr. McClain: I never received the letter. Mr. LaPine: Make another letter and send it to him. Mr. McClain: I will be more than happy to comply. 4r. 11163 On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, supported by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it was #6-375-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-4-3-3 by James H. and Katherine McClain requesting the vacating of a 10 foot wide drainage easement across Lot 43 of Fitzgerald Gardens Subdivision located on the east side of Fitzgerald Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 90-4-3-•3. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4-3-4 by Sandra Field requesting vacating a portion of Henry Ruff between Greenland and Munger, as extending west from Henry Ruff, in the North 1/2 of Section 14. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department. "It would appear that those portions of Henry Ruff Road, lying west of and adjacent to Lot. 62 and the South 350' of Lot 61, Livrance Estates Subdivision, provide access to an existing home located at 16581 ``' Henry Ruff as well as a vacant parcel of land immediately south thereof. Therefore, it is recommended that this portion of the Henry Ruff right-of-way not be vacated at this time. You will note that a majority of the Henry Ruff right-of-way adjacent to Lot 62 (fronting Greenland Avenue) lies within the designated flood plain for the Bell Creek. Should the above right-of-way be vacated adjacent to Lot 62 only, the petitioner is cautioned that no fencing may be placed within the flood plain area. This may result in fencing being placed extremely close to the Greenland-Henry Ruff intersection which may violate other sections of the Zoning Ordinance." A letter from the Detroit Edison Company has no objection to the above proposed vacation provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing area to protect our existing equipment. Sandra Field, 30170 Greenland: I bought this piece of property a year ago and all I get is motor bikes and dirt bikes. I built this deck and what I have is this noise. If it is vacated, I can have something to say aobut it. They go down the road Edison has there. It is like a hill. I thought if I let the brush grow, I could block some of this noise. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want the whole area vacated? 11164 Ms. Field: No, just the section next to me so that I can do something with it. They don't go across the creek. *gift. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you understand about the fencing? Ms. Field: Yes. There is already a steel piece there. I would like to get some more bushes in there. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you really think that would stop them? Ms. Field: I don't know, but it's worth a try. Ms. Fandrei : I go by there 3 times a week. I don't see how that would stop them. Ms. Field: If I plant something there, it may stop them. We have a trash problem there too. 1 have contacted the police. Ms. Fandrei: Right next to where it is vacated, it is still all open. Mr. Nagy: Whether it solves your problem or not, we don't need the right-of-way. There is no public purpose for it. Bill Follmer, 30410 Greenland: We do get entertained by the motor bikes. I hope she is right that she can slow them down a little bit. It would be nice if it were private property. When I see the kids I usually stop them and tell them to put mufflers on them. It would really be nice to keep out the bikes. There doesn't seem to be anything that we have been successful at. I would like to support giving the right-of-way of the City back to us. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, supported by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-376-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-4-3-4 by Sandra Field requesting the vacating of a portion of Henry Ruff Avenue between Greenland and Munger, as extending west from Henry Ruff, in the North 1/2 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-4-3-4 be approved except for that portion adjacent to the south 350' of Lot 61, Livrance Estates Subdivision for the following reasons: 1) That the subject road right-of-way is no longer needed for public access or any other public purpose. 2) That the subject road right-of-way can be more properly used and maintained if privately owned. 3) That the Engineering Department recommends the proposed vacating. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 'r"' adopted. 11165 Mr. Tent, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 90-4•-3-5 by International Development Company requesting the vacating of a 12 foot wide public utilities easement on Lots 17, 18 and 19 of Belden Industrial \.. Park Subdivision, located on the east side of Belden Court between Plymouth Road and the Chessie System Railroad Right-of-Way in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. The Detroit Edison Company in its letter signed by Frank J. Weimert, Service Planner, also states they have no objection to this petition. Darryl Rogers, president of International Development Company: I own lots 17, 18, 19 and recently acquired the parcel to the west of Lots 17 and 18 and I plan on building industrial buildings. I will be rerouting the easement as my plans progress. Ken Sullivan, 1221 Pine Crest Drive, Union Lake, Michigan: We own 20 plus acres directly to the east of this site. My concern is what effect this might have on us. We need to know why that easement was initially put in place. I need to have this looked into before it is given away. Mr. LaPine: Apparently that easement was put in there by the Detroit Edison Company to provide electrical service for those 3 lots. John, is `— that correct? Mr. Nagy: That's true. However, in the event any other properties to the east or south that want to take advantage of the utility can go to that easement, pick up the utility and extend it to their property. Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly: I am Mr. Rogers' engineer. I think it should also be pointed out that in the recording of the plat, Detroit Edison usually mandates that an easement be created along the rear of the site. It might be pointed out that the parcel of land Mr. Rogers is joining on is presently landlocked. The easement that is there the utilities would be of no significance and we hope you see fit to vacate the easement. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 90-4-3-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was #6-377-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 12, 1990 on Petition 90-4-3-5 by International Development Company requesting the vacating of a 12' wide public utilities easement on Lots 17, 18 and 19 of Belden Industrial Park Subdivision, located on the east side of Belden Court between Plymouth Road and the Chessie System Railroad Right-of-Way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning 11166 Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 90-4-3-5 be approved for the following reasons: vft,. 1 ) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect public utilities. 2) That no objection has been received from any City department or public utility company. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Gniewek, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei Mr. LaPine, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously approved, it was #6-378-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 90-4-2-7 by Philip Funke requesting waiver use approval to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the north side of Grand River Avenue between Inkster and Eight Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 be taken from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was #6-379-90 RESOLVED that The City Planning Commission pursuant to a waiver use request to increase the floor area and seating capacity of an existing restaurant located on the north side of Grand River Avenue between Inksterr and Eight Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, does hereby table Petition 90-4-2-7. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann,Morrow, Gniewek, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None 11167 Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Sm. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Ms. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #6-380-90 RESOLVED that, Petition 89-8-1-25 by Trinity Baptist Church, Inc. and James Blain Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the E-275 Expressway in th4e southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.S. , R-5C, R-9III and AG to P.O.-I be taken from the table. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was #6-381-90 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 19, 1989 on Petition 89-8-1-25 by Trinity Baptist Church, Inc. and James Blain Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the I-275 Expressway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from P.S. , R-5C, R-9III and AG to P.O. II, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-8-1-25 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is premature given the amount of office space yet to be developed along the 1-275 Freeway corridor and the other major proposals for additional office uses in the area. 2) That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate a need for additional office space in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which designates the area for high density residential land use. 4) That the proposed zoning district will provide for an intensity of use which will tend to overburden the site and abutting thoroughfare given access to it with additional vehicular traffic. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #6-382-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final plat for Caliburn Manor #1 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, subject to the submittal of a landscape plan for the greenbelt easements located along Newburgh Road and of a plan for any entrance markers to the Planning Commission for its approval for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the Preliminary Plat and with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 111f8 2) That the Engineering Department recommends approval of the Final Plat. 3) That the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City vim, have been taken care of. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was #6-383-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final plat for Caliburn Estates #1 proposed to be located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, for the following reasons: 1) That the Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the Preliminary plat and with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 2) That the Engineering Department recommends approval of the Final Plat. F. 3) That all financial obligations imposed upon the propritor by the City have been taken care of. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow it was #6-384-90 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 600th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 8, 1990 are approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebrtson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gniewek 11169 On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #6-385-90 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 601st Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 1990 are approved. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Engebrtson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Gniewek On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-386-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 90-5-8-7 by Livonia Baptist Church requesting approval of all plans required by Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-purpose addition to an existing church on the north side of Schoolcraft just east of Farmington Road in Section 22 subject to the following conditions: 1) That Site Plan SL 90006, Sheet A-1 dated 4/30/90 prepared by David Donnellon and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Building Plan SL 90006, Sheet A-3 dated 4/30/90 prepared by David 1"1" Donnellon and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #6-387-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by National Bank of Detroit to erect a new ground sign and five wall signs at Six Mile and Newburgh be denied for the following reason: 1) The petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need for the number of signs he is proposing for the site. Mr. LaPine, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Gniewek, Engebretson, LaPine, Fandrei NAYS: McCann, Morrow, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None 11170 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #6-388-90 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Mastercraft Sign for Homemade Lunch to erect a new wall sign at 19038 Middlebelt be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the wall sign for Homemade Lunch as shown on the drawing prepared by Mastercraft Sign Co. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. 2) That window signage shall be limited to no more than an area equal to 25% of the window to which it is attached. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 602nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on June 12, 1990 was adjourned at 12:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Raymon, W. Tent, Secr-• ary ATTEST: William LaPine, Chairman du