HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-04-26 10152
MINUTES OF THE 557th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 26, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 557th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic
Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with
approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Sue Sobolewski
Donna Naidow R. Lee Morrow James C. McCann
Michael Soranno William LaPine
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and
Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Vyhnalek 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 Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or
a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until
seven days after tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon
their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying
resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome
of the hearing tonight.
`. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-3-1-4 by
Rev. H. L. Petty, Pastor for Bethel Baptist Temple to rezone property
located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and
Oporto Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14 from C-2 and P.S. to RUFA.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states they have no
objection to the rezoning proposal.
Richard Gallagher, Bi-Conn Construction, 34000 Capital: The church right now is not
zoned for what a church is supposed to be zoned for. It is our
understanding with the City that we are not in compliance. On Lot 3
they plan another addition and they suggested we change the zoning over
to what all these churches are supposed to be.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to change zoning for future building.
Janet Mathieu, 29540 Six Mile: I just would like to clear up what he is talking
about. Are you saying you are not in compliance?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct.
Mrs. Mathieu: Churches should be zoned RUF? You want to rezone to RUF?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Right. From C-2 to RUFA, rural 1/2 acre.
10153
Mrs. Mathieu: How big is this piece of property?
Mr. Gallagher: 100 x 400 feet deep is Lot 3 and of course the rest of the church.
`, Mrs. Mathieu: Are you rezoning to bring church into compliance or are you rezoning
the whole package?
Mr. Vyhnalek: We are rezoning both portions. The church is now C-2 and we want to
change it to RUFA.
Mrs. Mathieu: The church will no longer be a church?
Mr. Vyhnalek: The church will still stay a church. It is just a zoning matter.
Mr. Nagy: We do not have a zoning classification exclusively for a church.
Churches are normally found in a pure commercial zone or they locate in
a residential zone. If they locate in a residential zone they get a
waiver.
Mr. Kluver: Taking out the C-2 zoning is an improvement to that particular area.
Mr. LaPine: Does the church own all the area designated P all the way back behind
the C-2?
Mr. Gallagher: All the way back.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-3-1-4 closed.
On a motion made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was
#4-65-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988 on Petition 88-3-1-4 by Rev. H. L. Petty, Pastor for Bethel Baptist
Temple, to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road
between Middlebelt Road and Oporto Street in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14
from C-2 and P.S. to RUFA, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-3-1-4 be approved for the
following reasons:
(1) The proposed change of zoning would provide for a more restrictive
zoning district for the subject property consistent with the intended
use.
(2) The proposed change of zoning would provide for expansion of the subject
church and, at the same time, remove commercial zoning in the area.
(3) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with
the surrounding development 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
\r.
10154
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-3-1-5 by
Alan Gottlieb for US Homes to rezone property located south of Eight Mile
Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
3 from RUFA to R-2.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the rezoning proposal.
Alan Gottlieb, Partner in U. S. Homes, 31731 Northwestern Hwy. Farmington Hills: This
parcel over here is behind industrial building and there is a trash
receptacle so that is why that piece of land is not abutting that dotted
line. What we are proposing is continuing the R-2 proposal for a
planned development for a cluster type development.
Mr. McCann: Do you know who owns that piece of property to the East?
Mr. Gottlieb: Jack Arthurs and we have been in touch but he doesn't know what he
wants to do. He said he doesn't want to go ahead and interfere with his
stamping plant. He has not made that 100% clear.
Mr. McCann: That blue building is that the same owner?
Mr. Gottlieb: That is the same owner that owns the industrial building.
Mr. McCann: OK. So he does have access.
Mr. LaPine: The two parcels. Who owns those two parcels?
Mr. Gottlieb: The owner that owns the building on Parcel 12A.
Mr. LaPine: Is that parcel zoned M-1.
'tow
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Is he going to be required to put up a wall?
Mr. Nagy: No, for the reason a variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals
to waive the wall requirement.
Mr. LaPine: Is there any reason you can't buy the parcel?
Mr. Gottlieb: He does not want to lose that dumpster.
Mr. LaPine: Directly behind Eight Mile, there is no room for a receptacle?
Mr. Gottlieb: He does not have any intention of moving the receptacle.
Mr. LaPine: I am worried that you will come in and say you have these two parcels
and I want to make it M-l.
Mr. Nagy: Whether he vacates the parcel or not the Planning Commission can extend
the zoning line. You can even though he may end up buying less. At
least you won't have RUF between R-2 and M-1 from purely a zoning
district line.
10155
Mr. Soranno: I do have a question about that parcel relating to the rest of the
property - if he plans to build several different type of houses on that
parcel, family, cluster, multiple?
Mr. G.ttlieb: Not Multiple.
Nam. Mr. S.ranno: What is your attitude today?
Mr. G.ttlieb: My attitude would be for rental.
Mr. S.ranno: So that will be all rental units. Question to staff. There will have
to be a wall constructed?
Mr. Nagy: The burden is on the non-residential builder. Wall requirements will be
built if and when industrial property is built upon.
Mr. Kluver: Just a comment. The fact that extending the zoning would add continuity
- it certainly would seem logical.
Mr. Morrow: My question is Mr. Gottlieb, have you made any attempt to acquire that
property and make it part of your property? The lots coming off
Merriman Road. I was curious because we are going to have some land
that is going to be tough to develop in future years. As far as you are
concerned, there is nothing in the contract?
Mr. Gottlieb: They have really never approached me.
Robert Hastings, 20220 Parker: I see a problem with this. We have been in on this
many times. If you leave that strip north, we will have problems with
industrial. We have had problems with walls. I suggest you tell him to
rezone it but not leave that little strip there.
Mr. Vyhnalek: It has been recommended.
Mr. Hastings: Industrial wants to come back. We fought all along - Northwestern Civic
Association. Some of that has been changed to R-2 already.
Mr. Nagy: Lots 7 and 8 have been rezoned.
Mr. Hastings: Why don't we get this zoning over with. But you do have R-2 structures
in the middle of R-3. We really object to R-7. All the residents and
civic association is opposed to it.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We will take that under consideration.
Mr. LaPine: We should square up the property. I think it is ridiculous to leave
that hang in there.
Mr. Nagy: You can amend to incorporate 34 feet.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-3-1-5 closed.
10156
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-66-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988 on Petition 88-3-1-5 by Alan Gottlieb for US Homes to rezone property
`r located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman Road and Osmus Avenue in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3 from RUFA to R-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-3-1-5
be approved as amended for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a reasonable use for the
rear portion of two parcels of property which front on Eight Mile Road
which is split zoned in part M-1 and in part residential.
(2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with recent action by the
Planning Commission and City Council with respect to a change of zoning
on adjacent property in the area.
(3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a more comprehensive
solution to the utilization of vacant landlocked residentially zoned
land in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-3-1-6 by
David Ryan for Barbara L. Evans and Janet M. Clugston to rezone property
located on the southeast corner of Brookfield and Lyndon in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department stating
should lot splits occur pursuant to the R-1 zoning, it may be necessary
to extend sanitary sewer leads to the R-1 zoning areas.
Daniel Ryan, Century 21, 33312 Grand River: I have the property listed with the
Executor, Mr. Clugston. He is here and he has called me to sell the
property. Right now the property is in pretty bad shape. We have a
gentleman interested in property who plans on having two building sites
facing Lyndon. We feel it would help the neighborhood to fix the
property up and have two new homes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That would be a total of three.
Mr. Soranno: The house that is there now faces Brookfield and what is that?
Mr. Ryan: That is a garage that would have to be removed. As Mr. Nagy has
mentioned, there might be a possibility that we would have to bring in
sewer leads.
Mr. Soranno: Have you had an opportunity to talk to residents to south.
Mr. Ryan: Happens to be a relative to the south.
10157
Mr. LaPine: At the study, I was confused. I thought it was going to be split into
two lots. Now I hear it is going to be three lots. Is that correct?
The three lots on Brookfield to the south, are they all 1/2 acre lots?
Mr. Nagy: Those are 1/2 acre lots. It is approximately square - 175 feet by 186
feet.
Mr. LaPine: I would have no objection to two lots but I might be hesitant on three
lots. The lots facing Lyndon would be 92 1/2 feet wide?
Mr. Nagy: You have to have a minimum 120 feet.
Mr. Soranno: You cannot have three homes - is that what you are saying?
Mr. Nagy: It will be tough. You would have to have lot splits and we would have
to evalute it and if it didn't meet requirements, we would not recommend
approval of lot split.
Mr. Soranno: You mention that existing home, something would be done to it. What are
you talking about?
Mr. Ryan: The exterior will have to be cleaned up; the garage will have to be
removed; it will get a paint job.
Russell Galorneau, 32611 Lyndon: I am the property owner that is the most affected by
the rezoning. My question is whatever structure is built facing Lyndon,
will that have the same building codes as other houses facing Lyndon?
Mr. Shane: The R-1 zoning district will have the same requirements as when your
house was built in terms of setback, size of house etc. The zoning
district will dictate the size of the house. The B classification on
`o, your lot requires a little bigger house than an R-1 without that B. If
they rezone this to R-1 it would allow a smaller house than R-1B. That
would be the only difference.
Mr. LaPine: If it is rezoned R-1, as long as he meets all requirements, he can
build ranch, cape cod etc. , as long as he meets relquirements?
Mr. Galorneau: It is the same requirements my house had to meet.
Mr. Morrow: What is the state of the house that sits on the lot now?
Mr. Galorneau: It is very run down.
Mr. Morrow: One of the benefits of the rezoning would be the upgrading of the house.
Mr. LaPine: I am not opposed to rezoning but I want to be assured that it is
impossible to get three houses on there. I think the rezoning will help
the neighborhood but I just don't think it does justice to the
neighborhood to crowd three houses on the property.
Mr. Soranno: I wonder if the petitioner would consider making it R-1B to coincide
with the existing homes.
10158
Mr. Ryan: The only thing I can add, the price of the lots the gentleman is paying,
he is going to have to add $120,000. Normally 20Z value of house goes
towards the lot. So anything he puts up has to be $110,000 to $120,000.
I'm sure he is going to be putting up a nice house there.
Mr. Soranno: As far as size, he could put up a smaller size but an expensive home.
Mr. Ryan: The average sales price is $113,000. I think he could go a little bit
over that price.
Mr. McCann: My question was along same line. If we could amend this to R-1B.
Mr. Nagy: I think it is within the Commission's perogative to do so.
Mr. Ryan: What is the difference?
Mr. Sobolewski: What's the difference between RUF, R-1 and R1 -B?
Mr. Nagy: R-1 deals with lot size. A, B, C and D deals with floor area.
Mr. Ryan: That sounds good. I don't think that would be a problem.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-3-1-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-67-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988 on Petition 88-3-1-6 by David Ryan for Barbara L. Evans and Janet M.
Clugston to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Brookfield
and Lyndon in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to R-1, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
88-3-1-6, as amended from RUF to R-1B, be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the adjacent and
surrounding development in the area.
(2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for better utilization of the
subject property.
(3) The proposed change of zoning 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.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-3-1-7 by
David Antonelli for Canterbury Park Associates to rezone property located on
the north side of Seven Mile Road east of Farmington Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 3 from R-9 to P.S.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the petitioner dated April 13, 1988
asking us to accept their letter as written notice of cancellation of
their request to rezone property on Seven Mile Road in Livonia from R9
to PS. Due to their continuing analysis of the site, they find it
unsuitable for their purposes.
10159
Mrs.Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
88-3-2-8 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold their
Annual Spring Carnival at Ladbroke DRC located at the southeast corner of
Schoolcraft Service Drive and Middlebelt Road in Section 25.
Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states they have no
objection to the proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: This is your annual carnival? Were you successful last year?
Mr. Meyer, Officer with Jaycees, 9913 Shadyside: We were successful and it is our
main money raising project.
Mr. LaPine: I am new on Commission. Do they have to put up bonds? Do they pay
fees? How does it operate?
Mr. Vyhnalek: The carnival has to pay fees and I believe the Council waives the fees.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have liability insurance?
Mr Vyhnalek: Yes, with Crown Amusement. Do you have any insurance at all?
Mr. Meyer: We have insurance covered by Michigan Jaycees.
Mr. LaPine: Who handles crowd control?
Mr. Meyer: We have two ways of handling security. We will have Livonia officers on
duty and three members of our Jaycee Chapter.
`tar Mr. LaPine: Does the Jaycees pay for the Livonia officers?
Mr. Meyer: Yes we do.
Mr. Soranno: Last year were there any problems with containing the carnival on the
site?
Mr. Meyer: We had no problems that I am aware of.
Mrs Sobolewski: Is it the same carnival company that you had previous years?
Mr. Meyer: Yes.
Mrs. Sobolewski: Any new surprises or any new activities? Anything big that we would
need to know?
Mr. Meyer: No.
Mr. Kluver: How many years have you run the carnival?
Mr. Meyer: Longer than I can remember. I can remember twelve years.
Mr. Kluver: It has been very successful for the Jaycees. I don't think there has
ever been a problem.
10160
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-3-2-8 closed.
On a motion made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it
was
`r.
#4-68-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988 on Petition 88-3-2-8 by Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval
to hold their Annual Spring Carnival at Ladbroke DRC located at the
southeast corner of Schoolcraft Service Drive and Middlebelt Road in Section
25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-3-2-8 be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the proposed carnival operation shall be confined to the area as
described.
(2) That all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other related
transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the
carnival shall be parked or stored on the D.R.C. property adjacent to
the carnival site.
for the following reasons:
(1) The subject site has the capacity to accomodate the proposed use.
(2) The proposed use is in compliance with all special and general waiver
use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of
Zoning Ordinance #543.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-3-2-10 by
Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition
to St. Colette's activities building located on the east side of Newburgh
Road north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department states in their letter that they have no
objections to this proposal.
Henry Lemeau, 39217 Seven Mile, representing the petitioner: We propose to construct
a 5,000 square foot addition on the south side of the activities
building. The purpose of the addition is to add some office space, a
library and a youth meeting room.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Kitchen and storage. This will take 20 additional parking spaces but
you are in excess, so parking will not be a problem.
Fred Sievert, 37146 Vargo: I am Lot No. 7 which is directly south of proposed
building expansion. The thing you don't notice on the diagram is when
they originally built the parking lot, I wasn't a resident at that time,
10161
they extended a berm with plant screen. That berm extends right up to
my property. At the time they did that, there was a logical reason,
that was the end of the parking lot and my neighbor planted fifteen
trees. A number of those trees have died. I intend to take a number of
trees out. What I would suggest for your consideration, that with this
proposal you ask for an extension of the berm. I am concerned about the
increased use of the parking lot which comes up to the corner of my lot.
I think with the reduction of the parking spaces and increased use of
that building, there will be lights shining on my property from adjacent
parking lot. It seems to make sense to me, at this time. I don't know
if the proposal suggests any increase in parking.
Mr. Morrow: I wonder if we might get some feedback from the architect if that was
covered.
Mr. Lemeau: The original parking lot expansion to the south along these houses was
within 20 feet of property line at which point we put in a raised berm
and approximately 68 trees. This gentlemen had a dense screen of
evergreens. As far as berm to protect his property from lights, it will
not do any good because the cars do not shine their lights there.
Activities building is used when church is not used.
Mr. Morrow: We have no problems with the waiver but you do have to co-exist with
your neighbors. My feeling is, would it be a problem to put a berm in
to meet the other berm? Is that a hardship?
Mr. Lemeau: As far as excavation - if there was excavated material, no problem.
Mr. LaPine: When the original parking lot was constructed, the gentleman who lives
on Lot No. 7 said the berm stopped at end of Lot 6. Is that where the
*ft. further
lot stopped? So you felt the parking lot is not going any
further - this would be a logical place to stop. I think what Mr.
Morrow said, the whole parking lot is paved so it could be used for
parking no matter where. It seems to me it would be a logical
extension. I don't think that is an unreasonable request to ask you to
extend the berm another two or three lots.
Mr. Soranno: I am not sure I agree with you because the addition itself is a little
more to the structure but it is not adding any additional parking and it
is not impacting those residents at all. I dont really see how this
particular waiver really impacts those residents at all.
Mr. LaPine: It is fine for us to say it does not impact us but the neighbor lives
there.
Ron Wiiktor, 37112 Vargo: I have really no objection to the addition to this
building. It is going to be very useful and probably very necessary but
if I could shed some light on the last question. I am very concerned
about the affect that this increased activity building is going to have
on R-4B residential area. If I could just cite three problems we have
had. We try to work with the parish. The first one would be the
cutting through the houses of parishoners to reach area. Quite a bit of
traffic goes through that area. I don't mind the parishoners walking
through but one day last summer I was sitting at my back window and this
car came through my back yard. The second area is ball field directly
10162
behind parking lot. There is a lot of activity at that ballpark. The
teams coming in and using that residential area for batting practice.
Thirdly, that parking lot will be affected. The parking lot right
behind that extension. There are many gatherings after the ball game
and they enjoy them in that area until 9:00 or 10:00 at night and we
really have no trees and we jut out to all that activity. We have a
good relationship with the parish but we are asking for a little bit of
protection.
Larry Schroer, 37282 Vargo: I am chairman of the Gold Manor Civic Association.
Several of the neighbors have talked to me about this project. I
support both of these people in their desire to have a berm. The other
thing, in relationship to the parking lot being empty when the
activities building is being used, where the parking lot is going to be
filled is by these gentlemen's property.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-3-2-10 be closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988 on Petition 88-3-2-10 by Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition to St. Colette's activities building
located on the east side of Newburgh Road north of Six Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-3-2-10 be approved, as
amended, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the site plan dated 3-18-88 marked sheet P-1 prepared by Lindhout
Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and
the landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained
in a healthy condition.
(2) That the floor plan/landscape plan dated 3-28-88 marked sheet P-2
prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
(3) That the building elevation plan dated 3-28-88 marked sheet P-3 prepared
by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 4.03 and 19.06 of 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.
10163
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#4-69-88 RESOLVED that preceding motion be amended to include the additional
condition that the existing berm along south property line be extended
through Lot 8 and shall match the existing berm in height and landscape
material in all respects.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Kluver, McCann, Sobolewski, Naidow, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Soranno
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was
#4-70-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988 on Petition 88-3-2-10 by Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use
approval to construct an addition to St. Colette's activities building
located on the east side of Newburgh Road north of Six Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-3-2-10 be approved, as
amended, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the site plan dated 3-18-88 marked sheet P-1 prepared by Lindhout
Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and
the landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained
in a healthy condition.
(2) That the floor plan/landscape plan dated 3-28-88 marked sheet P-2
prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
(3) That the building elevation plan dated 3-28-88 marked sheet P-3 prepared
by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be
adhered to.
(4) That the existing berm along south property line be extended through Lot
8 and shall match the existing berm in height and landscape material in
all respects.
for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the waiver use
standards and requirements setforth in Section 4.03 and 19.06 of Zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use.
10164
(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
`44.. with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Kluver, McCann, Sobolewski, Naidow, LaPine, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Soranno
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-3-2-11 by
Alan C. Helmkamp requesting waiver use approval to convert an historical
residential structure for use as a professional office on property located
on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Meadowview Lane in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 6.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating since
the site in question is a designated historical site, it will be
necessary for the owners to receive approval of the Historic
Preservation Committee for any alterations of the building in accordance
with Section 2.56.090 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. In addition,
we are advised by representatives of the Building Department that it
will be necessary to receive approval of the Building Code Board of
Appeals as well as the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to converting
the existing building to a professional use.
Alan Helmkamp, 16832 Newburgh: Also present is one of my partners, Douglas Abrahams.
This is the second time before this board so I will keep my comments
short. I do want to indicate that our profession would maintain this
historical house. The exterior would stay as it is. The interior would
be renovated for use as a modern law office. We have three attorneys
and a support staff of four - so we are talking seven cars. This waiver
use would run with the building and if the building would be destroyed
by fire, etc. the property would remain residential and they could not
put in a large office building. The property is much less valuable to
my partners and I. We are fairly young men and we plan on working a long
time and are not too concerned about resale, not after putting in
$100,000 or so in renovations. Some of the neighbors have indicated
they would not be opposed to waiver use.
Mr. LaPine: You are going to basically keep the building the way it is and just
renovate it on the inside, fixing it up for office?
Mr. Helmkamp: Absolutely. The barn will be used for parking area.
Mr. LaPine: Basically what is there now, is not going to change. As far as your
office hours. I know attorneys work basically 9 - 5.
Kip Bonds, 38560 Morningstar: I am against the petition. One of the reasons was the
change of zoning. I understand that has been resolved. The other
10165
reasons - there is the traffic and having a business in the middle of a
residential area. Those reasons have not changed and I think my
feelings are pretty well widespread. I understand Mr. Nagy said a
waiver use of this type has never been approved before.
'..w Charles Horka, 20535 Meadowview: With waiver use are there any conditions they have
to adhere to?
Mr. Nagy: Preservation Commission and in addition there is a site plan that has
been turned in. The parking shall be limited as shown on the plan.
Mr. Horka: We are concerned about the fact that traffic will come out and turn into
our subdivision. My driveway is next to it and before you know it, we
will have people turning around in it.
Mr. Morrow: What is the size of that particular lot?
Mr. Helmkamp: 1 1/2 acres.
Douglas Wells, 20434 Meadowview: I was one of them that broached the question of
waiver use but after thinking about the traffic, I am concerned about
traffic. I have three young boys. The neighborhood was attractive to
me because there was no traffic. I know several of the neighbors here
have children. The current plans for the Victor project calls for that
area to stay isolated. I am opposed to anything that would add any
traffic.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe that road you were talking about. You are saying they don't
go through the subdivision, they would make a left to go out to Eight
Mile.
'guar Mr. Wells: It is hard to get out on Eight Mile and make a left turn. People would
learn that going through the neighborhood would be quicker. I think you
would have more traffic especially down Morningstar and Hickory Lane.
Mr. Soranno: Could the petitioner give us some idea as to the volume of customers?
Mr. Helmkamp: It is somewhat difficult to generalize but I would say we would possibly
average three appointments per day. Much of our work is done on cases
that could last three or four years so there is no need for people
coming in all the time. I would like to talk about traffic. I have a
child and we are concerned about traffic too. We would like to educate
the people coming to our office as to how to come to our office. We
could have a sign that says "no thru way out". I am sure we could work
on that and avoid the scenario Mr. Wells suggested.
Mr. Soranno: I think Mr. Helmkamp has come a long way and he is still sticking with
it. If something happens to that property he is pretty much out of
luck. I think the waiver is a good compromise.
Mr. McCann: With the low volume of traffic that you expect and only yourselves using
it, would it work a hardship to close your access off Meadowview?
Mr. Helmkamp: I don't know. If it is inconvenient to the neighborhood, but right now
I don't know.
10166
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-3-2-11 closed.
On a motion made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it
�.. was
#4-71-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-3-2-11 by Alan C. Helmkamp requesting waiver use approval
to convert an historical residential structure for use as a professional
office on property located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and
Meadowview Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the
following condition:
(1) That the site plan dated 1-13-88 prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. which
is hereby approved shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
(1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 5.03 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-4-2-12 by
William Yee and Dick Chou requesting waiver use approval to operate a
restaurant within an existing building located on the west side of Newburgh
between Five Mile and Lancaster in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to the proposal.
Mr. Vyhnalek: At our study session we had a problem with off-street parking. Have you
done anything about that?
William Yee, 1832 Roslyn, Grosse Pointe Woods: We have signed a lease. We were
thinking about going along with the parking problems with 30 seats.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You will have to reduce by 52 for a total seating capacity of 26 seats
to comply.
Mr. Nagy: One parking space for every two seats
Mr. Shane: Plus one for each employee.
10167
Mr. Yee: I talked to Mr. Shane. I did talk to lawyer when I signed the lease
also. I am dealing with agent who has our signature on lease. We
wanted to put in 78 seats.
`W Mr. Vyhnalek: You can only have 26 seats to meet the off-street parking requirement.
Mr. LaPine: How long since you signed the lease?
Mr. Yee: Roughly, two weeks ago.
Mr. LaPine: You have contacted an attorney? Here you have a building that you
leased that you cannot use. You can use the argument you cannot use the
area. You have a legitimate argument. I don't see how you can make it
with 26 seats. It seems to me before you proceed you should pursue the
fact with an attorney and see if you can get out of the lease.
Mr. Morrow: I think, Mr. Yee, you asked the real estate agent, obviously somewhere
along the line, how many seats you could have.
Mr. Yee: No, but I did show her the floor plan. During the signing of the lease
we requested her to put a phrase in the lease that if City did not
approve our plan, the lease is invalid. She made the statement the City
had no reason to disapprove.
Mr. Morrow: She made the statement the City would have no reason to disapprove?
Mr. Yee: How do I prove she said it?
Mr. Morrow: I want it part of public record. How you felt about it and what she
said at the time. It is obvious that the floor plan does not meet the
ordinance and this body cannot approve a waiver of a plan for a
restaurant that does not meet the ordinance. We don't want you settling
for something that you feel will not work. When we give a waiver use,
for all time it will be a restaurant in that building.
Mr. Yee: There are two parts of business - we hope the carry-out will carry us
over the hump. We planned the whole inside so it will cut the initial
expense.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, did you discuss going to ZBA.
Mr. Shane: I discussed several things, one being an alternate location. This
petitioner had very much of a desire to locate in this particular
location. His conclusion was he would be willing to reduce seating. I
also indicated that I wasn't sure what the ZBA's position would be to a
parking requirement which was so far removed from what was required.
Obviously we can't speak for the Zoning Board of Appeals. .
Mr. Kluver: There are some serious problems as far as developing in this petition
and your ability to put a restaurant in that corner, you have deficient
parking. I think this is a high density corner as far as traffic, you
have gas station, you have fast food and shopping center, even with
minimum carry out I believe the traffic would be hazardous to this
intersection.
10168
Mr. Morrow: That was my concern. The other thing I wanted to bring out - it is not
that easy to get a restaurant in the City of Livonia. I keep coming
back to the real estate agent telling you what the City will or will not
do. One of the things the commission does not like to do is work
.�., hardships on petitioners.
Mr. Soranno: I want to further mention the traffic situation. I have occasion to go
to the parts store. If you are driving north on Newburgh and you pass
through intersection, you have to make a quick left to get in there and
there is no left turn lane. It is hazardous now. There is also a
chinese restaurant a mile away.
Mr. Yee: They have more business than they can handle.
Mr. Soranno: There has to be a lot in city better for you.
Mr. LaPine: After our study session did you go back to lessor and tell her you had a
problem.
Mr. Yee: When I told her the City reduced my seating she tried to get me to say
my initial plan was for carry-out. She called me greedy when I said 30
or 40 seats were not enough.
Mr. LaPine: If he goes to 26 and the other part is carry-out, do we need as many
parking spaces for carry-out?
Mr. Nagy: That is covered by all the other parking requirements. The sit-down
seating is causing burden.
Mr. Vyhnalek: He said the majority would be carry out.
Mr. Morrow: Even if he said he will take less seating, we still have the waiver that
will let the restaurant get in there. Without the reduction we cannot
consider it. We have to deny or approve it.
Mr. Kluver: What he is saying, if you meet ordinance, even at that point, there is
not an assurance that your waiver would be approved but right now we
cannot even consider it.
Mr. LaPine: Even if we approve, he still has to go to council and get a waiver use?
Mr. Vyhnalek: Yes. We can either deny or table.
Carol Goodfellow, 15408 Richfield: I am pleased to see the commission seems to be
having the same concerns we do. Perhaps we do not need to go a lot
further. There are people here who are very strongly opposed to it.
Judy Hogrefe, 15382 Richfield: I am 24 year resident and a 22 year fighter of this
complex. My problem is with garbage. If you put another restaurant in
there right now, right now the view from my dining room window is a
dumpster (Mrs. Hogrefe showed pictures) The additional parking would
take place in my back yard. The adjacent wall is inadequate, 4 feet 7
1/2 inches tall - I can look over it and I am 5 feet tall. If you go
10169
over to the parking lot side it measures 3 foot 9 inches which puts me
10 1/2 inches below the parking lot. I have water problems. Also the
traffic - now in the evening and Sunday we get a little bit of peace.
With a restaurant there we will never get any. By the way with Burger
Fresh my only problem is the dumpster. It is 50-75 feet from my window.
Gerald Usinidek, 37437 Lancaster: I have Burger Fresh in my back yard every day from
12:00 to 2:00 in the morning. You walk out in my back yard you no longer
can sit there and enjoy a nice summer evening without smelling Burger
Fresh and now we will have chinese food. We also have another problem.
I have resided in Livonia for 10 years. I have had rats in my house
because of these businesses. I have had to have exterminators. They
did not believe that City of Livonia residents would have rats.
Jane White, 15356 Richfield: I echo their complaints. I have a list of violations
that have not been complied with. There is eating in lot, working on
cars. All of this has been told and told. We don't need a restaurant
with garbage and more cars.
Mr. Kluver: What is date of violation and who is the inspector?
Mrs. White: Dated 5-14-87 - Bob Wilkins.
Gary Wilson, 37560 Lancaster: I got the impression you were trying to acommodate the
Chinese restaurant and you forgot you have to accommodate the residents
and I don't know anybody that wants another restaurant in this place.
You can't get 63 cars in there and park and have them pull out. When
you drive north on Newburgh, it is illegal to turn there. There is no
way to legally get in there. You are going to create a traffic problem.
The garbage is bad and the traffic is worse.
•
*or Mr. Vyhnalek: I think you misread some of the commissioners. They weren't pushing to
put him in, they felt sorry for him for signing the lease.
Mr. Wilson: We are definitely against anything. We don't want the shopping center
at all.
Mr. Kluver: I would like to direct this to the staff regarding some of the
violations. There was obviously a long list. Could the commission
write a letter to the Building Department and Inspection Department to
check those violations as stated on that report dated 5-14-87 and if
they are still in effect, the owner be cited. There are over a dozen.
Mr. Morrow: I concur.
Mr. McCann: One of the reasons for the public hearing is to hear this kind of
information from the residents and to add insight that we wouldn't
normally have.
Mr. Yee: I would like to apologize.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-4-2-12 closed.
10170
On a motion made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously approved, it
was
#4-72-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 26,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-4-2-12 by William Yee and Dick Chou requesting waiver use
approval to operate a restaurant within an existing building located on the
west side of Newburgh between Five Mile and Lancaster in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 18 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use is in compliance with all of the waiver use standards and
requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the off-street parking
requirements set forth in Section 18.38(17)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance
#543.
(3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use.
(4) That the proposed use would cause a significant increase in
traffic to and from the subject site thus increasing traffic
congestion in the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance
with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek, 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 Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-73-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-4-8-12 by Loy Associates for approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to replace an existing
self-serve gas station located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and
Merriman Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3 with a new food mart/gas
pumper facility, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That Site Plan 87-22, Sheet SP-1 dated 3-30-88 prepared by Loy
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building Plan 87-22, Sheet SP-1 dated 1-12-88 prepared by Loy
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(3) That Landscape Plan 87-22, Sheet SP-1 dated 3-30-88 prepared by Loy
Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and be completely
installed on the site prior to occupancy of the new facility.
10171
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
rr.
#4-74-88 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 556th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on April 12, 1988 are approved.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#4-75-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on April 26,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-3-8-11 by Louis Ronayne for approval of all plans required
by Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a multi-family condominium development on the north side of Joy
Road between Newburgh and Stonehouse in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) That Site Plan 86-5-65, Sheet 1 dated 3/23/88 prepared by Basney and
Smith, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building Plan 88-3522 prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. is
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(3) That Landscape and Illumination Plan 86-5-65, Sheet 1 dated 3/23/88
prepared by Basney and Smith, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be
,,— adhered to;
(4) That before any sign or mail box cluster is located on the property, a
plan of the proposed sign or mail box cluster shall first be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Commission.
(5) There would be no storage structure in the car port.
(6) Car port shall be constructed per drawing submitted to the Planning
Commission.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaPine, McCann, Sobolewski, Morrow, Kluver, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: Soranno
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it
was
#4-76-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on April 26,
10172
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 88-4-8-13 by Robert K. Seymour for approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a multi-tenant building on the south side of Eight
Mile between Shadyside and Mayfield in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) That Site Plan #8647, Sheet 1 dated 4/7/88 prepared by Robert K.
Seymour, Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building Plan #8647, Sheet 2 dated 4/7/88 prepared by Robert K.
Seymour, Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(3) That the landscaping as shown on the approved site plan shall be
installed on site prior to building occupancy and thereafter maintained
in a healthy condition.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-77-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-4-8-14 by Lindhout Associates Architects for approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a
proposal to construct a two-story addition and expand existing use of
building located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Merriman and
Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26 subject to the following
conditions:
(1) That Site Plan 8813, Sheet A-1 dated 4/12/88 prepared by Lindhout
Associates, Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building Plan 8813, Sheet P-1 dated 4/12/88 prepared by Lindhout
Associates, Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-78-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-4-8-15 by Dr. Robert Borenstein for approval of all plans required by
Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to
construct a medical office building on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Grand River Avenue and Middlebelt in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That Site Plan 8813, dated 4/13/88 prepared by Rockind-Debard,
Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building Plan 8813, dated 4/13/88 prepared by Rockind-Debard,
Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
10173
(3) That the Landscape Plan dated 4/14/88 is hereby approved and shall be
installed on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter
maintained in a healthy condition.
(4) That any signs proposed for the site be approved by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was
#4-80-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-4-8-16 by Charles Baier requesting approval to install a pole mounted
satellite disc antenna on the rear wall of building located at 27725 Eight
Mile Road, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Petition 88-4-8-16
by Charles Baier which are hereby approved shall be adhered to.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Soranno, Sobolewski, Morrow, Naidow, Vyhnalek
NAYS: LaPine, McCann, Kluver
ABSENT: None
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted,
`, it was
#4-81-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
88-4-8-17 by Basney & Smith, Inc. for Redford Office Supply for approval of
all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection
with a proposal to construct a new building on the south side of Six Mile
Road east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13 subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That Site Plan 78-5-96, Sheet 1 dated 3/28/88 prepared by Basney and
Smith, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) That Building Plan prepared by Camborne Construction Engineering, Inc.
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-82-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Regular Meeting having been held on April 26,
1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Sign Permit Application by ABC Signs, Inc. on behalf of Livonia Party
10174
Mart for a monument sign on property located at 28905 Plymouth Road be
approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Monument Sign shown on Plan 8205, prepared by James Krupa,
Architect and ABC Signs, Inc. which are hereby approved, shall be
411.. adhered to.
Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Vyhnalek read a letter of resignation dated April 21, 1988 from Mr. Straub.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 557th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 26, 1988 was
adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i45-74.----34.—A
) 44_44-vir--
Donna J. Naido Secretary
ATTEST:_ 41.4
Don-ld Vyhnalek, f hairman
jg