Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-10-18 10344 MINUTES OF THE 567th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA rrr On Tuesday, October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 567th 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 7:02 p.m. , with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Jack Engebretson William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski *James C. McCann Brenda Lee Fandrei 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. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-23 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Williams in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 from C-1 to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the proposal. We also have a letter in our file from Candace Danner of 36703 Roycroft stating she feels the rezoning of this parcel is vital to the welfare of her family and all the families of this neighborhood. There is also a copy of a letter addressed to City Council in our file from Vincent Moceri, President of Fairway Farms Homeowners Assocciation requesting the Council to vote a firm NO to the present building plan by Westin Development and asking for assistance in getting Bormans and the property owner to resolve the matter of the vacant building. We also have in our file a copy of a letter written to Mayor Bennett from Walter R. Samuels, President of J & W Management Corporation stating this property is under contract to be sold to Mr. Donald Colone and objecting to any rezoning of the property as it would cause a major financial loss to him. He states they have always cooperated with the City of Livonia and they consider this a very unfair proposal to change the zoning at this time. 10345 Vincent Moceri: I'm here on behalf of our homeowner's association as well as all the people. We had a meeting October 5 and we did our best to invite interested parties. Westin Development representatives were there. Borman declined to attend. Our meeting was quite lengthy and residents spoke their concerns of commercial property such as lighting, trucks, building too big, wouldn't like types of businesses that were going to go in there. We asked the Westin representative ,`, what kind of interest he would have in proposed buildings that were to go in there and in a rather evasive way he gave me video and dry cleaning and little shops. I questioned him if with a development of this magnitude wouldn't you need some signed leases? They told our people that they did a survey of area and it showed a good business climate. There are already enough in the area. He admitted he did not speak to residents. They didn't show us where dumpster would be. We took a vote and we prefer P.S. zoning. There was a total opposition. We totally oppose any new shopping center where there is an empty building already. Over the weekend it became quite covered with glass. Our hope is the developer can get the old Farmer Jacks and incorporate it into office buildings and not stores. Farmer Jacks has refused to do anything about it. They are paying rent on a building they don't even use. We ask you members of the Planning Commission to listen to our appeals and vote to change this area to public service. *7:10 - Mr. McCann entered meeting at this time. Mr. Morrow: If my memory serves me correctly, the Council has before it the site plan for this property. Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct. Mr. Morrow: If they were to approve that site plan they could go ahead with that classification. Can anyone advise me on the status of that *ft. particular site plan? Mr. Kluver: It was referred to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Morrow: Is there any reason why it went to the Committee of the Whole? Mr. Nagy: I think the Council needed more time to study the matter. Because the Planning Commission turned it down, there was a hearing before City Council on an appeal of that denial and I think the Council did not feel comfortable in making an immediate decision and wanted more time to study it. Therefore they referred it to the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Morrow: It is possible this petition could move forward. Mr. Tent: I would like to comment. Mr. Moceri, we have had a problem in this area for many, many years and the things you have stated are things the City should be made aware of. Again, what's going to happen, our recommendation tonight is going to go before the City Council so I would suggest that you muster up your troops and come prepared to present your case. We tried to get Mr. Samuels before the Planning Commission for many, many, many months and years but he ignored us and now today he sends a letter how terrible it is that we are going to rezone this property to be more compatible to adjacent residential area. So it is going to be a battle. You people in your group, homeowners associations and all, will have to go to Council and voice your objections. I am definitely going for the P.S. zoning. It is up to you now to follow through. 10346 Mr. LaPine: Just to reiterate what Mr. Nagy said. Members of the Council are also aware that we are considering rezoning this property and there is some sentiment on the Council for what we are going to do so I think the action we take tonight will have some bearing on the Council. Mrs. Fandrei: How many homeowners signed your petition? Mr. Moceri: We don't have a petition. We just had a meeting. There was total opposition. Mrs. Fandrei: Approximately how many persons were in attendance? Mr. Moceri: 40 to 50 persons were there. Mr. Morrow: I voted in favor of site plan and I did it because it met the ordinance in every respect. Perhaps P.S. is more appropriate for that area but a petitioner did come forward in good faith meeting the ordinance and for that reason I am going to vote against this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-1-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was 1110-186-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-1-23 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Levan and Williams in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 from C-1 to P.S. be approved for the following reasons: �.. 1) That the proposed change of zoning will prevent further strip commercial development from occurring along Five Mile Road in the subject area which would be detrimental to the adjoining residential neighborhood. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are more compatible to the adjacent residential uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will reflect the current use of a portion of the subject property. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more of a variety of beneficial services to serve the surrounding neighborhoods. 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, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: None `.. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10347 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-24 by Dominic Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P.S. to C-l. lour Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are requesting P.S. to C-1 for what reason? Dominic Soave, 33527 Seven Mile: To give you a little history. We originally bought the property in 1972 and we finally got it rezoned. The City gave us split zoning, zoning C-2 200 feet and P.S. the additional 100 feet. At that time we went along with that. We built there and have been trying to lease with P.S. We haven't had any luck. The C-2 is all filled but professional service is still vacant. We have a large investment and we have had some problems as far as landscaping and all those problems have been ironed out and we would like to see it changed to C-1 so it will be a winner instead of a loser. Mr. Vyhnalek: What about additional parking spaces. Mr. Soave: We tried to purchase that from Consumers Power but they would rather lease it to us. That gave us extra 9 spaces. Mr. Vyhnalek: You lose two, you gain seven. Mr. Soave: There is a net gain of nine spaces. Mr. Vyhnalek: You then gained nine spaces. Mr. LaPine: During the two year term you have been trying to lease this have you had any doctors, lawyers? Mr. Soave: We have had one chiropractor. Mr. LaPine: Do you have any tenants that comply with the P.S. classification or do they comply with the C-1 category? Mr. Soave: We have Secretary of State for two units and Coldwell-Banker for three units if we get it changed to C-1. That will leave us two units. Mr. LaPine: If two units were left, how many square feet would you have left? Mr. Soave: 2400 square feet. Mr. LaPine: Secretary of State's office, would that be full service. Mr. Soave: I think they would handle everything. Mr. LaPine: During the period of time that the office building has been available for lease P.S.? 10348 Mr. Soave: We even hired a real estate broker and we just haven't had anybody. Mr. LaPine: What was the Council's thinking to split the zone? Was it because they didn't want the encroachment of the C-1 up Newburgh Road. Mr. Soave: I think that was their thinking. I think we should just look at this now as also a buffer on transitional use zone with C-1 zoning. . Mr. Vyhnalek: I think it was a buffer. Mr. LaPine: John, all the property north of this property is that all RUF or residential property? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. LaPine: There isn't any other C-1 zoning up in that area? Mr. Nagy: Unless you get to Eight Mile and Newburgh. Mr. Tent: This is a two part question to be answered by Mr. Nagy. He indicated there was a realty broker that is interested in leasing property and also Secretary of State. Wouldn't they qualify under office site plan. In other words the existing P.S. would be acceptable with waiver use? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Tent: We could retain the zoning as is and he would have two interested parties. 'Ime, Mr. Nagy: Certainly with Coldwell-Banker being a real estate, it would qualify for waiver use approval. Secretary of State, I think it would qualify for general office use but I would have to have an interpretation. It makes a reasonable argument that it would fall within a waiver use. Mr. Tent: With these two tenants that are willing to negotiate a lease with you, would you be willing to pursue it under the P.S. zoning. Mr. Soave: If that is all I could go for I suppose I would have to take it but once again if they were to move out, I would still be fixed with general office classification and I would also still have two vacancies. Mr. Tent: We would be faced with a problem at that location for the City too because it has been a concern with the residents for so much commercial in that particular area. Insomuch as the zoning now exists in the P.S. category I feel that having these two tenants should satisfy your needs. Mr. Soave: You feel that having those two tenants would be appropriate but the center still would not be filled. I would still have two vacancies. Mr. Tent: Treat them nicely and they won't move out. `rr. 10349 Mrs. Sobolewski: I think the general office would probably be less intense use. In general office you would have more flexibility. Mr. Soave: We directly abutt C-2 zoning. Nim, Mrs. Sobolewski: I think we are trying to get away from more commercial in that area and give you a little more leeway. Mr. Soave: Seven Mile and Newburgh Road, all that has been developed in small commercial uses, no offices. . Mr. Vyhnalek: If we were thinking about waiver use for general office, I think the whole building would be taken into consideration. Mr. Soave: We spent two years trying to get two tenants for that location. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Soave I guess the thing that I am hearing is this area has been inundated with high traffic. It is in the process of being developed to the extent any commercial any further than it is right now is a burden on the residents. I appreciate you are having a problem in leasing your property but if you had done a survey of areas in Livonia, you would have known what to expect when you built on this property. I feel to go further with C-1 would not be fair to all people in Livonia. Mr. Morrow: This professional service, how is it related to Laurel Park, Victor Center and Seven Mile and Farmington? What I am getting at is in that area I do not perceive a shortage of general office. I think what you are saying tonight is you are looking towards viability. I have seen it a number of times because I live in that area. You have a nice looking center, I believe, and I think what you are %my saying here tonight is you are looking for viability. You have two tenants that are quasi-commercial now and you are looking for flexibility. Those two buildings are they commercial now? Mr. Soave: Yes sir. Mr. Morrow: I am not that opposed to C-1 request. Mr. Engebretson: I want to speak in opposition for many of the same reasons that Ray Tent mentioned. I think Mr. Soave can solve his problems by going to waiver use which is not as permanent as C-1 zoning. Mr. McCann: I am kind of mixed on this. I know Mr. Soave and he does a nice job in Livonia. However, I would, on behalf of citizens, have to go along with the idea of taking a waiver use at this point and see what you can do with it. At least for the time being. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Soave, as you developed this project, sometimes my memory fails me, when you had initial zoning which was approved and you were aware of split zoning, you began to develop your commercial development is that correct? Mr. Soave: Yes. 10350 Mr. Kluver: Then you came back to the Commission for party store. I am saying there has been a progression here. There have been some incremental steps that you have gone through. Once you came back and received liquor license for party store. That is a high intense use. I believe there was another problem with site plan `�. because of building and at that time there was an adjustment made to the site plan and now we are coming back and now there is a situation because of the P.S. zoning. What I look at is a project that started out with commercial and professional service being put together on a fragment basis. I think it should be planned out as opposed to segments. I would look to general office use or waiver use. That would give you opportunity to lease out balance of building. I think it is a reasonable way to go. That basically is a residential area. The mile roads as they develop would compliment it. Paul St. Henry, 37500 Seven Mile: Basically I am just going to echo what has been mentioned here with one exception. I believe, as has been mentioned, this has been developed along an incremental basis. Originally it was going to be C-2. We talked that down. The members of the Planning Commission vetoed it. The Council tabled it and they compromised it and gave them professional service at the north end. Then there was a question about what was going to be put in there. The party store has still not been developed. There is a pizzeria, etc. . The place looks half way decent. I think we should be expecting a good job from people who develop property in the City. As far as the Y.G. and waiver. I was at last meeting where he changed his mind and tabled petition for general office. I am personally not that crazy about general • office. The way I am looking at it perhaps the Farmer Jack situation at Five Mile and Levan might be an appropriate analogy. `. When Farmer Jacks moved down to Newburgh Road that is free enterprise. Mr. Soave built this building with the complete understanding that this was C-2 on the lower south end and P.S. on north end. If he can't make it go, that is his problem. We should not be subsidizing this investment so I am against the change in zoning. Mr. Soave: We think we tried our darndest to get this thing leased. I think it is up to the City as a City not to guarantee, but if there is a way the buildings can be occupied, how can you say no. I don't understand the thinking along those lines going from P.S. to C-l. It is not that much higher intense use. You are talking about real estate office. How about a dress shop. How about hairdresser. Here we have a chance to fill up center, one of many in Livonia, that are vacant. If I were to forget the $500,000 I have tied up in this, the City should not forget it as vacant stores are a blight on the City. . Mr. Tent: Mr. Soave, this is our city and we are trying to build a good city. We don't want a bar on every corner. We don't want this city inundated with commercial property. If I had been on this Commission when you proposed the original petition, I would have shot it down and now you come here tonight and tell us what to do to make you a winner. We have no obligation to you as a businessman coming into our city, you could have gone to any other city. 10351 Mr. Soave: I like Livonia. Mr. Tent: Well so do we. Mr. LaPine: I am opposed to C-1 zoning and I have always been. Here I think we have a unique situation. We have a parcel that is already built. Probably the Speedway station on the corner of Seven Mile and Newburgh generates more traffic. His shopping center is not on Seven Mile Road it is on Newburgh. The gentleman here has a problem. We can deny him and we would have an empty building. I don't think we want it. I think we want the buildings to be occupied. I don't think this is an unreasonable situation. Anyone going by there would assume that is a commercial establishment not a P.S. They should have rezoned the whole thing P.S. or C-2. I personally don't see any objection. Staying with P.S. we are going to have general office coming out our ears when Victor and Jonna parcels are developed and nobody is going to rent that place for a general office. It is basically a C-1 operation and I don't see where the big hangup is. Mrs. Fandrei: To my fellow commissioner, Bill, my concern is if we allow this to go C-1 or C-2 then across the street they are going to come back and this is going to be happening all the way up Newburgh and if we don't stop it now it is just going to continue. Mr. LaPine: I can assure you if anything else comes up on Newburgh or Seven Mile Road for C-1 or C-2 I am voting against it but here something is already there. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-1-24 closed. New On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-24 by Dominic Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P.S. to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-1-24 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for more flexibility to the owner for attracting tenants for the subject building. 2) That the proposed change of zoning represents only a minor expansion of commercial zoning in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will not be a deterent to the continued peace and tranquility enjoyed by the surrounding residents in the area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. 10352 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #10-187-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-1-24 by Dominic Soave requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6 from P.S. to C-1 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will encourage additional requests for changes of zoning to a commercial classification along Newburgh Road in the future. 2) That the existing P.S. zoning district provides for a buffer or transition zone between existing commercial uses and adjacent residential uses to the north. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will permit more intensive uses on the site adjacent to residential property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei NAYS: Morrow, LaPine, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution i.. adopted. Mr. Kluver to petitioner: I suggest you work with Planning Department and consider general office use for that area or exercise waiver use. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-1-25 by K. M. Phillipou and John Dalfonsi requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Wayne Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32 and the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-7. Mr. Nagy: We have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating there is no city owned storm sewer outlet for said petitoned property and that it would probably be necessary to obtain a permit from Wayne County to outlet into the Middle Rouge River. We also have a letter in our file from Thomas G. Shipley, 8984 Russell stating his opposition to this petition as he feels there are an abundance of multiple family dwellings in the area, many of which have quite a few vacancies. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to put up 12 to 16 condos. Is that property yours at this time? Joe Guerriero, 6050 Greenfield, Dearborn, Project Architect: Contingent upon rezoning. NNW 10353 Mr. LaPine: John, when we have a project of this nature, I was out there Saturday at 2:00 and traffic was horrendous, did we make any surveys how much additional traffic something like this would generate along Ann Arbor Trail? `., Mr. Nagy: We don't survey. We do notify the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department for a traffic input. Mr. LaPine: When is that done? After the rezoning is initiated? Wouldn't it be better if we did that ahead of time? Mr. Nagy: We give the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department the location both when we have a rezoning petition as well as a site plan. Unless there are unusual traffic problems they do not respond to our request. If we think there might be particular traffic problems we ask that they please respond. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are trying to develop 12 to 16 condominiums? Mr. Guerriero: I wanted to point out, in reference to letter, these will be for sale. These will be single family condominiums, two story ranch with two-car garages. So we will be looking at purchase market and not rental market. We are currently breaking ground on a similar project on Ann Arbor Trail in Dearborn Heights and approximately 50% are reserved at this point and we have just started break ground today. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this your first venture in Livonia? Mr. Guerriero: As far as condominiums. I have done other projects. I tried to do an automatic car wash at Farmington and Schoolcraft. I didn't do too well. We are doing a large project at Test-Tech right now. I have '4111. worked in the City before. I brought along a color rendering of conceptually what these will look like. Mr. Vyhnalek: One of the problems when we discussed this at the study meeting, we are concerned about the rest of the property along Ann Arbor Trail, We, as commissioners, want to get a close look at what is going to be developed there in the future. We do not want to spot a project here and spot a project there. That was one of our problems. This is put down in the nature of a parcel, we are trying to seek out what to do with all of it. Mr. Guerriero: It is my understanding that the map in this area does indicate multiple. Mr. Vyhnalek: Medium density. Mr. Guerriero: I also believe that four acre parcel just to west may be coming before Commission for same type of zoning request. Maybe a consideration should be to rezone the whole area. Mr. Tent: The rendering you just presented, is that typical type condominiums you are proposing? Mr. Guerriero: Yes, very similar to what we are doing in Dearborn Heights. 10354 Mr. Tent: It did look attractive but did you indicate two car garages? Mr. Guerriero: Yes, that rendering was not done specifically for this project. Mr. Tent: What would these be selling for? Mr. Guerriero: $110,000. Mike Rourke, 35540 Ann Arbor Trail: I have discussed this at length with many of my neighbors in area and at present I have been able to contact 13 who have signed petition which I am going to be sending to Council in opposition to this plan. We all have a common opposition in that we believe that putting these small developments in an area like this (1) is going to change measurably the structure of the neighborhood (2) It is going to be a strain on the utilities. The biggest complaint we have in that area is constant power outages. We have experienced several this week and when you talk about building 12 units you might as well say you are building 12 more houses. Whether building 3 room apartments or 7 room houses they use electricity and I don't believe that this type of development is going to help. We have experienced lower water pressure. I was not even aware of the sewer problems. The Rouge River is already polluted to some degree. Also I have to address traffic situation. The traffic on Ann Arbor Trail has increased to such a degree it is almost like Plymouth Road where the City has had to put in left turn lane to accommodate the traffic. We are just being inundated with new traffic. It is very frustrating. Further up the street there has been vacant land developed with very attractive single family homes which I understand were sold within the $200,000 range. I see no reason why that piece of property could not be developed with something similar. The property may look quite large on the map. I remind you that little piece to the west is where I live and it is not "Its. that big of a piece of property. How are we going to crowd all those units in there and make it an asset to the neighborhood. We don't seem to have any shortage of developers in Livonia. I'm sure if this was such an attractive piece of property for development, why no one else has tried to develop it. I believe the petitioners are trying to take advantage of a stress sale. The person who owns property is elderly lady who has given Power of Attorney to relative and they are trying to sell property as is. The asking price I was told was $120,000. The property has been on the market for sometime. I was very curious why no one has tried to develop it already. We don't oppose progress but we don't feel we should have to be victimized by it. I think it is going to be a hardship on the people in the neighborhood. I think in fairness to the residents a study should be made of traffic impact upon neighborhood and utility usage, perhaps environmental study. Who is going to pay for this? Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you lived there? Mr. Rourke: 16 years. 1 Mr. Vyhnalek: Have you had your property up for sale at any time. Have you been approached to sell your property? Mr. Rourke: No. 10355 Donald Jones, 35627 Ann Arbor Trail: I would like to oppose the proposed rezoning based solely upon the heavy traffic volume on a two-lane road. As you are aware Ann Arbor Trail is a two lane road. I would also point out the number of apartments in immediate area. Just to the west there are a quantity of condominiums and also like to point out that Ann Arbor slaw Road at Ann Arbor Trail there is a very big development less than a year old. I believe it is approximately 350 units and my point being the heavy traffic utilized up and down Ann Arbor Trail. It seems they are going crazy building apartments in Westland and we are very close to border and they are utilizing Ann Arbor Trail. John Emerson, 35639 Ann Arbor Trail: Everything has been said regarding traffic. It is impossible. I am lucky I have circular driveway in front of my house. It would be impossible to back out on Ann Arbor Trail. It is just a matter of time before someone is going to be killed. Tom Vanden Bossche: I wasn't prepared to approach the Commission at this time. We are trying to sell four acres of a seven acre parcel. We are west of that. We haven't approached the Commission yet. We are trying to get buyer and we will go for multiple. I am for it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-1-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988 on Petition 88-9-1-25 by K. M. Phillipou and John Dalfonsi requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail, west of Wayne Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32 and the `'4141., Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-7 be tabled until November 15, 1988. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-39 by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in conjunction with a new Great Scott Supermarket to be located within Northridge Commons Shopping Center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections. Dan Scanderelli, Counsel for Meadowdale Foods: With me tonight is Larry Rasmussen, Vice President of Real Estate. I would just like to say that Great Scott is very excited about this project. These stores are exactly what we say we are, that is a fresh approach to foo marketing. We emphasize full service stores not just food. Crazy things you have 10356 never seen before. Some of these stores will have added facilities including laundry and dry cleaning, deli, salad bars, etc. We believe that SDD and SDM is integral part of that. We believe all requirements of waiver use are satisfied. I would like to emphasize they are clean, well kept, well lit as opposed to smaller liquor stores. Mr. Rasmussen, Meadowdale Foods, 8711 Meadowdale, Detroit: As Dan pointed out I want to make a short reaffirmation of a couple of viewpoints in our petition. The property is zoned C-2 so you all know that with a waiver use the sale of liquor, beer and wine is allowed. We have also satisfied the other portions of zoning ordinance in that it is located at least 1,000 feet from any other licensed establishments and at least 500 feet from any SDM and 400 feet from any church or school building. Because our proposed waiver use is in compliance with all of the application requirements, we respectfully request that the petition be granted. Mr. Tent: At our study meeting we discussed in depth the SDD License for liquor and Dan mentioned it five times that SDD is really not a necessity in this area. We indicated our strong feelings that we would just as soon see general beer and wine and as far as hard liquor leave it to the other establishments. You indicated at that time you thought it would be a good idea. Have you reversed your position on that now? Mr. Rasmussen: If I recall correctly, they asked me if an SDD License was a specific requirment at that location and I said no it is not. Of course, our preference is to have it. Mr. Tent: You could still go on with project without it? Mr. Scanderelli: We don't seek out to sell something if anyone does not seek it out. There are many things we would rather not sell but our customers want it and we provide it. Mr. Tent: You have never closed down because of lack of SDD license? Mr. Morrow: I just asked him if they did not get this would that be enough to preclude this endeavor. Mr. McCann: The mall there, do we have a drug store going into mall? Have they requested liquor license? Mr. Nagy: Not to my knowledge. Mr. Rasmussen: The drugstore is going to be in supermarket. Mr. McCann: They are eligible in that location for a liquor license. Mr. Nagy: They are well beyond the 1,000 foot separation requirement. Yes. Mr. Kluver: To amplify, the drug store is integral part of Great Scott facility and there is not going to be a freestanding or independent drug store within that shopping complex? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. 10357 Mr. Kluver: I feel personally, as an individual, there are by far an excessive amount of liquor stores on the street today. I feel it is a lethal weapon. Mr. McCann: There is a liquor store 1,000 feet down in strip mall, have you considered purchasing his liquor license and moving it? We are talking about two places on Eight Mile selling liquor. Mr. Scanderelli: It is an operating drugstore. Mrs. Fandrei: Is this the first concept like this in this area? Mr. Rasmussen: We right now have three stores under construction with three more to commence. The first stores that Great Scott has built in many years. It is now Meadowdale Foods. It used to be Allied Super Markets. We developed a new concept of what we want Great Scott to be. It is very evident by a demographic study that one stop shopping is being more demanded today by the population and we have attempted to satisfy that need. Mrs. Fandrei: You have nothing with this concept open at this time. Mr. Rasmussen: We have this concept in Plymouth at Ann Arbor and Shelden, At Chicago and Telegraph we have one the closest to it. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, we only have two more SDD Licenses for Livonia. If we give away these two, what happens when we run out of licenses? Mr. Nagy: We won't have any more to issue. If our population should increase, we would be eligible for additional licenses. Mr. Scanderelli: We think you will be getting additional licenses in your quota. Ns. As far as the shortage I think that will solve itself. Mr. LaPine: I would like to say I am opposed to SDD License. Will the liquor be on shelf? Can you pay for it when you leave at check out? Mr. Rasmussen: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: I have problems with that type of operation. I have problems with families going in grocery shopping and buying liquor. You have a lot of families that have problems with alcohol. I am worried people who need food, will buy liquor. I have problems with shopping center being there. What it has done, it has closed down Farmer Jacks and I have a problem with that. Now we have a vacant store. I have problems with you going in there with a big operation when a little drugstore is not going to be in business in a few years. Common sense tells you, you can buy large quantities which he can't. If liquor license is available, you might be able to buy his. I have problems. We don't need any more liquor licenses in that area. We don't need any more packaged liquor licenses. I believe a big store like Great Scott can operate without liquor license. I am opposed. Mrs. Fandrei: I want to go on record saying I am opposed to packaged liquor in grocery stores for both reasons Mr. Kluver stated. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-39 closed. 10358 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was �. #10-188-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-39 by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. *my requesting waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in conjunction with a new Great Scott Supermarket to be located within Northridge Commons Shopping Center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 be approved for the SMD License and denied for the SDD License for the following reasons: 1) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the SDM License use. 2) That all applicable waiver use standards and requirements with respect to the location of SDM Licenses set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 are being complied with. 3) That the area is currently being well served with SDD Licensed facilities. 4) That with respect to the proposed use of an SDD License the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the 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. '41110„ Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-40 by Boris W. Petcoff for DAV #114 requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for a meeting hall on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Nagy: When they filed they thought they had approval of C-1 zoning but it failed for lack of support but the notice for waiver use had already been sent out so we have to have public hearing. We have a letter in our file from the Inspection Department stating there was no protective wall; they should provide paved driveways and parking areas; dilapidated shed at rear of property should be removed; insure full compliance with all barrier-free building code rules; and that it had not been determined if current septic system will support proposed use. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Boris Petcoff: I am the Home Chairman and Trustee of DAV #114. On October 10th we received an affirmative ok to go to C-1 zoning and subsequent to that in the next couple of days, there have been some questions about the `r. 10359 ligality of some previous complaints so at the moment we have a questionable approval which will be ironed out in the next few days so we were encouraged to make this application concurrent with the other petition. We are in the unusual position of being here with temporarily unzoned property certainly through no fault of our own. We have done extensive studies on the building. There is a possibility ;` that we will go to a new building without using this building because of the immense cost of bringing this building up to code. What I would like to do is request that you table this until we get proper zoning and at that time we will reappear. Mr. Vyhnalek: If this is tabled, you will come back with the answers to the Inspection Department telling them what you are going to do? Mr. Petcoff: We have answers to Inspection Department. The other item is there is a cost feature that should be waived. Mr. LaPine: I think the reason there aren't many residents here, this was approved by Council and then they found out there was a protest petition that was valid and then they held a special meeting and Council said the protest was valid and it has been denied. Mr. Petcoff: To the best of my knowledge we have not been informed of any meeting that did deny this. Mr. Nagy: The question came up at the end of the Council study meeting this past week and Law Department brought the Council members up to date and why the Law Department ruled it did not pass because of 3/4 vote. It was a protest petition. At this Wednesday's regularly scheduled meeting the Council will indicate that the matter has failed and if any Council member wants to bring matter back to reconsider, they may do so at any time. So it was discussed but not at a special meeting but in Noy connection with the Council study meeting. Mr. Petcoff: I understand a definitive answer will be available tomorrow night. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-40 by Boris W. Petcoff for DAV #114 requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for a meeting hall on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Merriman Road and Auburndale Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-8-2-40. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-41 by Scott R. Williams requesting waiver use approval to establish seating within an existing carry-out delicatessen (N.Y. Deli) located in *ft. 10360 Fountainview Plaza on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating there is deficient parking; dumpster enclosure location and roof construction are not as represented on this plan; truck turnaround ,tor at the rear of the commercial building is missing and the site has dead, dying, missing landscape materials. They also state a violation had been issued and restoration is underway. We also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no problems with this petition. Scott Williams, 19215 Newburgh: I would like to say a few things on my behalf. About my petition, there are not that many sit down restaurants in area. Very few. As a matter of fact, my petition calls for only 12 seats. I only have 1200 square feet. Along one wall in my store I have a stand up counter right. I would like to put some bar stools up solely for people when they want to come in at lunch time they can come in and eat and go. I would also like to say there was a deli in Livonia that was here for many years called Ben and George's. It was a large sit down restaurant. There were a lot of people in Livonia who really enjoyed their food. I would like to say I am serving very same thing. A lot of people are coming in and they say where is the sit down? I need to get sit down to get them to stay so I can do business in Livonia. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this your first venture? Mr. Williams: Yes sir. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Soave, there are some deficiency with respect to dead dying plants is that in store? Nur Mr. Soave: No. That was during heat wave. That has all been replaced. Mrs. Sobolewski: How long have you been in deli? Mr. Williams: For five months. Mrs. Sobolewski: The lunch trade is that your biggest trade. Mr. Williams: Yes. We do a lot of carry out business but I would like to let them sit down and eat if they like. People who went to Ben and George's are looking to sit down. Mrs. Sobolewski: You have stand-up counter? People can eat at stand-up counter? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is it just sandwiches. Mr. Williams: Sandwiches, soup, salads. They are all fine meat. Mrs. Sobolewski: You asked for 12 stools? Mr. Williams: Right. I don't have room to put booths in. 10361 Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you have trouble with parking now? Mr. Williams: No. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, the stand-up bar, is this legal. 44111, Mr. Nagy: The serving of food and beverages to be consumed in building whether it stand-up counter or table and chairs is not permissible without waiver use approval. I think he would be right now in violation of zoning ordinance. Mr. Tent: Mr. Williams you indicated you are going where Ben and George's left off. The only thing is Ben and George's was 4 - 5 times bigger. If you were going to pick up Ben and George's trade, you would not have big enough capacity. We hope you will succeed. When you first petitioned for this particular service, did you know it was just going to be carry-out. Did you figure at a later date you were going to ask for these seats? Mr. Williams: No. I just wanted carry-out to begin with. When people came in and asked why there was no place to sit and then they walked out the door, I said I have to do something about this. Mr. Tent: Would 12 people make that much difference? Mr. Williams: This is the reason for stools. They will eat for 15 minutes and then they will be gone. They will not be real comfortable and have coffee. I think it will be a good turnover. Mr. Kluver: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy and also the developer, regarding the deficiencies of the landscape, which obviously was a victim of the summer drought, the developer indicated that has been replaced. Is Ordinance Enforcement Division aware of that? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Kluver: A second question to the petitioner. Are you the current proprietor of the New York Deli at Five Mile and Farmington? Mr. Williams: No sir. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Soave, as developer of that site, you indicate if waiver were to be granted you would then lease land from Consumers Power. Currently, do you have the availability of that lease? Mr. Soave: It could be produced. I don't have it with me right now. Mr. Kluver: In your long-range plans, obviously you don't have any consideration for a restaurant. Is this sort of again a type of thing that evolved as the progression of leasing was in progress? You are coming up short on parking spots. Mr. Soave: Any good landlord would, if he needs additional parking, we could manage it. Mr. LaPine: Did you bring a site plan to show us the way the counter is. 10362 Mr. Williams: I had submitted 15 copies. Mr. Nagy: We have them. Mr. LaPine: How has your business been? Are you making it? After five months is your business viable enought that you could survive if you don't have sit down chairs? Would sit down chairs put you over hump? Mr. Williams: I think sit down chairs would put me over the hump. Now is not the time to look at my business properly because the entire mall has not been developed. People are coming back. It is encouraging but I would like to have seats. Mr. LaPine: How many employees do you have? Mr. Williams: A young cousin of mine. Mr. LaPine: I have to say I admire you. You are a young man starting out. I haven't made up my mind but I still admire you. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Soave, you indicated if he needed parking you would find it. Mr. Nagy: He said he already has it. Mrs. Fandrei: Is it adequate parking? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy if we did grant him 12 seats and they were stools, could he at any time put tables and chairs in? Mr. Nagy: I think he could but what normally happens when you grant a waiver use approval, you grant it on condition of adherence to the site plan. If *ft► he did change, he would be in violation. Would we inspect it that closely? Would we enforce it that closely? I think what we would look for as long as there were 12 he was keeping with the spirit of the thing. Mr. Morrow: We seem to be talking about viability here. We always like to see our business succeed. Should you not secure your restaurant, have you given any thought to any other kind of marketing to outreach to carry-out. Mr. Williams: It is in the works. I am going to be hiring a delivery person to take the food to them but there are still people who come in at night, the residents of the area, who like to sit down. Mr. Morrow: You are not doing it now but you are in the throes of doing it. Mrs. Fandrei: If we give waiver for 12 seats, it goes with property and we are stuck with it forever. Since you have only been there for five months, my opinion is not to give you the waiver as much as I admire you for your hard work and your attitude. I drove by there today. You were very friendly but at the same time we have to look at total picture and that would be a waiver that would stay with the property. Since you are just beginning, I hesitate to do that right now. 10363 Paul St. Henry, 37500 Seven Mile: I would like to go on record as being in favor of the limited seating for Mr. Williams. I have been in his place a number of times. He seems to run a nice place. I have been in New York Deli where they have somewhat limited seating, their primary trade is carry out. I don't think it is going to create any major problem and I think if I could help him make a go of his business, I would be in favor of limited seating. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy I believe the ordinance requires half of 12 square feet of restaurant to be available for seating. Is that correct? If that is the case, then there is a significant deficiency here and I don't want to cause this young man any problems. I think if we do this then everyone that is having this kind of problem will be here. Mr. Tent: I have to echo sentiments of Jack and Brenda. We will be setting a precedent. I think we know we may be running into some difficulties. Mr. Williams: I am not coming to you because I am having a problem with this business. I am coming to you because of my customers who say why can't I sit down. I am not coming to you to bail me out of situation. Mr. Engebretson: What do you tell them? Mr. Williams: I tell them I am going to attempt to get approval to sit down. Mr. Engebretson: How do you explain it now? Mr. Williams: That land is not zoned for sit down restaurant. Mr. McCann: I would like to go to the Director. Would this apply in this instance, the 50% seating area? Mr. Nagy: We have always taken a very liberal interpretation of that. We take sow full intent of space to be available for the public. Mr. McCann: In this particular case do you see a problem. Mr. Nagy: I do not see a problem. Mr. McCann: I say what we have here is a young man who is trying to do something. He is not going to increase traffic. He is asking for a limited number of seats to make his establishments nice to customers. I for one, as a commissioner, think we are limiting it to 12. Twelve seats is not going to be a tremendous burden to anyone. Mrs. Sobolewski: I support Mr. McCann's feelings. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-41 by Scott R. Williams requesting waiver use approval to establish seating within an existing carry-out 10364 delicatessen (N.Y. Deli) located in Fountainview Plaza on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-41 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for the subject shopping center and to the following additional condition: 1) That the maximum number of customer seats shall be limited to 12. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements 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 provides a service not currently present in the general area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Sobolewski, LaPine NAYS: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #10-189-88 RESOLVED, that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-41 by Scott R. Williams requesting waiver use approval to establish seating within an existing carry-out delicatessen (N.Y. Deli) located in Fountainview Plaza on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 88-8-2-41 for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the location, nature and intensity of the proposed use will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: McCann, Sobolewski, LaPine ABSENT: None 10365 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-42 by Oppenheimer Livonia Association requesting waiver use approval to operate a warehouse and storage facility with outdoor parking of vehicles within the Allied Commerce Center located north of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating no deficiencies or problems were found and their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Dick Shuler, General Manager for Allied Commerce Center: Basically, the center has a number of trucks. The only reason for the petition, there seems to be a restriction in the City of Livonia regarding the moving and storage of trucks. You cannot park trucks outside. The largest portion of trucks will be parked inside. There will be 30-40 trucks we will park outside. We have other operations in there that are not moving and storage companies which are allowed to park trucks outside. We are only adding another 30 trucks. Mr. Tent: The 30 tractor-trailers you are talking about, is that the extent of the tractor-trailer or is that just tractor portion? Mr. Shuler: No that is tractor-trailer combination. Mr. LaPine: These vehicles will not be seen from Plymouth Road is that correct? Mr. Shuler: That is very definitely correct. There is a large portion of C-2 property and they are almost 1/4 mile back from C-2 property. Mr. LaPine: How is that complex? What percentage do you have leased? Mr. Shuler: We are probably 99% leased at moment. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-2-42 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #10-190-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-2-42 by Oppenheimer Livonia Association requesting waiver use approval to operate a warehouse and storage facility with outdoor parking of vehicles within the Allied Commerce Center located north of Plymouth Road between Merriman Road and Hubbard Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the parking of vehicles shall be confined to the spaces depicted on the site plan marked Sheet C-1A dated 4-1-67 prepared by A. Epstein and Sons, Inc. 10366 2) That the area proposed for use as tractor-trailer parking space shall be marked on the site by means of yellow cross etching. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all 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 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-43 by Hart and Leidal Investment requesting waiver use approval to establish a drive-up banking facility and general offices on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the revised site plan corrected the deficiencies noted in the original petition. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their comments regarding this petition are identical to those outlined in their letter relative to the site plan which are: 1) new asphalt "T" turn-around will be required at southerly limits of Westmore Avenue. 2) They require that the water system in Westmore Avenue be looped to Five Mile through the site as a public water main and 3) Since there are no storm sewers of sufficient size and capacity to service the site, it will be necessary for the site development to retain some storm water runoff on site. Mr. Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road: I think the Commission recognizes this petition because it has been before you 3 or 4 times in the last year. First the rezoning petition by City who initiated the professional service. After that the petitioner acquired the property, not only the corner, but also the property in between, which will be part of project. We came to Commission and then to Council for site plan approval at which time we discussed that drive-in-bank facility would be part of this facility. As you well recognize the professional service bank facility requires waiver use and that is why we are here. Mrs. Sobolewski: Didn't we have some discussion last week about trash, inside or outside? 10367 Mr. Tangora: We indicated what our story was that the site plan was approved with outside storage. I guess we have continued to investigate it. We are still out on the final outcome. Everything we have been able to investigate that is not a really good idea for this type of facility to have inside compactor because of reasons we explained last week. Robert Shimmell, representing Alfred Kales, owner of property immediately north of property: He has asked me to appear for him. He is out of town. Some of Mr. Kales' concern is in regard to comment that was just made, specifically the trash enclosure. Although I have personally not had an opportunity to inspect any site plan, Mr. Kales has great concern over that. It was his understanding that the trash may be located basically at the dead end street. As you see his home is very close to the edge of the property. He further has concerns in regard to some type of buffer separating him from the building itself. I don't know if these have been addressed. His notes are berms, buffer. He has further consideration regarding utilities in that area. How they are going to affect the residents. To my knowledge Mr. Kales has not been approached and has not been given consideration for any of these concerns. Mr. McCann: Question to Planning Department. We have seen the layout and where the garbage disposal was in regard to site plan. However, the site plan we saw did not show how far away the actual homes will be to it. Do you have anything that shows this? Mr. Kluver: Are you counsel for Mr. Kales? Mr. Shimmell: I am not. I have been a personal friend and I work for him. Mr. Nagy: Planning Commission required a call back on the landscape plan. The landscape plan has to come back. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, would this be the Planning Department's estimate of the best place for the compactor? Mr. Nagy: I think it is the least visible. Mr. McCann: Least obtrusive to residents? Mr. Nagy: I think you have to remember the area is zoned for office developments not residential. I think in long range the petitioner has selected the best location for it. Mr. Morrow: When we look at landscape plan we might have opportunity to regulate areas for trash pickup. Mr. LaPine: I want to do everything we can to accommodate the gentleman who lives in that house but relatively speaking it is zoned P.S. When right offer comes along, he is going to sell. Right now we will do everything in our power to keep noise down, etc. but realistically speaking eventually that property will be sold because P.S. is too valuable. 10368 Mr. Shimmell: I undestand what you are saying sir and realizing that I am a representative, Mr. Kales did want me to indicate he was concerned about his property value. He was concerned about the people. They have been there for a considerable period of time and although we do have a rating of P.S. , he has no idea of when anything is going to be done. ``. Mr. Vyhnalek: We will make a special reference, he will be notified when we go over site plan because he is the only resident right abutting the property. Mr. Shimmell: I appreciate your concern. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-2-43 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was #10-191-88 RESOL' D that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-2-43 by Hart and Leidal Investment requesting waiver use approval to establish a drive-up banking facility and general offices on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan under petition 88-9-8-25 for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That this proposal amounts to the relocation of a facility which already exists on the site, but in a different location. 4) 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 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-2-44 by Alan Zack requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto body shop within an existing building located on the east side of Stark Road, south of the C & 0 Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. 10369 Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating parking is deficient; layout of the parking area does not lend itself to parking of wrecked vehicles due to high visability from Stark Road; no provisions on the plans for storage of scrap materials and paint spray booth must be approved by Wayne County Air Pollution • Control. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Alan Zack, 1391 Goldsmith: If I can express myself a little bit. I am in Plymouth. I have been established for 3 years. It is a very young business. Ninety percent of business is insurance work. I do very good quality work. What I am trying to do here is to grow. I have been looking in area for year now. I feel Livonia is very good area for business. Basically that is what I have to say now. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Zack, my own opinion on this, as one commissioner I favor that type of work done in industrial area. If you do good work they will come to you and you don't have to have high visibility. My biggest concern is I do not feel that you have the capacity on that site to support the intended use. I find no fault with what you want to do just where you want to do it. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you own this property right now? Mr. Zack: No I don't. Mrs. Fandrei: You are purchasing on contingency subject to waiver approval? Mr. Zack: That is right. I know you are very hesitant in approving outside storage. I do plan on storing inside. Everything would be stored inside and sheet metal would be put in dumpster. Mr. Vyhnalek: How often would you have that dumped? Mr. Zack: Right now we have that dumped once a week. Mr. Tent: Do you intend to move from Plymouth or is this a satellite? Mr. Zack: I plan on moving to Livonia. Mr. Tent: Your reasons for leaving that area is it too small? Mr. Zack: In Plymouth there are no areas that are good for business. I would like to get on main thoroughfare where I would get more drive by business. Mr. Tent: You are aware of other bump shop in location. Mr. Zack: Yes I know owner. Mr. LaPine: You have 8 spaces where you can work on 8 cars at one time. Say you get 12 cars in, would cars you are not working on would they be stored inside? Mr. Zack: Yes. 10370 Mr. Morrow: Are you saying you are not going to have any outside storage of vehicles? Mr. Zack: Correct. Mr. Morrow: I sat on this Commission when a transmission shop came in at Eight Mile and Middlebelt. They were going to rent space to store vehicles. It is possibly the worse spot in Livonia. Even though you are in manufacturing area, it is leading into a nice residential area and there are some developments down there so you can see the apprehension I had for outside storage. If those fears are relieved, I might be of a different posture. Mr. Zack: I know auto body trade does not have best name for it. I did talk to owner who owns property behind me. If some day it grows big and I did need outside storage he would be agreeable to leasing space for storage. Mr. Vyhnalek: You plan on using almost 8,000 square feet. What percentage is your work area going to take out of 8,000 square feet? You have to have paint booth. Mr. Zack: Basically you can work on them anywhere. Mr. Vyhnalek: They always seem to be crowded. You go into big shops in Dearborn. I don't see how they can work on them. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, how long would it take Wayne County Pollution Control to look at property and determine whether it is feasible. Mr. Nagy: Before the City would allow them to operate they would have to show that they have presented and been reviewed and inspected and found in complete compliance. Mrs. Fandrei: They would have to set this up and be approved? Mr. Nagy: Right. Mr. Tent: Mr. Zack, the location you have I think it is a good location. The problems we did have with transmission and tire stores on Eight Mile I echo Mr. Morrow's sentiments. They created a lot of problems for us. You indicated that the owner behind this piece of property is amiable to lease it to you. Undoubtedly you have outgrown your capacity in Plymouth which means that you have been successful in this operation. We have many deficiencies here. That probably could be resolved. Is there any possibility for you to negotiate a lease for that property to enlarge your site? Mr. Zack: I think there is a possibility. I really would not like to do it. This is a big jump for me. It is five times the size of what I have now. Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to suggest we possibly table this for a little more study maybe just for two weeks 10371 Mr. Tent: Do you think we should: Is there any possibility of him really using that site with parking deficiencies and the storage, etc. I would hate to be giving him false hope. Mr. Nagy: Right now he doesn't comply. The site does not have the capacity to handle the 8 bays. '`. Mr. McCann: I was just going to echo Mr. Tent. We would all like to see the young man succeed. I don't believe a table is necessary. Mr. Kluver: Are you aware of the fact that you don't meet the requirements? Mr. Zack: According to inside work bays and outside parking? Basically what I did on the drawing I put 8 bays in there. Right now I have three employees and I don't know how many more employees I am going to get. It is not definite that we will have 8 bays working at one time. Mr. Kluver: There is a deficiency that exists. You don't meet requirements. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-2-44 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was 110-192-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 88-9-2-44 by Alan Zack requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto body shop within an existing building located on the east side of Stark Road, south of the C & 0 Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 for the following reasons: r. 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to required off-street parking. 3) That the subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 4) That the proposed use will be incompatible to and a detriment to the continued use of adjacent industrial property in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-3-4 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Westmore Avenue north of Five Mile Road, east of Farmington in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. 10372 Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from Consumers Power stating they have 2" Steel Medium Pressure threaded gas main in area therefore they object to petition unless a provision for the operation and maintenance of our facilities is included in final resolution. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating that public utility easements should be maintained for both the existing water and 44w"` sanitary sewer mains in the said area to be vacated. Mr. LaPine: According to our notes there is a problem with Consumers Power. Are you going to be able to alleviate that problem. Charles Tangora: We are going to alleviate that. Right now the utilities that are serving the existing homes, those homes have been sold to petitioner and are now being vacated. The ones that are still occupied, although they are not living there, they still have utilities. Before we can cut off utilities both homes have to be vacated. That's what we are waiting for right now. We have to cap off utilities at north end. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-193-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-3-4 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Westmore Avenue north of Five Mile Road, east of Farmington in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject street right of way is no longer needed to serve abutting properties. 2) That the subject street right-of-way can be better used for private development purposes. 3) That, if vacated, the subject street right-of-way will be placed back on the tax rolls. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. 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 #10-194-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure requiring the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 88-9-3-4 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Westmore Avenue north of Five Mile Road, east of Farmington in the ° Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. 10373 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-3-5 by the City Planning Commission to vacate road right-of-way located between I-96 and Schoolcraft Road east of Eckles in the Southwest 1/4 of Na. Section 19. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from Consumers Power stating they have no facilities in subject area therefore they have no objections. We also have a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed vacation provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing road Right-of-Way to protect their existing equipment. There is also a copy of a letter in our file from the Engineering Department written to Schrader-Porter & Associates, Inc. stating the plans are approved insofar as the interests of the City of Livonia are concerned. They also state they note parking areas are proposed within existing public right-of-way and the developer should submit appropriate vacating proceedings through the Planning Department to vacate portions of the existing public right-of-way prior to establishing parking areas within the right-of-way. Mr. LaPine: This parcel the City is not purchasing? Mr. Nagy: Right. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-3-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #10-195-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-3-5 by the City Planning Commission to vacate road right-of-way located between I-96 and Schoolcraft Road east of Eckles in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject right-of-way is not needed for any public purpose. 2) That, if vacated, the subject right-of-way will be placed back on the tax rolls. 3) That the subject right-of-way can be more advantageously used for private development. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10374 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-9-3-7 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an existing 20 foot wide easement located west of Laurel Park Drive, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from Consumers Power Company stating they Now have no facilities in the subject area therefore they have no objections. We also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office had previously forwarded to the owner's representative a Grant of Easement to cover the relocated portions of the on-site water system and that this instrument had not been returned to their office as of this date. They therefore recommended that the above vacating petition be approved subject to the receipt of a new Grant of Easement as noted above. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-9-3-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was ##10-196-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 18, 1988, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-3-7 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an existing 20 foot wide easement located west of Laurel Park v... Drive, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject easement is no longer needed to protect public utilities. 2) That the subject easement interferes with the addition to the Now Holidome building currently under construction. 3) That the existing water main has been relocated within a new easement which has been established on the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. 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 Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #10-197-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition �-- 88-7-2-28 by R & M Clinic requesting waiver use approval to establish a child care center within an existing building located on the east side of Levan Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 for the following reasons: r.. 10375 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Nosy 3) That the subject site is not conducive to the care of children because of the lack of a properly located and designed outdoor play space. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was #10-198-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-7-1-21 by Franklin Laucomer for Escar Bachman and B. J. Wright to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, from M-1 to C-2 that Petition 88-7-1-21 be approved as amended from M-1 to C-1 for the following reasons: \... L) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible with adjacent commercial uses. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a more restrictive zoning district at the entrance to a residential street. 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-8-2-36 by Franklin Laucomer requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing outdoor sales area on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 until site plan can be updated with full compliance by the owner to meet standards of City of Livonia. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10376 \... On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-199-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Six Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the 'q" Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. AND THAT, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was #10-200-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 88-9-8-26 by Holiday Inn for approval of a Roof Mounted Satellite Disc Antenna on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Milburn in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 subject to the following conditions: 1) that the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Petition 88-9-8-26 by Holiday Inn, which are hereby approved, shall be se.. adhered to; 2) That the petitioner submit a screening plan and construction schedule for the existing mechanical equipment for the Commission's approval before a building permit is issued. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #10-201-88 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 566th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 4, 1988 are hereby approved. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was #10-202-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 88-9-8-27 by DeMattia & Associates for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance 543 in connection with a proposal to add additional floor space to the write-up area at Action Oldsmobile located on the north side of Plymouth Road between "�- Farmington and Levan in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 subject to the following conditions: 10377 1) That the Site Plan 88890, Sheet C-1 dated 9-26-88 by DeMattia and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That building Plan 88890, Sheet A-2 dated 10-3-88 by DeMattia and Associates 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, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 567th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on October 18, 1988 was adjourned at 10:18 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION / J: es C. McCann, Secretary ti mak' i C.011I ATTEST: j Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman I � jg