Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1980-07-22 7346 1[0 MINUTES OF THE 395th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 22, 1980 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 395th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting to order mat 8:00 p.m. with approximately 80 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J. Falk C. Russell Smith Judith Scurto Jerome Zimmer Sue Sobolewski Robert L. Morrow Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: *Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were, also present. Mr. Andrew: I would like to welcome Sue Sobolewski as an official member of the City Planning Commission. She was appointed and confirmed as of July 11 , 1980 and has been sitting in at study meetings of the Commission. It is a pleasure to have her with us tonight. Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if the petitions on tonight's agenda involve a question of rezoning or vacating, this body recommends to the City Council that certain action be taken and the Council subsequently decides whether or not a petition is approved or denied, and if a petition for a waiver of use approval is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council . If the matter involves a preliminary subdivision plat, all abutting property owners have been notified and our comments and those of the Engineering Division are made to the City Council who either approves or rejects a plat. No publichearing is held at the Council level . Mr. Falk, Secretary, announed the first item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-1-19 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Cavour in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-7. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property in Section 13 from RUF to R-7, multi-family zoning. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak for or against this petition Any comments from the Commission before the conclusion of the hearing on this item? There was no one present in the audience who wished to be heard regarding this item and -; Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-1-19 closed. I:00 ' Mr. Zimmer: Our action on this thing was based upon some prior activity with regard to the property. Has the. property owner been notified? Mr. Nagy: Yes, by mail but we have not heard from him. 7347 • 1 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #7-176-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-1-19 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Cavour in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-1-19 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposal for R-7 zoning would be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding and established uses of the area. (2) The R-7 zoning as proposed would be a logical extension of an existing multi-family zoning classification established in the area providing one uniform zoning classification for the tax parcel of record. (3) The subject area is of such limited size that a more practical and meaningful development can be achieved under one uniform zoning category of R-7. (4) The proposed change of zoning is in accord with the adopted Future Land Use Plan. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of July 3, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- IL sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-1-20 by L & H Associates to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, from R-1 to P. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated 6/23/80 stating there are no engineering problems connected with this petition. That is the extent of correspondence. Donald Leidal , 14600 Fairlane, Livonia, petitioner: What we would like to do is remove the old house and put a commercial building there on the C-2 which fits the property and the zoning. We need the additional property for parking. Mr. Andrew: Who owns Lot 16 now? Mr. Leidal : We have an option for it which we can pick up. Mr. Andrew: Is that also true for the north 1/2 of Lot 17? 1:0 Mr. Leidal : No, we have only an option for the south part of Lot 17, not the north half. The owner is only splitting off half. Mr. Morrow: Lot 17 will not remain half a lot, it will go with Lot 18? Mr. Leidal : Yes, I believe so. 7348 I: Mr. Morrow: Who is the owner of Lot 18 and also the north half of 17? Leo Ligenza, 11614 Stark Road, Livonia: I am the owner. I know they are planning a one story building and want the half lot for parking. Are they required to put up a wall? iMr. Andrew: Yes, they are required to put up a wall in any zone where residential is coterminus with any other zoning. They can appeal that requirement to the Zoning Board of Appeals for relief and in that case, you will be notified. Mr. Smith: What do you intend to do with the north half of Lot 17? Mr. Ligenza: I haven't planned anything. I have a driveway on that half lot. There is also a storm drain on that half. Mrs. Scurto: Is it 16 or 18 where the beauty shop is? Mr. Leidal : 16. That is the house that is coming down. Mr. Zimmer: I understand that Mr. Ligenza does not own the south half of Lot 17, some- one else does. Mr. Ligenza: Right now I own 17 and 18 and they have the option to buy the south half of 17. Mr. Zimmer: There is no problem we would have leaving a,Ihalf lot zoned R-1? Mr. Nagy:IL Since it is a common ownership, no. We would have a problem if it was separately owned. Joseph Vanzo, 12066 Boston Post Road: I am interested in the half lot. I understand the property owner is willing to cut the lot in half and sell to the people who want to put up a commercial building. Would he be required to take the half lot and attach it to his property? I am speaking about the other half lot. Mr. Andrew: I don' t know if we can make him do that legally but I suppose from a practical standpoint it would be to his advantage to combine the north half of Lot 17 with Lot 18 because as you discussed, it wouldn't be of much value split off. Mr. Vanzo: Lots 19 and 20, they can put two houses on there. Also, I think a protective wall would be essential in this particular situation. Mr. Andrew: When the petitioner appears with a site plan, we will require a wall on the north and east boundary lines. Donna Donaldson, 34125 Wadsworth, Livonia: What type of building will be going in there? Mr. Andrew: I can't tell you that and it isn't really part of the issue this evening, only the rezoning from residential to the parking classification. If that process is successful, the petitioner has indicated that he intends to erect a building on Lot 16 and park on the south half of Lot 17. The actual erection of the building will take place only after site plan review by this Commission. 7349 IMr.s. Donaldson: I am concerned about this. What type of building they are going to put up. Mr. Andrew: I assume a commercial building for retail use. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-1-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #7-177-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-1-20 as submitted by L & H Associates to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road, north of Plymouth Road in the South east 1/4 of Section 28, from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-1-20 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning and the permitted uses of the district are such that it will provide a buffer or transitional type usage between existing commercial development toil the south and residential uses to the north. (2) The proposed change of zoning and expansion of parking use is a minor and logical extension of the parking zone as the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing conditions 11 adjoining the property to the west and east. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a more practical and meaningful development of the subject area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of July 3, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat approval for Cavell Manor Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Cavell Avenue, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Nagy: There are letters in the file from the Engineering Division, Bureau of Inspection, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department, all stating there are no problems in connection with this proposed subdivision. Mr. Andrew: Any questions of the proprietor on this plat? Mrs. Scurto: Are Lots 28 and 29 used for child care, can anybody answer that? Mr. Nagy: They are owned by the Church but to what extent they are used, I dont' know. Mrs. Scurto: Are they not lived in? Mr. Nagy: I really don't know to what extent they are used. 7350 ' Mrs. Scurto: The first lots split off, was that the same developer? 4 Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Scurto: When can we expect paving to proceed? Mr. Andrew: The Engineering Division decides when they review the plat if they want paving. Michael Priest, 14655 Riverside Drive, Livonia, developer: I think this area was given an opportunity to proceed with a paving project but there wasn't much • interest. Mrs. Scurto: Does Cavell take all the parking for St. Paul 's? Mr. Nagy: They have access from both Arcola and Cavell . Mr. Andrew: Cavell is only 58' wide. Who is short the two feet? Mr. Priest: It is an old plat on the east side of the street and all the deeds on the west side state 58' . Mr. Andrew: Engineering has no problems with that? Mr. Nagy: No. -. ' There was no one present in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and ; Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #7-178-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Cavell Manor Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Cavell Avenue, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 24, be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Preliminary Plat is in conformance to all applicable Ordinances of the City of Livonia, the Zoning Ordinance and the Plat Ordinance. (2) All reporting City departments recommend approval . (3) The proposed layout is consistent with the existing and established housing pattern of the area. (4) The Subdivision is of such limited size to make this Preliminary Plat the only practical proposal for the development of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as lited in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. 7351 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. [Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-1-21 by Ramon Castaneda to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file 'dated 6/23/80 from the Engineering Division stating there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal . Clarence Charest, Jr. , Attorney representing the petitioner: There are two petitions before the Commission tonight. Mr. Castaneda is the lessee of the premises and on behalf of the owner is requesting a change in zoning from C-1 to C-2 and a waiver. He wishes to operate a business as a sit-down restaurant. This restau- rant has been in this location in the City for ten years. Mr. Castaneda now has a carry-out restaurant. It is my understanding that since 1978 there has been a proposed ordinance pending before the City Council which would make the re- quested waiver unnecessary but because it isn' t passed we are requesting this today. Restaurants are not allowed in C-1 Districts and there are no C-1 waiver provisions allowing restaurants. The property in question has two uses now, the rear has a beauty parlor, and we request that the entire portion of the property be rezoned and we do not believe this would affect the beauty operation and we request to use one-half of the area for sit-down dining. One of the requirements of the present Ordinance concerns parking and there is adequate parking space available. I would like you to know that ff there are any problems with grant- ing the C-2, the waiver would be useless but we request both the rezoning to C-2 and the waiver. Mr. Andrew:IL The Chair will rule that we will discuss the petition 80-6-1-21 having to do with the rezoning from C-1 to C-2 only, not the waiver. As a member of the Commission I have a problem initiating a zoning change which I think would intensify the land use and traffic in that area of the City. The Council unfortunately is debating the proposed Ordinance amendment which would make this procedure unnecessary. Nevertheless, at the present time, I have great reluctance in supporting this petition unless we could sit down and hammer out some issues involved with the waiver use petition. I have a problem with the zoning change. Mr. Morrow: Looking at the map, I can't see any C-2 zoning. I would be reluctant to introduce C-2 zoning. Inasmuch as I appreciate that the Old Mexico has beenthere a long while, the C-2 would be running with the land regardless of what went in there. Mr. Charest: I understand your position. Unfortunately, this proposed ordinance has been kicking around for, about two years. I agree there is RUF and C-1 in the area but I find it hard to believe that increased traffic would be any more than the current traffic with the established use as a carry-out restaurant. It would seem it would be the same. Mr. Andrew: I assume that not only would the petitioner continue to function with the Ircarry-out but also with a seating capacity within the restaurant which, tr, in my opinion, would increase the traffic. 7352 Mr. Andrew: Have you had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Bennett as to, whether or not he intends to take any action on the proposed amendment? 1[0 Mr. Charest: No, I haven't. Old Mexico appears to be in great demand in that location but he doesn't want to violate any prohibition the City may have. We are trying to do this on the up and up. *Mr. Kluver entered the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Ramon Castaneda, petitioner: The reason we are here is that we want to be permitted to have tables. We have been waiting two years for this and it is impossible to make it like this. Mr. Andrew: Do you also sublease the beauty shop? Mr. Castaneda: No. I have enough parking for at least twenty cars and seven tables and all I want is some six or seven tables. Mr. Andrew: Did the Planning staff have an opportunity to review this site? Can you share with us the parking situation. Do they, in fact, have legitimate parking for a restaurant operation? Mr. Nagy: They currently have both on-site parking and a service drive in back used in common by this facility and the strip center to the west. In addition, there is parking within the Harrison right-of-way which is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of satisfying the parking requirements. IFWithout knowing how many additional tables and chairs, it is hard to say lii, if the Number of parking spaces satisfy the requirements. It is my opinion that it doesn't .and that the situation would be aggravated by this defic- iency. Mr. Charest: More than 3/4 of the property would be available for parking; Harrison as well as Five Mile Road. Mrs. Scurto: Does the shopping center own this building? Mr. Charest: No. Mr. Castaneda informs me that there would be about 16 seats. Mr. Zimmer: In C-1 this is permitted without seats. When you went in there two years ago you proposed to have a carry-out restaurant and since then yourmarket- ing has changed so that you now want a sit-down restaurant regardless of what we proposed to the City Council . I personally have no qualms about what might be on the table. The Zoning Ordinance says you can't have seats. Did you know he couldn't have seats then and does have seats now? Mr. Castaneda: But I thought it wouldn't be that hard to put in four or five tables and I went to work with everybody to put in more tables. What does it take? Mr. Zimmer: That would be a larger facility than you proposed on that small area and I would totally reject the building of a restaurant. With the knowledge that you had a carry-out business and still have and knowing what the limitations are, at this point I have great difficulty with this facility for C-2 and waiving the restrictions of the C-2 and permitting a restaurant. 7353 IMr. Charest: There are a number of restaurants within the City and country that have sit-down dining as well as carry-out. I don't think they are so greatly distinguished from Mr. Castaneda's proposal . Mrs. Scurto: Have you looked into leasing space from the strip center on the west? Mr. Castaneda: I figure if I have 16 seats% I have enough parking. If they told me to make the building bigger, I could have made the building bigger and took over the beauty shop. All I want is for somebody to tell me what to do. Mr. Zimmer: Ingress and egress would be permissible on Harrison and there is room for a driveway back there. Mr. Nagy: They would have rights to take access from Five Mile as well as Harrison. Mr. Falk: What I would like to do is table this item because of the violations with the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner seems to think he is in conformance with the Ordinance. The tables and the parking; I think there are some facts we have to find out about. I don 't think the building is appropriate in size to take the tables and you will be in violation of the Ordinance regarding parking. I would like to table this item until the study meeting of July 29, 1980. Mr. Smith: I agree with Mr. Falk but I think the owner should be present. I under- stand you are the lessee of the property. Mr. Charest: The owners are not present. Mr. Smith: It seems to me that the owners should be present. Mr. Andrew: The petition before us has been signed by the property owners who are aware of the action of the lessee. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mr. Scurto, it was #7-179-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-1-21 by Ramon Castaneda to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-6-1-21 until the Study Meeting of July 29, 1980. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Kluver, Smith, Scurto, Falk, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Morrow Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. tiO Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-2-18 by Ramon Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24 for a sit-down restaurant. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-2-18 closed. 7354 ILOn a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #7-180-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-2-18 as submitted by Ramon Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to utilize an existing building located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-6-2-18 until the Study Meeting of July 29, 1980. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Kluver, Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Morrow Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, .announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-1-23 initiated by Council Resolution #400-80 to rezone property located on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF and C-2 to R-1 . Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission pursuant to a Council resolution to rezone this property from Rural-Urban-Farm to R-1 , single family residential , 60' x 120' lots. Any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: There is a petition of objection in the file signed by 35 residents of the area. IL Mr. Andrew: I feel it would be beneficial for Mr. Shane to briefly run through some sketches which the Planning staff has done which show how the property could possibly be developed should this petition be successfully adopted at the Council level . H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, showed plans of existing conditions and potential development plans of the property. Henry Binder, 9207 Inkster Road: I circulated the petition on behalf of myself and my neighbors. I covered West Chicago, Inkster and Cardwell on the east side. The reason why I and my neighbors oppose this is why I bought the property, just like that petition reads. The biggest pant of the problem, laddll appreciate that you are trying to clean out Section 36 down there, is as you know that we have an eye sore. There are seven homes, four are now empty, two are boarded up and one has a garage full of human waste. That house is not boarded up. There is a block home completely demolished. Something should be done about the problem that is in the area but leave us alone. I have remodeled my home and I talk to my neighbors and they say I am a fool to do something like that because look at those other homes. Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Binder wants us to do something about the problem. There have been various attempts by the City to do that and we haven't gone anywhere. What the City is saying now is to examine an alternative; establish resi- dential property. I have difficulty with leaving it alone as being a way to move it on the market. Some rezoning might make something happen there. Do you have any other suggestions? toieMr. Binder: Yes. That is to leave it rural urban farm. If we could get private financing, we would not object to apartment zoning. I would like to put 7355 LMr. Binder: before you a lot 60' x 120' - what kind of home can you put on that lot? Who is going to buy that kind of home? I would rather see private financing for apartments myself. Two bedroom, asbestos homes herewith federal financing we don't want. Mr. Zimmer: I appreciate your comments. I don't have a problem with R-l . This change tdi R' 1 bringing asbestos with two bedrooms and federal financing, I do not buy. Mrs. Scurto: Behind Cloverdale there are homes going for $82,000 to $98,000 and that is R-1 on 60' x 120' lots. I don't think you will find homes going in there at that much difference. Don Boughner, 9390 Cardwell : I am concerned about the total neighborhood. We have a blighted area. I don't see why all lots have to be long or short. If we took the twelve acres owned by the Archdiocese we could still have large lots. I don't want the same thing happening here that happened around us. We have an area that could be upgraded and I don't want to see a developer come in and by small lots make a lot of money. Our residences are not harming anybody. We don't want to live with 60' , short lots. If we make this area incompatible with our own neighborhood, I don't think that would be good either. I would like to see something done with that twelve acres. Margaret Lanzon, 9301 Inkster Road: I moved here because I like the large lots. I don't like the plan with a lot of small lots. If you want to do something with that twelve acres, fine, but leave ours alone. We wouldn't be able to have horses and chickens and ducks with that new zoning. We don't have a problem this way. If you rezone it differently we will have to change our style of living. John Mieszczur, 9129 Inkster Road: It seems the almighty dollar is trying to rule. It is still an eye sore. Maybe in time if private financing can be found we could have apartments. I am against that. The asking price of the Arch- diocese is $80,000. With 25 lots you are talking less than $10,000 to build a house on. Mr. Andrew: When it is improved, it will be more than that. Mr. Mieszczur: Keep the apartments out. Mr. Andrew: It bothers me that you infer that the City in its efforts to change things a little bit is really for the almighty buck. Mr. Mieszczur: I am saying the Archdiocese, not the City. They want more people on that land because they would be getting more people in the Church. Mr. Scanlon, Real Estate ,Representative for the Archdiocese of Detroit: We own not only the land shown here but a lot north of that. We are in the process right now of entering into a demolition contract to have the houses removed. I hm here to expressly object to this proposal . We have an intended use for the property that is not single family. It is interesting to know that I have made a career out of that property and was recently furloughed and brought back. This: property was optioned by the City of Livonia for a senior citizen project. The City chose to buy the property on Lyndon and Farmington across from the ice house. As recently as two years ago, Mr. Tatigian was still contacting me with respect to that property for the second senior citizen project. Our position is essentially this; if the 7356 Mr. Scanlon: City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia really thinks it is good 1[: for the City, our position is that it is also good for us. I reminded Mr. Tatigian that if it were adjudicated in a court of law on the principle that if you 'take away from us the potential use for senior citizens you have confiscated the difference between the value of what it is now and what as senior citizen it would be worth and it is roughly two to three times more. We finally gave the City the land on Lyndon. It was appraised at $25,000 and it went for $10,000 to the City. We are on the record as being opposed to the change of zoning. Lowell Peterson, President of Wilson Homeowners Association: Basically, that Archdiocese property has been an eye sore. Mr. Bishop was opposed to apartments when they first came in and directed me to a builder for private homes. The builder told me there was no way to develop that property and make any money on it because of putting storm sewers and drainage it wouldn't be feasible to develop into a subdivision. This plan makes the subdivision in a much greater area. We are willing to go along with Mr. Binder and if they are happy we will be until such time as someone can think of what to do with the Archdiocese property. No one seems to come to a proper solution. Changing the zoning wouldn't solve our problems. 80 to 90 foot may be possible but I really doubtyou will find a buyer in that area of Livonia who will buy that type of home on a 60' lot. Unless someone could buy all the property and develop it at one time. On behalf of the Assoc- iation, I think it would be best to leave it the way it is. Robert Taylor, 9186 Cardwell : Mr. Scanlon said he had a use for this property. Would he tell us what it is? Mr. Scanlon: I personally do not know. We were trying to develop a senior citizen program working in concert with the City who was our prime prospect at that time. We were going to temporarily refurbish the houses. They wanted us to recondition the houses and I worked with Mr. Kerby to that end. The City then was not in a position financially to engage in the purchase of a second project for senior citizens. At that time I asked to be relieved of this project because I felt that Livonia was not the career that I wanted and hoped I would go on to better things. As of a couple days ago they asked me to come back since I am familiar with the property. It is not single family residential , I can tell you that. I have a feeling it is senior citizen housing but I am not certain. Mr. Morrow: You are aware of the intended use but it will not be single family housing. Can you state that the Archdiocese is going through a proceeding so that those houses will be condemned? Mr. Scanlon: The information came to me from the Director of Properties to first of all come out and make this objection and we do not want it for single family 1 and more particularly we do not want 60' lots. He told me that they were then reviewing this for demolition of the seven structures and out-buildings. Let me say this, if it were to go single family we would be predisposed to save the houses because that would fit'into that program. I threw out that with all due respect to Mr. Shane. We own 11 .2 acres in addition to the IL other land. If we were owners of all the property he projects, that would be another ballgame. We don't own all that property. If the City wanted it badly enough they could make an assessor's plat but we would object to that, too. 7357 Mr. Morrow:IL We are looking at this area from the standpoint of what can we do with this property. If some of the cause is being removed and plans made for develop- ing the acreage into something that would be agreeable to the residents, maybe we should hold up on this petition. Mr. Scanlon: It appears to me that this is a matter of political expediency and if 1 lived there, I would gripe, too. I am in sympathy but my first allegiance is to the Archdiocese. I can shoot holes in that plat that you could drive a truck through. We have money in that property; we baled out the Church. This money belongsto the Catholics, it is not mine. Aloysius Laskowski , 8911 Inkster Road: They have to build something over there pretty soon. This has been going on for five or ten years. The way it is now, it is out of control . Mr. Andrew: Are you in favor of this petition? Mr. Laskowski : The way it is now, it is an eye sore. I would suggest that they go in with a bulldozer and clear it. Something should be done. I have to stay there until I die. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-1-23 closed. Mr. Smith: I would make a motion to deny this petition for the main reason that the comment was made by the representative of the Archdiocese that there are plans for devleopment of this area and I am much in favor that something IL has to be done and no matter whatever is brought in there will be objections because you can't satisfy everybody. If only the 11 acres were involved, I think there would be objections. I think the residents will have to address the fact that something will have to be done soon with that property. Mr. Vyhnalek: I support the motion. Mr. Kluver: I feel strongly about this areaand would entertain a tabling resolution to give the Commission an opportunity to bring all parties together to ascertain specifically what they are going to do. I sympathize with the residents in that area. Eliminating the eye sore in the area would make better use of the area. Mr. Falk: Do you have any knowledge of the time table for the removal of the houses or what they are going to do with the land? Mr. Scanlon: It is my understanding that whatever is contemplated they would try not to asseverate the condition like before. Whatever came up we couldn't get anything from the City except senior citizen housing. If I had any- thing to do with it I would not butt my head on the wall of the eleven stories. We had a deal with Cooperative Services a few years back. I backed him when we submitted this to the City with a restricted height of 2-1/2 stories. His Honor, the Mayor, and Bob Nash sat across from me and tholl said it was a beautiful idea for senior citizens but you could never get high rise in Livonia. I suggested that we get the 2-1/2 stories.He took some folks from Livonia to Wyandotte and they all came back saying they liked the idea of 11 stories. This way he blew it because the people from Wilson Acres came and said they didn't want any part of it. It is quite eminent that the bulldozer is almost there. They are now reviewing plans and it is only a matter of keeping to negotiations and whatever influence I have 73 58 ? Mr. Scanlon: with the Archdiocese, I will try to expedite that so that you could get it just as quickly as possible but I couldn't tell you when. Mr. Falk: I will support Mr. Kluver's tabling resolution to give the Archdiocese time to take the buildings down and show us their plans. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded, by Mr. Falk, it was #7-181-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-1-23 intiated by Council Resolution #400-80 to rezone property. located on the west side of Inkster Road, north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF and C-2 to R-1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-6-1-23 until such time as the Archdiocese of Detroit is prepared to disclose is proposed plans for the use of the subject property. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Kluver, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Vyhnalek Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-2-19 by Robert Benson requesting waiver use approval to locate a restaurant within If' an existing building located in Wonderland Shopping Center on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicating that there are no engineering problems in connection with this petition. Robert Benson, 4790 Mandale Ct. Orchard Lake, petitioner: The Slimmery is a establish- ment that caters to blood pressure patients, a diet food concept for diabetics. It is basically take home food, nothing on the premises. Mrs. Scurto: Like the Joy and Hix Road restaurant. Same franchise? Mr. Benson: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Is there anything you can tell us about the restaurant operation as far as percentage or what part of the Operation would be take out? Mr. Benson: Basically, our food items are carried out or taken home frozen. 75% of the operation would be taken home and 25% consumed on the premises but the 25% figure would be a high figure. Mrs. Sobolewski : How many seats will there be and how many employees? Mr. Benson: Approximately 25 seats and two employees. Mrs. Sobolewski : Where are other locations of similar restaurants? Mr. Benson: Auburn Heights, East Detroit, Wyandotte, three in Toledo, California, St. Louis. Mrs. Sobolewski : What kind of menu do you serve? 7359 Mr. Benson: Desserts, entrees, chicken, spinach quiche, black forest cake. There is no self-serve facility. It is all over-the-counter. 1[ ,Mrs. Scurto: Would it not be a fair description as a specialized grocery store with a snack bar? No waiters or waitresses? Mr. Benson: No waiters. No service other than customers perhaps trying something at a table with coffee. Mr. Zimmer: Where do you bring your stock in from and the whole area is covered, does that have anything to do with you? Mr. Benson: Our front entrance is our service entrance and Wonderland is proposing to put a front on the building and has put the plywood up. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many people do you anticipate a day. You expect to get customers from the Weight Watchers facility next door? Mr. Benson: I imagine customers will be scattered throughout the day. We expect cus- tomers from Weight Watchers. Mr. Vyhnalek: There doesn't seem to be too many cars parked in that area I noticed when I went around there the other day. Mr. Benson: No, it is pretty open. ` ''There was no one present in the audience wishing to be heard on this item. Mr. Smith: I have problems with another restaurant in Wonderland but I realize from your description that it is a highly specialized restaurant. I object to the opening of the Center for a retail establishment. The Coney Island people stop by or stand there and run in; I object to this, not to the restaurant or the establishment but I object to the location of this restaurant because I can foresee a dangerous situation at your door espec- ially with 75% of your business being carry out. I see a problem with running in and picking up orders. At the corner, this could be dangerous and I would like to look at another area. Mr. Benson: Our food is not cooked in the restaurant, it is frozen and carried home frozen. Mrs. Sobolewski : Is yourfood prepared at another location in the City and shipped to this store and sold? Mr. Benson: Our food is prepared in St. Louis. Mr. Zimmer: Are the owners of the Shopping Center here tonight? The back of the Center is the east/west travel for people using the facility. I have some dif- diculties with what was designed to be the back of a shopping center and now being invaded by one of these establishments, and cutting a new entrance in the back. I see this corner asa very difficult intersection. How was this corner decided on? Wynn Zurek, Wonderland Center representative: I think Mr. Benson saw this location. It was formerly occupied by Michigan Heart Association so it is not a new entrance. This is a place where we will go to buy a week's supply of his products so you are in there ,for a while and not parking your car at the 7360 Mrs. Zurek: curb and running in and out again. I can appreciate what you say about the back traffic land and our security force will have to look into this. 1Mrs. Scurto: This is not a new opening in the wall ? Mrs. Zurek: No, it is not. Mrs. Scurto: I find the concept extremely unique and very welcome. The Center is beautiful and we can take some of these specialty places. It seems to me that Livonia tends to lump these establishments and I don't consider this a restaurant. . Mr. Zimmer: Do you think this is something not for consumption on the premises? Mr. Benson: The customers would not purchase an item without tasting it first. Mrs. Zurek: Customers may have a sample with a cup of coffee for the sake of tasting it before purchasing an item in quantity, say four or soi. Mr. Zimmer: The City of Livonia has called restaurants waiver uses and demands that we examine them very closely. That is what our job is. When a heart association opens a quiet' office, that is far different than a restaurant and the City has seen fit to see it differently. There are numerous restau- rants in this City. 1 live in this part of the City. I am also a weight watcher. My concern is about this part of town, not the Slimmery as such, but Plymouth Road which has many places to eat and the deterioration of this area. Also the traffic problem. I do not support this approval . [ On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #7-182-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-2-19 as submitted by Robert Benson requesting waiver use approval to locate a restaurant within an existing building located in Wonderland Shopping Center on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-2-19 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is compatible and in harmony with the established uses of the area. (2) Restaurants and such similar food oriented services are consistent with and appropriate to shopping centers as they provide a compli- mentary service normally associated with shopping centers. (3) The proposal complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11 .03, paragraph (c) . FURTHER RESOLVED that, ntoice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Kluver, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Smith, Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7361 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, pit was #7-183-80 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effective- ness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 80-6-2-19 by Robert Benson requesting waiver use approval to locate a restaurant within an existing building located in Wonderland Shopping Center on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-2-20 by McDonald 's Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a McDonald's restaurant on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition.except Engineer 'rig. Mr. Andrew: Nothing from the Fire or Police Department. That is unbelievable. Were they notified? Mr. Nagy: Yes, all on June 25, 1980. Mr. Falk:1[0 The last time this came around, I was against it. The last time it came up I asked Kenneth Hale if there is anything different in his request for a restaurant; anything that had changed from the prior one. If so, I would be willing to review my position. Nothing has changed but I would like to ask if, in the previous requests on this site for a restaurant, did we have letters from every department. Mr. Nagy: Most of them. Mr. Falk: All negative? Mr. Nagy: We received reports from the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department, the Fire Department, Engineering and perhaps the Building Department. Mr. Falk: They weren't positive. Mr. Andrew: We are not sure. Mr. Falk: But we received their responses. I don't know why you're coming back when it has gone through the Commission and Council and has been denied. Unless somebody can tell me that something has changed. Charles Tangora, McDonald's representative: I know the Planning Commission denied it but when it went to Council it was approved, correct? ILMr. Nagy•''i Correct, to the extent that the Council did approve it initiall however, the Council brought it back for reconsideration and they denied it. Mr. Tangora: Along those lines, we have been somewhat encouraged by that. When Burger Chef chose to back out, I think we reiterated our position in study to you. The site has been zoned C-2 for a number of years. There is a K-Mart there and small specialty stores to the west. A typical McDonald's is proposed 7362 r. Tangora: for here. They are good corporate citizens and maintain their property well . We employ 75 to 90 youngsters 16 to 21 years of age. Traffic studies have been made and we have a site plan meeting all requirements.of the City of Livoni.a. :�� ,, r. Andrew: Can you indicate to this Commission whether or not you have received any written communication from the Wayne County Road Commission. Mr. Abram, McDonald's representative: The size of the property is large for a McDonald's. 150' x 500' of depth. We plan, on developing 295' of that depth as shown on the site plan, leaving 205' at the rear to leave in a natural state.. The curb cuts have been recommended by the Wayne County Road Commission. The proposed restaurant has 77 parking places, standard for a restaurant in this area. We propose 126 seats which is standard. We do not have a drive-in window package. A landscape plan was also submitted showing sub- stantial landscape treatment in the front and rear. There is a 5' high wall the entire 295' length of property as shown on the plan. There is a corral trash enclosure with a 6' ,wall around it with brick matching the restaurant which will be locked. The building is 38' x 101 .5' , larger than the average McDonald's. Offers employment aspects with a quarter million dollar payroll . Intend to hire about 90 people. There are 6,000 people between 16 and 19 in an area we project as being a trade area. Our traffic consultant is here tonight and we gave.Mr. Nagy a copy of the traffic report few weeks ago. Mr. Andrew: On the notes on the site plan there is a reference in Item 7 to Sheet E-8 of the building plans for speaker and menu board configurations. I assume that should be stricken? Also, reference to pad at speaker? I r. Abrams: That is correct. Mr. Andrew: What is S.S.W.? Mr. Abrams: Special Service Window. Mr. Andrew: That is to be stricken? Mr. Abrams: Yes. We will make those changes. These are our standard plans. Mr. Andrew: I assume the parking space and driveway width as shown on the plan do con- form to City of Livonia Ordinances? Mr. Abrams: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: The property north - did you talk to that individual? Mr. Abrams: No, I have not. I understand soneone did. Is he present? Mr. Vyhnalek: Is your property for sale? , Mr. Bagnall : No, I changed my mind. I am going to stay there. I object to this now and I did before. 4r. Smith: The apple orchards back there, have you ever seen apple orchards? They will look terrible in a short while.. 7363 ilro-. r. Abrams: We intend to clean it up and keep it in its natural state. Ar. Smith: The last time we were in here with Burger Chef, Mr. Bagnall , I believe you ' were against that petition and since that time you decided to sell and then decided not to sell? Mr. Bagnall : Yes. Mrs. Scurto: I did a sketch on three fast food chains in the area and I think the difference is perhaps not brick and mortar but the business approach to the community. At Five Mile and Middlebelt and in Northville there was absolutely no litter and at Seven Mile and Middlebelt and at Five Mile and Merriman, in neither case, were the conditions as well maintained and the grass was very dry. I asked the manager a little about the young people employed there and how many who worked there lived in Livonia. 40-50% at Five Mile and 30-40% at Seven Mile. McDonald's insist that their employees maintain school and they check on their class standings and atter their work schedules for sports activites. I think they deserve this approval . George Cueter, Real Estate Representative for McDonald's: After the study session, there was reference made to the property to the north and we took it upon our- selves to call Mr. Bagnall . We had a shoe store in mind and we told Mr. Bagnall our proposal . We obtained a listing. There has been no duress but as of tonight Mr. Bagnall has voluntarily said he does not want to sell his property. We have a legal listing document but we are not the. kind of company that will bind him to his listing if he doesn't want to sell . A Representative of Goodell-Grivas, Inc. , Consulting Engineers, Southfield, Michigan, made a presentation of a traffic study titled "Traffic Study for the Proposed McDonald's Restaurant on Farmington Road In The City of Livonia, Michigan" Mr. Andrew: At what point in the day is the traffic greatest north of Seven Mile on Farmington Road? Rep. Between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Andrew: Can you see a potential problem with south bound emergency runs out of the fire station conflicting with left turn movements between 5:00 and 6:00? Most of the runs out of that' station require a south bound movement by their equipment. Rep. The majority of the traffic at McDonald's is between 12:00 and 1 :00. Traffic between 5:00 and 6:00 at McDonald's is relatively low. There is a signal before Farmington Road that helps and tends to slow traffic down. The big- gest concern I had was with Gable and the K-Mart driveway. Detailed discussion followed concerning the result of the traffic study between the Commis- sion and the traffic consultant. Ll here was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, eclared the public hearling on Petition 80-6-2-20 closed. an a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was 7364 #7-184-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 I4 on Petition 80-6-2-20 as submitted by McDonald 's Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a McDonald's Restaurant on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-2-20 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #SP-1 , dated 7/9/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #A-4 and #A-5 which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan dated 7/9/80 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reasons: (1) The proposal complies with all of the special standards of the Zoning Ordinance #543 relating to restaurant establishments as listed in Section 11 .03 thereof. (2) There currently is no similar restaurant facility located in this IL general area. o (3) This proposed use will be complimentary to and compatible with the K-Mart Shopping Center to the south. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Zimmer: My position is in opposition to the proposal because the use is obviously highly commercial and this area is a substantial residential part of the City. I consider this to be a maximum intensity of commercial and a waiver use represents the maximum kind of use for this zoning. I am concerned about what happens further when we have this intensity; what happens further north. I am also concerned about the traffic problems even though they can be rated as not serious there still remains a considerable amount of traffic during peak times during the day. I also don't know that there is any demonstrated need for more restaurants in that area. We just recently opened another one there. I am very happy with McDonald's but not in this location and I ask for a negative vote. Mr. Falk: I have heard a lot of good things about McDonald 's and this is not personal but it is the location, the traffic and the other restaurants in the area. I have to vote no also. 1rs. Sobolewski: It is not critical that this restaurant be located here but I am positive that McDonald 's will not be a detriment to the area. I have not seen an in- o flux of neighbors complaining about McDonald' s being there. They are neat and well established, a highly cooperative business and will do what they can for the community. There will be no drive-through window and I think the 7365 traffic will be minimum. I feel supportive and I agree that they will be a a good neighbor in the City. 4 roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Kluver, Smith, Scurto, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Falk, Morrow Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resol:tuion adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-3-3 initiated by Council Resoution #596-80 requesting the vacating of a portion of Henry Ruff Road right-of-way located between Puritan Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from Detroit Edison Company stating they have no objection to the vacating provided a full-width easement is retained for protection of equipment and a letter from the Division of Engineering in- dicating they have no objection providing the full-width easement is retained. Arthur Brandt, 30414 Rayburn: I live at the corner of Rayburn and Henry Ruff. I am not in favor of this petition unless they want to make different arrangements for storm water drainage. If it stays the way it is, it would suit me fine. Robert McBride, 30414 Wentworth: I don't think Lyle Trudell realized there was a problem with the ditch over there. One concern is that there is a ditch draining the three lots west of Mr. Brandt. If the ditch is filled, he would have to extend his culvert. That's the only problem I can see and Mr. Brandt will have a really big ditch there. I am more or less in favor of this 4 proposal . 11:hr. Andrew: Who pays for the ditch relocation? Mr. McBride: That is what we want to find out tonight. I Resident, 30426 Rayburn. With the 13' , Mr. Brandt would only gain a wide, deep ditch. If you tried to fill it, it would cause a big problem. We have a serious problem and there is drainage to that ditch. It would be almost impossible to fill that ditch. I am definitely against the petition. Mr. Kluver: Could we have some professional assistance in ascertaining what the problem is and obtaining a solution? Mr. Brandt: My two neighbors couldn't come tonight so they sent a proxy with me. Mr. Brandt submitted to the Chairman two petitions, one signed by James Roberts and one signed by Mrs. Dorothy Dwyer, and indicated their opposition to the vacating petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-3-3 closed. n a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, t was 7366 • #7-185-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-3-3 initiated by Council Resolution #496-80 requesting i the vacating of a portion of Henry Ruff Road right-of-way located between Puritan Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-6-3-3 until the Study Meeting of August 12, 1980. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-6-8 initiated by Council Resolution #363-80 to amend Section 11 .03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to require waiver use approval for SDM Licensed establishments in C-2 Districts. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, delcared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-6-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #7-186-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-6-6-8 initiated by Council Resolution #363-80 to amend Section 11 .03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to require waiver use approval for SDM Licensed establishments in C-2 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-6-8 be denied for the following reasons: (1) There is no demonstrated reason, from a Planning standpoint, that 1110 such SDM Licenses should be regulated in the proposed manner. (2) The nature of SDM Licenses does not warrant special control by reasons of causing undue amounts of traffic, noise, dust or pro- posing unusual hours of operation. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , . Kluver, Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: Vyhnalek Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-7-1-24 by Kenneth R. Warren to rezone property located on the south side of Amrhein Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to ML. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated July 17, 1980 in the file addressed To Whom It May Concern from Richard J. Krajniak indicating his opposition to this petition. There is also a letter from the Industrial Development Coordinator, Mr. Daniel Gilmartin, stating that this entire area should be treated in its entirety and that it would be difficult to isolate property on Amrhein from the balance of the land. Kenneth R. Warren, petitioner: This is an old story. I have petitioned a couple times to rezone here and so have other people. I own two lots, 33 and 34, and don' t know what I can do with them. If you can give me an answer, I would apprec- iate it. I sent out a petition to all homeowners on Amrhein with a explana- tion regarding the lots there. Some people would like to see the zoning changed. I have put some lots together that could be used for industrial . 7367 I will be happy to answer any questions you have. 11::r. Vyhnalek: Did you poll the residents on Grantland? r. Warren: I was asked not to. I am not interested in them as far as zoning goes. r. Vyhnalek: I don't think it's fair to the people on Grantland not to poll them in connection with what Mr. Gilmartin says in his letter. Mr. Warren: The Planning Commission has voted to have something done with these lots and the last I was told was to take Amrhein first. The Planning Commission. voted to change the zoning of that property to industrial . I have gone one step further on advice from the Planning Commission to make this ML, restricted zoning. Mrs. Scurto: Have you ever tried to sell these lots as residential? Mr. Warren: Yes, I have but I can't even get the money I have in them. Mr. Zimmer: You contacted all seventeen owners? Mr. Warren: Yes. Mr. Nagy read to the Commission and theaudience the results of the poll taken of the residents on Amrhein. Mr. Zimmer: How long have you owned the lots? 1[ 41r. Warren: Fourteen years. I wanted to put a wood working shop there. t 4r. Zimmer: You couldn't get the kind of zoning to accomplish that? Mr. Warren: No. Mr. Zimmer: Do you still have a personal interest in your wood working shop if the zoning is changed? Mr. Warren: I have a purchase agreement if this is rezoned - two new plants on Lot 33 and 34 and maybe other lots put together. Charlene McKiddy, 38101 Amrhein: We are all on a fixed income. My husband is retired. Why should people have to be up-routed by someone wanting to put up a businessi Larry Vartanian, 37920 Grantland: I own Lot 30. The biggest problem seems to be that Mr. Warren owns two lots. He could put houses on them and someone will certainly buy them. We have been fighting him since 1971 . I have a letter from Ed McNamara and in the letter he states that he thinks the subdivision is a nice subdivision and thinks it should stay that way. If they put factories on that land, sixty some homeowners will have to put up with the noise and trash as in other industrial areas. We have a nice subdivision, pay our taxes and want to be left alone. If you put factories there no one will be able to sell their homes. We will fight this every time it comes before the Board. We are happy there and love Livonia. 7368 Gregory Locke, 37650 Grantland: Take a look at the people attending here. Some are on fixed incomes, some have new families. We are a neighborhood unique in character. Not a single house looks like another. Here it is 12:00 and we are all down here. We realize we are surrounded by industrial but we live here. We don't want the neighborhood to change. Give us some considera- tion and help us. Ruth Brucker, 29222 Badelt, Westland and owner of Lot 47 on Amrhein: We are facing a cement factory. Banks will not mortgage a house in industrial . People on Grant- land have a 250' lot and nobody will put a factory on the back of a lot. Mary Fritz, 47900 W. Ann Arbor Trail , Plymouth: I own Lot 45 on Amrhein: I am assuming that there is an industrial park in there. This is an industrial park situa- tion. The proper use of the lots on Amrhein would be commercial to go along with the complexion of, the neighborhood. Debby Raschella, 37680 Grantland: I am a professional person working in Detroit but I live in Livonia. I don't know of any company that builds its factory at the rear of the lot and keeps its garbage in the front of the lot. Always the garbage is at the rear of the lot. If they put up shops, people will be bringing their lunches and remnants will be tossed toward the dumpster and I don't want my child playing with rodents in the back yard. Randy=Gosse4 t;: 38101 Grantland: I am a new tenant on the street and intend to stay there after I get married. I am familiar with what happens onlback lots in industrial . I am opposed to this petition. Ir. Polega, 37974 Grantland: I chose this property because of the Livonia public schools. I think they' re super and I don't want to move. 4 Alonzo McKiddy, 38101 Amrhein: I own Lot 59 on Amrhgin and that man has never had a for sale sign in front on his land. James Couillard, 37601 Grantland: I would like to point out the statistics - there are seventeen occupied and 75% of the prople living on Amrhein don 't want to move out. We do not want to be pushed out by industrial , whatever ML is. I have a five month old baby and I would like to know what they will be manufacturing there. There is no way we can be in favor of this, especially since we don't know what will be manufactured there. Fritz Spitsbarth: I am the would-be buyer of Mr. Warren's lots. I am in the toolroom machinery business -- lathes, mills, drill presses, etc. I don't think my business will be obnoxious to the neighbors. There is no noise, no traffic, minimal employees. Larry Raschella, 37680 Grantland: I am opposed to changing the zoning from RUF to manu- facturing. We have come down here many times. They tried to change the zoning on the other side of Grantland. We were fortunate in working with the City Council and not changing the zoning from RUF. I am opposed to changing the character of the neighborhood and allowing light manufacturing to come in. One man may come in but if it is zoned light manufacturing, anybody can come in there and they wouldn't have to have a small shop, they could have anything because they will be complying with the zoning. I understand this is the 395th Regular Meeting and public hearings of the Planning Commis- sion. I am sure you had some idea in a situation like this where you would 7369 Ir. expect a large number of property owners to be here to voice their opinions. The meeting starts at 8:00 and I am sure you are aware as to how long it takes to get to Item #11 . I don' t think it's very courteous of you people not to put this item on earlier in the evening. Andrew: I am sorry you feel that way. We put the items on the agenda in the order they are received. I am sure that other petitioners think they should come ahead of yours. Resident: I am essentially in machine repair myself and I am familiar with the business. 90% of the equipment used for cleaning is highly toxic and explosive. There are fumes which are highly inflammable. I want to keep it the way it is. It concerns me about the toxic aspects. Mary Hirschlieb, 37651 Grantland: We have been here for thirty years and we have helped you build a magnificant city through taxes, and we are now retired and we feel you owe us something. We cannot change our residences. We would like the area to remain in residential . Mr. Falk: Some members of this Commission were here when there was an attempt to change the property to the south to industrial . The Planning Commission, the Council and the Mayor did not agree. I would suggest to Mr. Warren that the City fathers will help these people keep this area residential . If one or two want to sell , that is their choice but I wouldn't want industrial there in any way. I will always vote for this to be residential . Mr. Warren should evaluate that and go another way. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the public hearing on Petition 80-7-1-24 closed. n a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #7-187-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 22, 1980 on Petition 80-7-1-24 as submitted by Kenneth R. Warren to rezone property located on the south side of Amrhein Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to ML, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-7-1-24 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning category would provide for industrial uses adjacent to residential uses. (2) A substantial number of lots proposed to be rezoned contain existing single family residences. (3) It is necessary to retain as many usable residential facilities as possible to provide alternate chances for affordable housing. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of July 7, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 7370 r. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *r. Kluver left the meeting at 12:05 a.m. )n a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, 't was #7-188-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 18, 1980 on Petition 76-6-1-22 by the City Planning Commission as amended by Council Resolution #1010-76 to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster and Cardwell in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from C-2 to R-1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to • table Petition 76-6-1-22. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 24, 1980 on Petition 80-5-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part IV of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from General Commercial to Office, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-5-7-3. 'A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: (01 AYES: Smith, Morrow NAYS: Sobolewski , Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Vyhnalek, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. On a motion duly made Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #7-189-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 24, 1980 on Petition 80-5-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part IV of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from General Commercial to Office, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 80-5-7-3 and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver r. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resoltuion adopted. 4n a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, t was 7371 1! 17-.190-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 22, 1980 on Petition 80-3-1-11 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from C-2 and RUF to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 80-3-1-11 .and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #7-191-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from Gilbert L. Franklin, Plymouth Investment Company, dated July 2, 1980, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant an extension of approval of the Preliminary Plat and Greenbelt Landscape Plan for Windridge Village Subdivision No. 4 pro- posed to be located south of Eight Mile Road, west of Gill Road in the West 1/2 of Section 4, for a period of one year. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Sobolewski , Scurto ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. n a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, 't was 1[0 4 #7-192-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the proposed Budgets for the Planning Department and Ecology function for the Fiscal Year 1980-81 for transmittal to the Mayor. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion ' is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was #7-193-80 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 394th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 24, 1980 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: Kluver ABSTAIN: Sobolewski ' ' ` I Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was 17-194-80 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 337th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on July 1 , 1980 are approved. i roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following; 7372 tr. AYES: Smith, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: Kluver ABSTAIN: Sobolewski , Zimmer Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #7-195-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance #1468, , the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 80-6-8-15P by John F. Juntenen requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse and office building on the north side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Louise in Section 11 , subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #8020, Sheet 1 , dated 7/10/80, prepared by W. B. Edwards, P.E. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevations as shown on Plan #8020, Sheets 2 & 4, dated 6/6/80, prepared by W. B. Edwards, P.E. , which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the Landscape Plan dated 7/18/80 and signed by John F. Juntunen which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the landscaping as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (5) that any pad mounted air conditioning unit and/or electrical unit shall be screened from public view. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #7-196-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 80-4-8-12P by R. A. DeMattia Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1468, in connection with a pro- posal to renovate and construct an addition to the existing gas station located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Wayne and Levan Roads in Section 33, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the landscaping as shown on Job #80001 , Sheet 1 , dated 6/30/80, prepared by DeMattia & Associates,, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that all landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed on the sitebefore issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. r. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7373 n a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Zimmer; it was W7-197-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance #1468, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 80-6-8-16P by Robert and Sandra A. Zaschak requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a spec retail sales building on the south side of Five Mile Road between Lyons and Harrison in Section 24, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan dated 6/30/80, Sheet IA, prepared by Robert Zaschak which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevations as shown on Sheet 2, dated 6/30/80, prepared by Robert Zaschak, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to in addition to those conditions set forth by the Zoning Board of Appeals in Case No. 8005-46; (3) that the Landscape Plan for this site asprepared by Harold Thomas Nursuries, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (5) that any signs proposed for this site shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. ILA, roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #7-198-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 14, 1980 from Leonard G. Siegal , President of Siegal/Tuomaala Associates, requesting a one-year extension of approval of Petition 79-5-8-11 submitted by Siegal/Tuomaala Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office park on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Munger in Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution subject to the same conditions as were set forth in the original approving Resolution #6-83-79, adopted by the City Planning Commission on June 5, 1979, and to the following addition condition: That the construction trailer presently located on the site shall be removed. 1r. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. /374 J n a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 395th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 1980, was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Wednesday, 1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /4.,14// 4<91" 6.- Jo crry ATTEST: °41-14//6 Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman ac