HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1981-10-06 7565
• MINUTES OF THE 420th REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 6, 1981, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 420th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing to
order at 8:05 p.m., with approximately 45 interested people in the audience.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Scurto Joseph Falk
Sue Sobolewski Daniel R. Andrew
Donald Vyhnalek Jerome Zimmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert L. Morrow *Herman Kluver *Donna Naidow
Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning
Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present.
Mr. Andrew then 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 then hold their own Public Hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver use request, and the petition is denied by the Planning
Commission, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Other wise
the petition is terminated.
I[:
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 81-8-1-19
by Robert J. Johnson to rezone property located on the west side of Ashurst
north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, from P.L. to
R-3.
Mr. Nagy: The extent of our correspondence is a letter from Gary Clarke, Engineering
dated September 2, 1981.
Robert Johnson: The property is presently owned by the Livonia Schools.
33550 N. Hampshire I have an option to purchase subject to rezoning. the intent,
Livonia, MI if the rezoning takes place, is to subdivide the property into
15 lots which would fall within the zoning criteria of R-3
zoning. Assuning it is rezoned to R-3 the school building will
be demolished. I have a layout of the 15 lots. It is not necessarily.
the final design. It is the arrangement we intend to pursue at
this time for subdividing. There will be four lots on Alpine
to the west of the building and 11 on Ashurst. Most of the lots
exceed the R-3 requirements. They are 80 feet in width or larger.
Most are pie shaped and widen at the extremity. Northern part of
the property would be park area. I have no further comments.
Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission?
Mrs. Sobolewski: Can you tell me what is happening to Ashurst vacting.
Mr. Nagy: As soon as we determine what part of Ashurst is needed for ingress
and egress the Planning Commission has previously agreed on its own
motion to vacate the unused portion. It will attach to all abutting
properties on the east side.
7566
Mr. Luckham: Will the street layout change?
15765 Alpine
Mr. Andrew: This is a rezoning petition as opposed to plat procedure. If Mr.
Johnson is successful in the rezoning petition, he will have to come
back for a preliminary plat approval. At that time we will consider
the street layout and other physical changes to the property.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Ms. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-178-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 6, 1981 on Petition 81-8-1-19 submitted by Robert J. Johnson
requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Ashurst
north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, from P.L.
to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 81-8-1-19 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) The proposed zoning district is compatible to and in harmony
with zoning in the surrounding area.
(2) The proposed zoning will provide for uses that are consistent
with the uses in the surrounding residential neighborhood.
(3) The proposed zoning provides for reasonable alternative uses for
property no longer used for public school purposes.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of 9/21/81
and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company,
Consumers 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 81-9-1-20 by
Farley Building Company, Inc. , to rezone property located on the east side
of Middlebelt between Clarita and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12,
from RUF to C-2.
*Mr. Kluver arrived at 8:15 p.m.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Engineering dated 9/14/81.
We have a petition dated October 5, 1981 signed by approximately
25 people to the City Planning Commission opposing the petition.
Mr. Andrew: I would like to point out that if a rezoning is accomplished petitioner
has to appear before this Commission for site plan approval.
Gil Siefitz: I have with me Mr. Bernie Reamer who is the architect. We have
15500 Telegraph been getting about two calls a day for space to rent. We also own
Detroit the property to the north of this particular parcel in question in
which we have an existing strip shopping center_ We want to add 11,000
square feet to the existing shopping center. We also own another
7567
•
parcel to the south of this parcel. . At this time we have not requested
anything yet. At a future date we would like office of P.O. We have
130 feet and would like seven additional stores into our shopping strip.
Mr. Andrew: The property to the south do you own one or two lots?
Mr. Siefitz: We own two lots.
Mrs. Scurto: The spot that was rented by Grinnel's is it still vacant?
Mr. Siefitz: It was rented but the gentleman moved out.
Mr. Zimmer: Have you owned this property continuously with the rest of it and
chose only to build on the other?
Mr. Siefitz: At the time, during the course of construction, we only owned the
one piece.
Mr. Zimmer: You own all the property to Pickford now?
Mr. Siefitz: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: Does the property south to Pickford satisfy the RUF?
Mr. Andrew: They could appeal to the ZBA. Lot lbla is .49 of an acre.
1[1, Mr. Zimmer: By this rezoning we have destroyed or made improper the remaining zoning.
Mr. Andrew: No.
Mr. Falk: We have adequate commercial. In fact, we have too much as I see
vacant stores up and down that area all the time. When did you buy
the last piece in that area?
Mr. Siefitz: In 1978 or 1979.
Mr. Falk: You knew this petition was turned down by Council before you purchased the
property.
Mr. Siefitz: Yes.
Mr. Kluver: Does this comply with the Future Land Use Plan.
Mr. Andrew: No, it doesn't. One of my concerns, in my opinion, is that we are
encouraging the continuation of a strip center. I do not see any need
for commercial in that area. Could we get a market study for our review?
Mr. Falk: Would you be willing to do a market study?
Mr. Siefitz: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you consider P.S. instead of C-2?
Mr. Siefitz: We have proposed at a future date a two-story office building. That is
further down the line. We have been strictly thinking commercial.
We could take P.O. under advisement.
7568
Jim Sanchez: My home is adjoining to his strip. Right now I have trouble keeping
29223 Clarita the debris off our property.
ILMr. Andrew: Do you still have any problem with drainage?
Mr. Sanchez: My property floods if there is a drizzle.
Mrs. Bergmann: We do not need anymore businesses in the area. One suite of this
29231 Pickford strip center has never been filled. We have heard a restaurant is
going in.
Mr. Andrew: Should the C-2 zoning be successful, he is only planning 11,000 square
feet of speculative commercial stores. I do not think he knows who
his tenants will be. Do you have anything specific?
Mr. Moyles: In December, 1979 we appeared in front of Council objecting to a
29275 Pickford restaurant. The Council objected to it. I am amazed that all these
calls are coming in and one place is vacant. National Merchandising
took off after 11 p.m. on Sunday.
Mr. Goodfellow: When that petition was circulated the lady told my wife that
29142 Pickford there was going to be a restaurant and bar put in there. Some
of us signed under false pretenses. She was coerced into signing
because they said liquor license.
Mrs. Bergmann: I did statethere was going to be a restaurant and bar as that
is what I heard at the Council meeting.
ILMrs. Moyles: We did not harass or coerce anyone to sign. We try to keep up our homes
•
as nicely as possible. We are concerned with what goes in. You can't
imagine what I put up with at 4:30 a.m. at this center. Kids smoking
dope and drinking beer. They throw the beer bottles in my yard. I
can't even return them for the deposit because they break them. I
understand the petitioner has rights but we also do too.
Mrs. Goodfellow: I was told that a bar and restaurant were going in. The letter
from the City indicated RUF to C-2.
Mr. Andrew: If the petitioner wanted that type of operation he would have to come
back before council.
Mrs. Moyles: Does C-2 include a restaurant?
Mr. Andrew: Yes, as a waiver use.
Mrs. Scurto: If the first part is C-1 why do you wish C-2?
Mr. Siefitz: C-2 gives us more leeway. I do not have a lease for a bar and
restaurant. We do get calls for restaurants. We are limited with C-1.
There was no one 'else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted,
it was
7569
#10-179-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 6, 1981 on Petition 81-9-1-20 submitted by Farley Building
Company, Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the east side
of Middlebelt between Clarita and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 12, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 81-9-1-20 be denied for
the following reasons:
(1) The proposed zoning district represents an unwarranted encroachment
of commercial zoning into a residential area.
(2) The proposed change in zoning would provide for a further extension
of commercial zoning along a major thoroughfare which is contrary
to the Planning Commission's adopted goals and policies for
commercial development.
(3) The proposed change in zoning is contrary to the recommendations
of the Future Land Use Plan.
(4) The proposed change of zoning would cause an increase in traffic
along a heavily traveled major thoroughfare and therefore would
be detrimental to the residential uses in the area.
(5) There is no demonstrated need for additional commercial facilities
in this area as allowed by the proposed C-2 Zoning District.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/21/81
I[: and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company,
Consumers 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. Kluver: It is commendable that the citizens come out to support their feelings.
The development of developable land in this city is minimal now and we
must keep that in mind and use the remaining land prudently.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-9-2-21
by Joan Thatcher Trost requesting waiver use approval to locate. a
restaurant within an existing building situated on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 33.
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated 9/17/81 from Gary Clark.
Mr. Art Trost: I am the husband of petitioner. I was not aware of the dedication of
the property. No problem with that. We plan to remodel the outside
of the building. There will be a mansard roof in the front. The
restaurant part will have the white porcelain look. We will be
specializing in hamburgers similar to Bates.
1[00 Mrs. Scurto: How long have you owned the property?
Mr. Trost: Seven years.
Mrs. Scurto: Advertising is your business.
7570
Mr. Trost: Yes. Before that the building was a bump and paint shop and before
that they manufactured storms and screens.
Mrs. Scurto: I wish you had a desire to upgrade the property before. It certainly
could use it. Why did you choose hamburgers?
Mr. Trost: Because of what people are telling us.
Mrs. Scurto: From Stark to Farmington on Plymouth Road are you aware there are
nine restaurants.
Mr. Trost: This would be considered a fast food and there aren't too many along
there that can get you in and out in a half hour.
Mr. Zimmer: Do you own all the property from your building to the bar?
Mr. Trost: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: You will remain on the west of the lot. The other part of the lot
will be used for some portion of parking.
Mr. Trost: It is dirt right now. I will asphalt it.
Mr. Zimmer: What is your hamburger place going to be, a franchise?
Mr. Trost: No, franchise. It will be called Burger Bell and it will be one of
kind.
ILMr. Zimmer: Have you had any food experience?
Mr. Trost: No, I don't but the person who is going to run it does.
Mr. Zimmer: I share the concern of Plymouth Road. The appearance of that property
is terrible. It amazes me that in the advertising business you keep.
the building as you do. One of the things that strikes me is that there
are a whole lot of places to eat. There is a bar, bowling alley and
three or four other places you can eat at quickly. Your neighbors
to the west, Cloverdale, use the parking. How do you see that being
handled? Are you planning to do something to that west property which
has an elevation problem?
Mr. Trost: We plan to have a sidewalk and grass. Obviously our patrons will have
our parking lot filled.
Mr. Zimmer: Can you drive behind your building with some difficulty?
Mr. Trost: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: Do you plan to use the back to exit onto Stark?
Mr. Trost: No. The dumpster will be in the back.
Mr. Vyhnalek: An improvement to this property will enhance Plymouth Road. We were
there a couple of Sundays ago and it really needs improvement. I don't
know if we need another Bates for the improvement. I am on the fence.
7571
•
Mr. Falk: Everyone can come in and beautify their building and get a restaurant
is what we are encouraging. I think that would be terrible. We have
made so many studies on restaurants here. Now put in some trees and
shrubs, close at 9 p.m. and we can give them a restaurant. I don't
see a need for more restaurants.
Mr. Trost: There are 24,000 cars going by everyday. There are 1.3 people per
car. There are 30,000 people or more during lunchtime. I see them
go into Burger Chef, Tyme and others at lunchtime and come back out
because they are too crowded. The industrial belt at Schoolcraft is
increasing. I think this would be a service to these people.
Mr. Falk: It could also generate a lot more traffic which we do not want.
Mr. Andrew: What are your proposed hours of operation?
Mr. Trost: 6 a.m. until 11 p.m. or midnight, seven days a week.
Mr. Andrew: Will it be operated by an employee or lessee?
Mr. Trost: Employee.
Mr. Andrew: Will the numerous vent stacks be removed from the roof?
Mr. Trost: They will be removed as we are proposing a new roof. Those were put
in for the bump and paint shop. We don't use them.
to Mr. Andrew: You do not propose anything for the exterior of the building elevation
on the east side to the south of the proposed hamburger operation?
Mr. Trost: Not at this time.
Mr. Andrew: It is presently a block wall. I would like to see improvement of that
wall such as brick veneer.
Mr. Trost: That is acceptable. •
Mr. Andrew: Do you plan further additions?
Mr. Trost: No.
Mr. Andrew: Do you have a dumpster now?
Mr. Trost: No.
Mr. Andrew: Where did or does the service vehicle come from, Plymouth or Stark?
Mr. Trost: Plymouth.
Mr. Andrew: Do you have any objection to physically closing off the exit to Stark?
Mr. Trost: No objection.
1[0 Mr. Andrew: Do you need additional electric power?
•
Mr. Trost: No, I have 440 now. We will have no freestanding lights in the parking
lot. We propose no freestanding sign. The sign on the building and
the looks of the building is what we propose now.
7572
Mr. Andrew: Will the mansard roof continue to the hamburger restaurant?
Mr. Trost: To the front and east side.
Mr. Gongalez: I operate the Cloverdale Farms next door. We also flip hamburgers.
Cloverdale I have been at this location for 27 years when the road was a dirt road.
Farms Dairy My wife and I run it. We try to keep our customers from parking next
door. We try to police the area. I don't see the need for any more
restaurants. The Mexican restaurant is now going Greek. Ford Motor
Company continues to layoff.
Mr. Andrew: What are your hours of operation?
Mr. Gongalez: We are open seven days a week during the summer from 6:30 a.m. to
10 p.m. During the winter months we stay open until 9 p.m. When it
snows we close at 8 p.m. The party store sells sandwiches. I have ball
teams that come in during the summer through the back.
Mr. Vyhnalek: How many parking spots do you have in front?
Mr. Gongalez: It is so busy on Plymouth Road we do not receive deliveries in the
front. They deliver from the rear. I would say I have 30 feet of
frontage on the building and 95 feet to Stark. Mr. Trost has barricaded
his place at times. I have given him money to throw in gravel. I also
serve french fries, onion rings. My busy time is 10:30 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. I have been in the food business since 1954.
ILJim McEwen: I have the business to the east. I have adequate parking at the
Clubhouse Bar Clubhouse Bar. I do sell 90% ground rounds. There are plenty of
Livonia hamburger type shops in this area.
Mr. Andrew: Are you open on Sunday?
Mr. McEwen: Yes. My hours are 7 a.m. to 2 a.m. I have a lot of Ford Motor Trans-
mission business. I cash their checks. I am busy from 10 a.m. to
1 p.m. and 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Ford has laid off 65% this year. as compared
to two or three years ago. Ford doesn't look too good. Some small
factories have died in the industrial area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Is your parking lot paved?
Mr. McEwen: It is asphalt.
Mrs. Sobolewsk: How many parking spots does Mr. Trost need?
Mr. Nagy: Fifteen for the seating capacity plus one spot for each employee.
Mr. Trost: I have 40 parking spaces. I employ 5 people.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto for a denial for the
following reasons:
7572
(1) The traffic situation on Plymouth Road in that area is very
difficult, one that was to improve with the completion of the
IL expressway but has only worsened.
(2) There is no demonstrated need for this additional restaurant in
this part of the community and because of the waiver use we are
asked to examine that.
(3) The property should be upgraded anyway as it would be in the
property owners' own interest.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I move for a tabling resolution because we do not have a full commission.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and adopted, it was
#10-180-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 6, 1981 on Petition 81-9-2-21 as submitted -by Joan Thatcher
Trost requesting waiver use approval to locate a restaurant within
an existing building situated on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33,
the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 81-9-2-21 until
October 13, 1981.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto, Falk, Zimmer
ABSENT: Morrow, Naidow
IL
Mr. Anrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Kluver: I feel we need an in depth analysis of this particular area as a
focusing point and look at the activities.
Mr. Andrew: I would like a traffic carrying capacity study for Plymouth Road
from the Road Commission.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 81-8-3-6 by
F.L.Zeisler requesting the vacating of a portion of Melvin Avenue located
at the northeast corner of Melvin Avenue and Hoy Road in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 11.
Mr. Zeisler: We take care of the land in question. We planted some trees there.
29818 Hoy I would like a more direct responsibility for the property. I would
like to put some more plants on it.
Mrs. Scurto: Do you have a garage attached to your house?
Mr. Zeisler: Yes.
Wm. Warren: Mr. Zeisler has mowed the property for 25 years. I feel it is
30325 Hoy appropriate to continue to have him mow and keep it up.
ILMr. Andrew: The City will retain a full width easement to protect public utilities.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
r
7573
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted,
ILit was
•
#10-181-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 6,
1981 on Petition 81-8-3-6 submitted by F.L. Zeisler requesting the vacating
of an easement located on the northeast corner of Melvin Avenue and Hoy
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 81-8-3-6 be approved
subject to the retention of an easement over the full width of the subject
property, for the following reasons:
(1) No City departments or public utilites companies have objected
to the proposed vacating.
(2) No public purpose can be served by the retention of the subject area
right-of-way purposes.
(3) The subject area represents excessive road right-of-way which is
not needed for future public improvements such as street paving and
side walks.
(4) The subject area could be more properly maintained if attached to
abutting private property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/21/81
and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service.
1[0, 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 81-7-6-6
(rehearing) by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 2.10 and
11.02, and Article XVIII by adding Section 18.59 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
to incorporate regulations relating to mechanical and electronic amusement
devices.
Mr. Andrew: The major difference in the amendment is that the Bureau of Inspection
will not have the responsibility but the Planning Commission will
recommend to the City Council who will get a permit for electronic
amusement devices. (Waiver use as opposed to permitted use) .
Mr. Nagy: We have received new correspondence from Mr. Browning, Kinlop Inter-
national, asking for each machine to have 40 square feet of floor
area instead of 50 square feet. Also Mr. Browning indicates that 35
machines may not be sufficient to make a profit and still provide
for the first class game room that everyone wants.
Mr. Browning: We may be in a situation where we have 3, 4, or 5,000 square feet and
35 machines may not be sufficent to give us a sufficient return on the
IL investment we have to make in that location. Thirty-five machines in
a certain location could be too restrictive. We really go all out.
Mr. Andrew: Would it be unreasonable for this Commission to ask you to show on
the floor plan the actual location of the machines?
7574
Mr. Browning: That is not unreasonable.
ILMrs. Scurto: If 35 machines is not enough, what is?
Mr. Browning: It would depend on the size, what we would be doing in that location.
At some of our locations we have 2,000 square feet with 60 machines
32 machines and 22 machines. It depends on the location.
Mrs. Scurto: How many do you have at Oakland Mall?
Mr. Browning: We have 32 there.
Mrs. Scurto: What about Ann Arbor Mall?
Mr. Browning: We have 60 there.
Mr. Falk: At the Renaissance?
Mr. Browning: We have 32 machines there. We are working with 2,140 square feet but
we take about 500 to 600 square feet for the assimilator and some for
office. We figure the area at 1,400 square feet.
Mr. Browning: We would like an opportunity to come in first (without a ceiling figure)
and show you what we propose.
Mr. Falk: Before we even try it I don't think we should be changing it. I feel
we should try it. We have thrashed this over for a long time.
We have gotten together many, many people and listen to many views.
We feel this is a good plan. ed
IL Mr. Browning: I feel we have some ideas worthy of discussion. We might have a
situation at Livonia Mall and that is more than a two bit operation.
Mr. Falk: I would like to see the Mall improved. I don't see the machines
improving it. With the economy so bad what Ms. Hildebrandt planned
five years ago for the Mall hasn't happened.
•
Mr. Vyhnalek: Under the waiver do they have to show us the plans?
Mr. Andrew: We could require one.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I think we should consider what Mr. Browning is saying. Why make more
work down the road for ourselves.
Mr. Zimmer: The operation in Ann Arbor has 60 machines. How many square feet.
Mr. Browning: 4,500 square feet.
Mr. Zimmer: I feel that represents a maximum size. The front is unused.
Mrs. Scurto: What about the one on Cherry Hill and Merriman?
Joe Martson: I run it. I have 32 machines and 2,000 square feet.
IMrs. Scurto: What are the rules and who does the supervision?
Mr. Martson: A person must be at least 16 years old or if they are under must be
accompanied by an adult. I have restricted hours. I close at 9 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 10 p.m. on Saturday and 9 p.m. on Sunday.
Jerry Garnige: What type of establishments are we talking about?
7575
Mr. Andrew: This ordinance pertains to shopping centers of 500,000 square feet.
IL Mr. Shane: A bar would not be a waiver use but an accessory use. The number of
machines depend on the seating capacity.
Greg Gilbert: Why aren't party stores such as Seven Eleven included?
2427 Fort
Wyandotte
Mr. Andrew: We are not enthused about mechanic devices period. There appears to
be some rationale. If so, we are going to control them as best as we
can. We asked the staff to prepare an ordinance for us to discuss.
We thought we had an ordinance the people and the City could live with.
To expand upon the people who are going to be allowed to have them will
open up a whole can of worms.
Mr. Gilbert: I don't feel that one, two or three machines in a 7-11 store would hurt.
We have the location. We are in the neighborhood. Many neighboring
cities have allowed them.
Mr. Andrew: This ordinance says these machines are an accessory use to a principal
recreational use. 7-11 sells food and is not a recreational facility.
Mr. Gilbert: They are a means of getting people into the store. It is a very
wholesome activity. At least people know where their children are.
Mrs. Scurto: The last thing I want is my children hanging around a party store. I
don't think these things belong in a shopping center either. I don't
feel a 16 year old employee should be a babysitter to neighboring children.
1[0
Mr. Gilbert: You could put certain restrictions on.
Mrs. Sobolewski: I cannot justify children going into these party stores. These
places have a hard time keeping cleaned up anyway.
Mr. Falk: You apparently don't know the track record of 7-11 stores as this
Commission does. The question has not been proven. You should come
in with facts and figures. You come in with "I think".
Mr. Andrew: The purpose of public hearings are for input. I hope Mr. Browning
is not offended.
Hank Heiser I wish you would come down to our establishment and familiarize
Empire Dist. yourself with all the data we have.. Some of these restrictions are being
11998 Merriman tested in the courts. I believe a lot of changes are forthcoming. These
Livonia, MI machines are in whether some of us like them or not. These are very
interesting things to be learned. You can learn something about the
coin machine business that would surprise you. We aren't out to
"bilk" kids. They enjoy these things.
R. Garland: Are ice cream stores considered recreational?
Stroh's Ice
Cream, 5 MI
ILMr. Andrew: No.
Mr. Schwartz: If 7-il gets them Strohs should get them.
25905 Continental
7576
*Donna Naidow arrived at 10:15 p.m.
Bill Bartholew: Mr. Greg Gilbert is not employed by 7-11 stores. He works for
IL 14111 Farmington an amusement game company in Detroit. We have machines in our
Livonia, MI stores in Farmington, Garden City, some in Westland. Representatives
of Southland Corp, have noticed less robbery in the stores with
machines. My stores adhere to the rules. It is a service to the
neighborhood to allow these games.
Mr. Vyhnalek: About 1 1/2 years ago 7-11 complained about storage of bottles.
They needed outside bottle storage. You don't have room for bottles
but you have room for games.
Mr. Bartholew: One game would not take up much room.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was
#10-182-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 6,
1981 on Petition 81-7-6-6-(Rehearing) as submitted by the City Planning.
Commission to amend Section 2.10 and 11.02, and Article XVIII by adding
Section 18.59, of Zoning Ordinance #543, to incorporate regulations relating
to mechanical and electronic amusement devices, the City Planning Commission
does hereby table Petition 81-7-6-6 until October 27, 1981.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
1[10
AYES: Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver, Falk, Zimmer
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
•
Mr. Zimmer: I have no interest in pursuing overall changes to this proposed ordinance
amendment other than the specific items Mr. Browning mentioned.
Mr. Andrew: Our meeting will be based on the letter from Mr. Browning pertaining to the
two items.
Mrs. Scurto: I would be interested in getting a list of places such as Mr. Browning's.
Mr. Falk: I hope some of these small store owners don't feel as if they cannot attend
the meeting.
Mr. Andrew: It is open to the public.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Naidow, and unanimously adopted,
it was
li #10-183-81 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01(a)
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of City of Livonia, as amended,
ILO
does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine
whether or not to amend Section 18.47(a) , Requirement of Zoning Ordinance #543,
relative to the erection of signs on buildings located in the Special area
Development Control areas.
7577
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
IL Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnale$, and adopted, it was
#10-184-81 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Landscape Plan submitted in connection with a condition of approval of
Petition 81-1-2-1 by J. D. Dinan requesting waiver use approval to
construct buildings for general office uses on property located on the
southwest corner of Brentwood and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 1, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Landscape Plan prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates,
dated 9/22/81, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and
(2) That all landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed
on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Naidow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto
ABSENT: Morrow
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
1[0
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted,
it was
#10-185-81 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 419th Regular Meeting held by the
Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 22, 1981, be approved.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 420th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on October 6, 1981 were adjourned
at 10:30 p.m.
• CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ji Gil/ZY
Jos- •h J. k, ecretary
•
11, V'-/A
ATTEST: e‘tif,r"
Daniel R; Andrew, Chairman