Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1983-02-15 3 1 . . 7858 MINUTES OF THE 449th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 1! 4 On Tuesday, February 15, 1983, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, J held its 449th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jerome Zimmer, Vice Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with approx- imately 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Jerome Zimmer Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Joseph Falk Donna Naidow Lee R. Morrow Members absent: Daniel Andrew Judith Scurto Herman Kluver Mr. Zimmer informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition in- volves a waiver of use request which is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council , otherwise the petition is terminated. Mr. Joseph J. Falk, secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 83-1-1-1 by James W. Minge to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Alexander and Sunbury Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, from RUF to P.S. John J. Nagy, Planning Director: There is a letter dated 1/17/83 in the file from the IL Engineering Division stating that there is an existing 42" sanitary sewer system located within the easement area along the south line of this site and the Engineering Division recommends against the placement of a protective wall in this easement area. James W. Minge, 28807 Five Mile Road, petitioner: I wish to sell the house and this property because my mother, who is 84 years old, is in a nursing home and I have to sell to keep her in the home. Mr. Zimmer: Is the home occupied? Mr. Hinge: Semi -- I occupy it between my house and this one. Mr. Zimmer: Apparently your reason for rezoning is to create a more lucrative sales. Mr. Minge: The reason is that I justneed the money to keep her in the nursing home. I have no reason to keep the home for myself. Mr. Zimmer: Why do you want to rezone it. Why don't you just sell it? Mr. Minge: So far nobody wants to buy it. Zimmer: How long has it been on the market? • Hinge: Since last August. Itijr.: Falk: Are you selling this yourself or through a real estate office? . 7859 Mr. Minge: Basically, the home is sold if the rezoning goes through. Mr. Zimmer: It is conditioned on the rezoning? Mr. Minge: 1!4 Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski : Are the homes on either side of you occupied? Mr. Minge: To the best of my knowledge, yes. Mr. Zimmer: Are there two buildings on the site? Is either occupied? Mr. Minge: One is my mother's house which is on Lot 12. Mr. Zimmer! The other is a rental piece? Mr. Minge: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Is the rental property up for sale also? Mr. Minge: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Do you own the piece in between? Mr. Minge: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Is the entire site coNditioned .to the sale on the change of zoning? 1r. Minge: Yes. 1 ?1r. Terry Herdman: Both of the houses on the r property are inhabited right now. I object to the fact that it would turned into commercial or professional , or anything other than residential . I bought this property five years ago and I don't want the change. I feel I would lose the value of my home with professional service next door. There might be a problem P with a brick wall there, and I would virtually have a parking lot in my yard. There are four vacant commercial establishments in the area adjacent. Dino's was robbed; the building on the other side of Harrison had a car theft and the thieves ran into the subdivision. I feel this is the kind of thing that happens in a residential area where it turns commercial and it is not safe for children. They walk to the neighbor- f hood store. There is graffiti on the retaining wall and litter all over. ! I would like to see this property stay residential . John A. Jones, 15027 Alexander: I am like him -- I would like to see it stay residential . If it goes the way it is, we will have another Plymouth on our hands. Mr. Webb, 15131 Alexander: 90% of us have children. There is a problem with traffic and a security wall around the commercial . I would like to keep the residential . • Mr. Zimmer: How long have you been in your house? 11i Webb: Since 1974. 4 7860 Mrs. James Clement, 15140 Alexander: There is no sidewalk here and the kids walk in the street most of the time. I have seen teenagers doing malicious things in the area and I am worried about this now and have reported 1[0 it to the police. Mr. Donovan, proposed purchaser of the property: We are going to keep this very much like it is now but we will fix it up quite a bit. We intend to use the property for professional services, the fitting of contact lenses and artificial eyes. I am interested in keeping it very professional . I am planning on using lot 12 and we have not really proposed to have parking in there. The parking probably would be on lot 11 . I just found out about the wall . I am not sure if you would want to build a wall in the neighborhood. And we could work out something about the parking. I can understand the peoples ' ideas about what could happen in the neighborhood but I think we can work it out. Mr. Marrow: I am sympathetic with your situation and also to the neighbors as far as residential is concerned. By the same token, however, to look at this from a standpoint of good planning I see this as an extension of commercial/professional use along Five Mile Road. We hear a lot about strip zoning. I cannot support this tonight. Zoning runs with the land and the use could subsequently change. We appreciate your sharing your thoughts but we can't really give much credence to this. I don't think professional service in this area would be compatible. Mr. Minge: Who wants to buy the house and make it residential ? Which one of you? I can see your point, too, but are you volunteering to pay the bills? tMake a suggestion as to hbw I' can pay them. It hcs been listed since AuTist and he is the first one who says he wants it. Mr. Morrow: I have to look at this from a planning perspective regardless of your circumstances. Who will buy your neighbors' homes in the middle of professional? Mr. Minge: If I cannot maintain that home and it crumbles, then what do we have? If I can't afford to keep up the house the State will take it over in order for me to pay my bills. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-1-1-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. 5obolawski and unanimously adopted, it was #2-24-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 15, 1983 on Petition 83-1-1-1 by James W. Minge to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Alexander and Sunbury Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, from RUF to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-1-1-1 be denied for the following reasons: • (1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia. (2) The proposed change of zoning would not promote the orderly tiv growth and development of the surrounding area in accordance y . 7861 with the Future Land Use Plan but would tend to encourage the further expansion and conversion of residentially zoned and t developed lands to nonresidential uses. (3) The proposed change of zoning would not be compatible to nor in harmony with surrounding and established uses of the area, which established uses are all residential . (4) The proposed change of zoning and the uses which would be permitted would be detrimental to the established and surround- ing uses of the area and detract from the ongoing use and enjoy- ment of the neighboring area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-1-1-2 by Parkside Credit Union to rezone property located on the north side of Van Court Avenue between Raleigh and Levan Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 32, from RUF to P. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated 1/26/83 in the file from the Engineering Divi- sion stating that they have no objection to this petition. ILJames B. Borders, Parkside Credit Union: The Credit Union presently has sufficient parking in the area but we contemplate p putting $350,000 into an expn- sion of the present facility onto Lot 6 with the entrance to remain on Plymouth Road. The building will take up half of Lot 6. This area would be sufficient to allow us six to seven years growth. However, the dilema is what do we do in six to seven years? Come to the City again and perhaps be turned down for parking on Lots 16 and 17? We would then have invested $350,000 into a facility without a possibility for future growth. The alternative is obviously for us to move but since our main Credit Union clients reside in the area of the trans- mission plant and some of the companies in back of the plant, we would be forced to stay in the general area. The only vacant lots in that area are in Plymouth Township to the west: We have taken an option on these lots hoping we do not have to exercise that option. We have 31 companies in Livonia including five Ford plants. Our main concern is to expand the number of companies in the industrial park across the street. We have run into no objections from the neighbors on Van Court. We would like to remove a brick wall and replace it with a berm about 30' from the end of the property. This would keep the area residential looking and widen the parking area. Our hope is that the City would allow us to remove the wall and expand the parking. Lot 16 and 17 we would use in six or seven years. Two years ago, we had this rezoned and put in a building expansion with underground sprinkling systems and shrubbery. toMr. Zimmer: Is there parking there now where that "P" is? ,Mr. Borders: No. Mr. Zimmer: Would that be adequate for your expansion program? T.! w • 7862 Mr. Borders: Yes. 4 Mr. Zimmer: Do you anticipate any outside terminals? 24-hour banking? J Mr. Borders: We presently have two drive-in windows. Our plan is to include a 24- hour banker. We have done a study for ten years into the future and we anticipate that an automatic teller machine might eliminate the need for additional drive-in facilities. We don't foresee having to add to that but we do see the need for an automatic teller. Our clients have to have a 24-hour access to their money. Mr. Vyhnalek: If you build your building on Lot 6 and 7, you would want the wall dowry right now? Mr. Borders: We currently have a wall and because of the fact that the wall is quite a distance from the people on Van Court, they don't object to the removal of the wall and a berm instead. Mr. Vyhnalek: How will the rest of 16 and 17 be maintained? Mr. Borders: We would install a berm at the end on the present new building site. In the future if we need more parking, we would move the berm back. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you be agreeable to some pine trees in there? Mr. Borders: Yes. Mr. Morrow: What is the zoning on Lot 18?. Mr. Borders:1[0 . Residential . There is one house located on the front of Lot 18. 1 Mr. Zimmer: Where would the Ordinance require a wall ? Mr. Nagy: On the east of Lot 17. Mr. Borders: The resident there would prefer no wall . Mr. Zimmer: That is an item appealable to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mrs. Sobolewski : Do you plan an exit onto Van Court? Mr. Borders: Currently we have an exit on the back part of Lot 7. There will be no other exits. The only exit would be the present exit. Linda Wells, 36525 Parkdale: I have an objection. I moved to• Livonia in 1978 Lo move out of a congested area to a semi-rural country setting. Now I under- stand I will be living acros , the street from a parking lot and I object. The traffic has increased since the drive-in window was put in, especially on Thursday nights and Fridays. When you expand the building, are you going into the vacant commercial lot next to you? Mr. Borders: No. The building will be expanded to the east into Lot 6. IM5. Wells: There is vacant property o7 Plymouth Road and I don' t understand why you can't extend the parking into that area. How do you know this landscaping will be ;maintained in the future if this man is not the manager in the future. Or even that it would be there? y 7863 n Mr. Zimmer: They are required to bring in a site plan which permits the City to enforce the plan continually on an inspection bads. We will have an approved plan and the City will enforce it on a continuing basis. That gives us a handle on the upkeep of the development. I -. Wells: I still object to living across the street from a parking lot. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, delcared the public hearing on Petition 83-1-1-2 closed. Mr. Morrow: What is the dimension of the berm area? t Mr. Borders: Roughly, 30 feet. t i On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #2-25-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a PUblic Hearing having been held on February 15, 1983 on Petition 83-1-1-2 by Parkside Credit Union to rezone property located on the north side of !Ian Court Avenue between Raleigh and Levan Road in the North 1/2 of Section 12 from RUF to P, the City Plannin Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-1-1-2 be approved for the following reasons: i (1) The proposed change of zoning and the uses permitted would not be detrimental to the surrounding and established uses of the area. •1[0 • j (2) Parking uses when well screened and properly landscaped can be rode compatible to residenti,31 uses. (3) The proposed change of zoning will not adversely affect the surrounding and established uses of the area as there already is similarly zoned land to the west, and to the south is an institutional use and to the east is vacant residentially zoned land. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried arid the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-1-1-3 by George & Rose Gargarian to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the Sotheast 1/4 of Secti :. 7 11 , from P.S. to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated 1/26/83 in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal . We also have a letter dated 2/9/83 in the file from Peter J. Cubba, developers of the Valley Wood Condo- miniums, stating his opposition to the rezoning of this property. 7864 1 I Margaret Derderian, 25460 Ridgewood Drive, representing the petitioner: This property is already sold provided the zoning is changed from PS. to C-2. I understand the empty lot next door is already zoned C-2. They are interested in selling the home and it has to be changed to C-2 for L this particular buyer. r. Zimmer; How long has the petitioner owned the property? Mrs. Derderian: At least ten years. - Mr. Zimmer: Do they reside in the house? Mrs. Derderian: No. Mr. Zimmer: Is it occupied? Mrs. Derderian: Yes, it is a rental . Mr. Falk: This is another instance where people want to sell on the basis of rezoning. Once again this is an intrusion. We don't need the C-2 there. I think we have adequate commercial there and that this is an infringement. We planned for professional here and I think if we let more C-2 go in there we will be sorry. Mr. Zimmer: Does the petitioner own any other land adjacent to this piece? Mrs. Derderian: No. ,Mrs. Sobolewski : Did the property owner purchase the pro7erty as P.S.? Mrs. Derderian: I am not able to .0 swer that question. It is my sister who owns the property and she couldn't be here tonight and I d() tit know all the details. As professional they could not find a buyer. The property has been up for sale for five to six years. Mrs. Sobolewski : Do you know who owns the property on the south? Mrs. Derderian: I think the plumbing store next door. Mr. Nagy: The northerly portion of Jimmie's Rustics is in the P.S. zoning classi- fication. It is part P.S. and part C-2. Mrs. Derderian: Wouldn't it be better to make it all one or the other? Mr. Vyhnalek: It has always been our practice to have a buffer between C-2 and resi- dential but I don' t think this would make any difference. My opinion is that C-2 wouldn't bother me. Mrs. Sobolewski : How did this get P.S. zoning. Mr. Nagy: Through the rezoning process in 1971 . George Leikin, Attorney representing the proposed purchaser: My client is proposing to purchase this parcel and a portion of the. C-2 to the south. He proposes to put a 10,000 square foot building on the property to be used for a 7865 United Tae Kwon Do. , Inc. headquarters. They are now located at the Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads intersection. It will be an office structure with a training room for instructors. It will be a world 3 headquarters. 1 realize there is a gas station, a plumbing store and a fairly blighted area next to the plumbing store. Next to that there is a vacant area and then a house that has fallen into gross disrepair. We will remove that building and we will employ somewhere around twenty to thirty people. I believe the change to C-2 is consistent with adjacent zoning and land uses. Mr. Morrow: It almost sounds like a general office type use. Why wasn't it a waiver use in a professional zone? Mr. Nagy; Because of the school aspect. Ramon S. Mandy, Architect: The building would be a one-story building and wouldn't superimpose on the residential nature of the environment. We would have setbacks and it would be landscaped. We will make it a very wholesome neighborhood. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was #2-26-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 15, 1983 on Petition 83-1-1-3 by George & Rose Gargarian to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 , from P.S. to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-1-1-3 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This proposed rezoning represents a minor expansion of an existing C-2 Zoning District. (2) The uses permitted by the proposed C-2 Zoning District will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) The existing R-7 Zoning District existing adjacent to and north of the subject property will prevent any further expansion of the C-2 District. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek NAYS: Falk, Zimmer ABSENT: Andrew, Scurto, Kluver Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • 7866 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-1-2-1 by Thomas Guastello for Chi Chi 's requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and to Schoolcraft Service Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Nagy: Isere is a letter dated 2/2/83 from the Engineering Division recommend- in that the petitioner submit plans to the Wayne County Road Commis- sion and the State Department of Transportation for approval in con- nection with the drive approaches to Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Roads. We have also received a letter from the Wayne County Road Commission dated 2/14/83 along with a map marked in red crayon indicating drive approach location and geometrics which will be acceptable by the Wayne County Road Commission. A copy of a letter addressed to the Wayne County Road Commission from Ira Wilson has been received and the letter states that Mr. Wilson has no objection to the extension of the radius in front of his property line as extended and as shown on the Chi Chi 's drawing currently under review by the Planning Commission. Mr. Zimmer: Have we received Fire and Police Department reports? Mr. Nagy: We have sent them copies of the plan and have received no adverse com- ments from them. Mr. Zimmer: Have you received a reply? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Zimmer: Does the stamp on the plan by the Highway Department mean that the drive is okay? ,1: Mr. Nagy: Yes. We also have the revised plans requested by the Commission at the study meeting. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are the Police and Fire Departments going to respond down the road? Mr. Nagy: I have a feeling they are under-manned at the present time. They received adequate notice on this as is always our practice. Mrs. Sobolewski : Do we need any additional site plans or are these adequate? Mr. Nagy: W?th the exception of the site landscaping, these are adequate. Mr. Zimmer: I am troubled with using service drives for commercial activities. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer , Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #2-27-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 15, 1983 on Petition 83-1-2-1 by Thomas Guastello for Chi Chi 's requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, tha City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to 1[ 1, the City Council that Petition 83-1-2-1 be approved subject to the following conditions: • • 7867 (1) that Site Plan dated 2/23/83, prepared by Hamill-McKinney, IL Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscape Plan dated 2/23/83, prepared by Hamill- McKinney, Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscape materials installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; (3) that Floor Plan revised date 12/30/82, prepared by Hamill- McKinney, Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the Building Elevations marked Sheet A-1 , dated 12/30/82, prepared by Hamill-McKinney, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (5) that Site Plan and Parking Lot Lighting Detail Plan dated 2/23/83, prepared by Hamill-McKinney, Architects & Engineers, as modified by Zoning Board of Appeals Case No. 8302-18, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to for the following reasons: (I) The proposed site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use since the site is of sufficient size to handle on-site activities normally associated : ith restaurant use. • 3 (2) The proposal complies with all special and general requirements 1[0 of Section 11 .03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The site is located adjacent to two major thoroughfares which are designed to handle large volumes of traffic. (4) The proposal for the location of the restaurant will be compatible to and in harmony with the existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area. FURTHER reso'ved that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-1-2-2 by Thomas Guastello for Chi Chi 's requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in a restaurant proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. ILThomas Guastello, petitioner, was present. Th ,-e was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-1-2-2 closed. 7868 ' On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was IL #2-28-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 15, 1989 on Petition 83-1-2-2 by Thomas Guastello for Chi Chi 's requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-1-2-2 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan dated 2/23/83, prepared by Hamill-McKinney, Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscape Plan dated 2/23/83, prepared by Hamill- McKinney, Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscape materials installed on ' the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; (3) that Floor Plan revised dated 12/30/82, prepared by Hamill- McKinney, Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the Building Elevations marked Sheet A-1 , dated 12/30/82, prepared by Hamill-McKinney, Architects & Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (5) that Site Plan and Parking Lot Lighting Detail Plan dated 2/23/83, prepared by Hamill-McKinney, Architects & Engineers, as modified by Zoning Board of Appeals Case No. 8302-18, which IL is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for Lhe following reasons: (1) The proposed site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use since the site is of sufficient size to handle on-site activities normally associated with Class C Liquor License usage associated with restaurant use. (2) The proposal complies with all special and general requirements of Section 11 .03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (3) The site is located adjacentto two major thoroughfares which are designed to handle large volumes of traffic. • (4) The proposal for the location of the Class C Liquor License usage will be compatible to and in harmony with the existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area. (5) There are nc existing Class C Liquor Licensed establishments in close proximity to this proposed location. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. IL a + . • 7869 Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 16: Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-12-7-6 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinaice #543 to amend the Future Land Use Plan by changing the designa- tion of property located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from High Density Residential to General Commercial . There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 82-12-7-6 closed. C;i a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #2-29-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a PUblic Hearing having been held on February 15, 1983 on Petition 82-12-7-6 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend the Future Land Use Plan by changing the designation of property located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from High Density Residential to General Commercial , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-12-7-6 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The land area involved is not of sufficient size and shape to attract a feasible project for high density housing. (2) The most logical future use of the subject area is for general IL commerc ,al purposes in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #2-30-83 RESOLVED that the minutes of the• 448th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on February 1 , 1983 are approved. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, decalred the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unaniously adopted, it was #2-31-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council Petition "?-2-3-2 by Kapila & Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-family complex on property located or; the north side of Five Mile Road between Cavour and Garden in Section 13 be 7870 approved subject to the following conditions: 1: (1) that Site Plan 8208, Sheet 1 , dated 1/28/83, prepared by Kapila & Associates and revised to comply with the recommendations of the Wayne County Road Commission, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Eevations as shown on Drawing 8208, Sheets 5 and 6, prepared by Kapila & Associates, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landacape Plan 8208, Sheet L-1 , prepared by Kapila & Assoc- iates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed on the site prior to apartment unit occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (5) that any outside trash storage units shall be screened with an enclosure having three sides and a gate. Mr . Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 449th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 15, 1983 was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. IL . . CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Q� ice'../ / ce'. // ./ - iZ� .I.C�/ �j%'se j. FJ�', Sec re t7y ATTEST: _;,•,-,--; �� � - y_:��—�� J me Zimmer, Vicirman ac