Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1983-06-21 7955 Ir MINUTES OF THE 457th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 21 , 1983, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 457th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the auditorium of the City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8: 10 p.m. , with approx- imately 70 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Donald Vyhnalek Lee R. Morrow Joseph J. Falk Sue Sobolewski Judith Scurto Donna Naidow Members absent: *Herman Kluver Jerry Zimmer Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of rezoning, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council which, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the petition is denied by the Planning Commission, 110 the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision. Otherwise the petition is terminated. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 83-4-1-12 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Greenland and Puritan Avenue in Section 14, from RUF. to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the City Engineering Division which states that there are no City maintained storm sewers available to service parking areas that may be connected with P.S. zoning requirements . That is the extent of our corres- pondence. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-4-1-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #6-117-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-4-1-12 by the City Planning Com- mission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Greenland and Puritan Avenues in Section 14, from RUF lip, to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 83-4-1-12 for further information. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7956 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-5-1-13 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 , from P to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that that office has no objections to this proposal . Ward Harriman, 19075 Middlebelt Road, Livonia: I have a business at 19075 Middlebelt. I represent the owner and manage this property. We have a recorded license to use twenty spaces along the east side of the Mid-7 lot which we were granted in 1961 . Now the owner has decided to put up a stockade fence. He told us we could use other spaces for parking. If this is granted for a use other than parking, we may not be able to use it. The Zoning Ordinance states there must be parking within 300 feet and because of the fence there would not be. Mr. Andrew: Is it a license in perpetuity? Mr. Harriman: Yes, I have a copy of the license with me and letters from the tenants of the building indicating this would put a lot of pressure on them. ILMr. Andrew: Was the City of Livonia a party to the license? Mr. Harriman: No. Mr. Andrew: The primary purpose of this rezoning is to accommodate a build- ing expansion which would, in effect, close the gap between the two buildings. The mere fact that we rezone the back of the land should not, in the opinion of the Chair, affect the parking situation. He could not build a .building on the back of the site until he has site plan approval from the City Planning Com- mission and City Council . I think we have a situation where a new landlord has come in and erected a fence, possibly in violation of a license, but this is a private matter between you and the grant title holder and a remedy should probably be sought at law as opposed to this Commission or City Council . I would be happy to listen to your arguments as to why we should not rezone this to C-2. Mr. Harriman: That would be that the City should either allow the building or not allow the building but we have permission to use the area and once it is zoned to C-2 we will not be able to use it for parking. Mr. Vyhnalek; They have not indicated that they intend to build into the parking lot. to Mr. Harriman: What is to say that in the future they wouldn't build? Mr. Vyhnalek: The City Ordinance. We are not necessarily going to let them build. • 7957 ILMr. Harriman: But once it is rezoned, we do not have the proper zoning for parking. Mr. Andrew: The license could be enforced by a court of law. Mr. Nagy, if we change the zoning between the two structures, that would allow the petitioner to build what he wants to build? Mr. Nagy: Yes. • Mr. Morrow: I would like to get some feed-back from the owner. Have you approached them? Mr. Harriman: Yes, I have. Basically, when the fence was first put up, we thought they didn't know about the license. We tried to contact them and they said they would look into the matter. Then they said they didn't want to deal with the matter and now we have attorneys talking about the use of the twenty spaces we have been using since 1961 . Plus now I have a semi trailer parked right up to the fence. They obviously don't want to make it easy for us. And, the other businesses along there have been affected by this. Mr. Morrow: I would agree with denying in part and approving in part. Mrs. Scurto: Do you also represent the other people in the center? IL Mr. Harriman: I only represent the medical building. I talked to the people in the barber shop building who are not affected because they have their own parking area. Mrs. Scurto: $o you are representing a building that has two doctors and two dentists . Mr. Harriman: Yes , and myself. There is a big truck parked there which was moved to block a section of the fence that had fallen out. Mrs. Scurto: So now you have to walk around the fence or go all the way past the other buildings. I would have no problem with approving in part. Mr. Nagy: We had no knowledge of his reliance on this property for parking. We maintain property records if they are filed with us and if at any time there is a change in the property, in computing the park- ing we would automatically take that into consideration. Regard- ing the Commission's concern for approving in part and denying in part, I would only say that this is your petition and the petition could be amended to approve only the portion that you want to approve. The trailer storage is clearly in violation of the City Ordinances and we will send an inspector out to look at it. Mr. Harriman: The truck blocks the part of the wood stockade fence that have tr, fallen out from kids jumping over it. The fence is really deteriorated. 7958 116, There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-5-1-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #6-118-83 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-1-13 by the City Planning Com- mission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 , from P to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 83-5-1-13 until the Study Meeting of June 28, 1983. 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 83-5-1-14 by Giuliano Soave to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, from RUFB to P.S. and R-3 to R-6. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated 5/24/83 which notes that both Gill Road and Seven Mile Road have not been dedication to the fullest extent in accordance with the Master Thoroughfare Plan and should development materialize the improvement of Gill Road as a 34' wide pavement should be con- sidered. In addition, it states that it will be necessary to en- close the Beitz Drain with an approximate 66" diameter pipe. Mr. Paul Schelp, Architect, was present representing the petitioner. Mr. Schelp: I am an Architect and have offices in Howell , Michigan. Mr. Soave wishes to be granted a postponement in order to make a separate presentation to all interested people. It has come to his notice that there is a bit of a negative petition circulating and he wishes to invite all persons by mail to meet. I was not instructed to divulge what we have planned. Mr. Andrew: This represents a problem because this is the only public hearing required by law and for him to do this at another moment in time makes it extremely difficult for the City to be a part of that proceedings and to really have the input of your client and the people who are here in regard to this petition. The purpose of the public hearing is to give homeowners an opportunity to speak on the petition. We will have the public hearing because it is required by law and at the end we will either table, approve or deny the petition. to Mr. Schelp: The project is in two parts . Part of the area will be made into two professional buildings. The remaining portion of the 1 ,260 foot depth would be developed into sixteen duplex units of 3,000 square feet each with separate roads with access off Gill as well as joining to the P.S. District through to Seven Mile Road. The whole project involves sixteen duplex buildings of the same calibre and design as the Bicentennial Subdivision to the west. With landscaping, street development and utilities, we are talking 7959 $3 million. We are not going to spread into a separate set of financing. It will be handled by one financing group. I , myself, will design the duplexes so they will look like separate buildings joined together. They will have style and will convey the develop- ment of the Bicentennial area. The office building, a minimum of 20,000 square feet, would be another $2 million plus landscaping of $200,000. You can see the calibre of the proposed buildings is high. We are hoping it can be worked together in a period of years. Mrs. Scurto: Do you foresee these as individually owned? Mr. Schelp: Yes, the owner would buy the two parts and then rent out. But we would control always the people that come in. Mrs. Scurto: Have you done anything of this nature anywhere else? Mr. Schelp: Not with duplexes but with fourplexes. Mrs. Scurto: I think you have hurt your case by not having a presentation or pictures. Mr. Schelp: I was only informed this morning of this procedure. Mr. Andrew: The Future Land Use Plan indicates that this property should be developed low density residential . Why should we allow you to build contrary to the Land Use Plan. Mr. Schelp: There is a tendency along the entire Seven Mile Road to the east to change zoning. The other parties on the east side of Gill Road have indicated such interests. Mr. Andrew: Did they tell you they were denied a similar request? We want to stop the spread of commercial zoning. I don't think you will find the Commission receptive to encouraging this type of development along Seven Mile. Mr. Schelp: This type of building would be for doctors and professional people. The buildings would not be detrimentarto a residential character. Mr. Andrew: I think you have to be concerned as an architect that we will in- crease the traffic flow and the traffic problem at Seven Mile and Gill Road which creates a negative impact on residential values. Mr. Morrow: You have tried to impart to us the amount of dollars you intent to spend on this development but we could not make your grandiose plan part of this rezoning and once it is rezoned, anything could be developed. Mr. Vyhnalek: I don't think it will fly. We made a commitment with P.S. on Seven Mile with Greenmead and we said that was it. I could not vote for lithis. Mr. Falk: I cannot support this either. The people who moved in there were told they would be living in R-3 residential . You will not find people to support this type of development. I would like to see some beautiful single family homes. 7960 Mr. Schelp: That is a very difficult piece of land to develop for single family homes . Mr. Morrow: Were you aware of the comments made by the Engineering Division? Mr. Schelp: Yes, those matters were discussed. Patrick Allen, 19855 Southampton: We have collected 172 signatures of residents who are opposed to the proposed rezoning for much the same reasons that you have said -- traffic, depreciation, etc. Mr. Andrew: If you will submit your petition to the staff it will be made a part of the record of these procedings. Mr. Allen submitted the petition to the Planning Department staff. Michael Wilmot, 18966 Southampton: Several years ago there was a similar petition and I was opposed then and will always be opposed to development along Seven Mile Road. We don't want P.S. in the area or commercial or apartments, condos or anything else. Michael Koch, 18944 Southampton: I agree with everything that has been said about this and I would like to sign that petition. Mrs. Flint, 20256 Pollyanna: I agree with what has been said and approve what you people on the Board have said. Mrs. Cecylia Matecki , 19645 Gill : It is beautiful here and we enjoy our subdivision. I am opposed to this petition. We thank you again; we like Livonia, it is a beautiful place. Mrs. Buchanan, 34302 Fonville: I agree with everyone here. We continue to pay high taxes because we appreciate our homes . John R. Sarcona, 18788 Gill : I agree and am opposed. Gregory Kremer, 34748 Haldane: It would be a shame to have to drive through professional buildings and duplexes in order to get home. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-5-1-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #6-119-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-1-14 by Giuliano Soave to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, from RUFB to P.S. and R-3 to R-6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-5-1-14 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, which plan calls for low density residential land uses. • 7961 116, (2) The proposed change of zoning and uses that would be permitted would be detrimentalto and not in harmony with the surrounding and established uses of the area which are all low density single family residential . (3) The proposed change of zoning to the higher intensity land uses represented by this petition would only lead to and encourage similar types of zoning changes in the adjoining area which would be detrimental to and contrary to the Future Land Use Plan of the' City of Livonia. (4) With the proposed change of zoning, the uses that would be thereby permitted would increase traffic in the adjoining area which traffic would be detrimental to and in conflict with the normal traffic patterns of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543. 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 83-5-1-15 by Howard and Marjorie Anderson to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Weyher and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest IL1/4 of Section 1 , from RUF to P.S. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicating that they have no objection to this change in zoning. Howard Anderson, 41923 Banbury, Northville: I want to pur an insurance office in here. I am presently 1-1/2 blocks down the street. I have been an insurance agent in the area for two years. I would like to put a nice building up there that would help the area and pick up the area. The homes around there don't look too good. Mr. Andrew: How long have you owned the property? • Mr. Anderson: I just bought it this year; it is free and clear. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, what is the established front yard on Weyher? Mr. Nagy: In the RUF District, there is a 50' setback but I don't think the exist- ing homes comply with that. In the P.S. District, the front yard set- back on Seven Mile would be 40' . The yard constraints almost render the property unbuildable. Lawrence Swan, 19135 Weyher: I have lived there for twenty-five years. Nobody has ever lived on this property and it has been a problem for anybody who ever bought it . I would like to see a greenbelt instead of a cement wall to A nice, small office would be beautiful there on that corner. I am 100% in favor of this petition. Resident: I would like to know the size of the lot. Mr. Andrew: The lot size is 60 ' x 145' . Mr. Vynalek to resident: Are you opposed to this? 7962 ILResident: No, as long as the lot is big enough to build on. Discussion was held by the Commission and petitioner regarding the buildable area of the lot after consideration is given to the required side yard requirements and his options were explained by the Commission including requesting variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mrs. Sobolewski : Do you have a site plan for developing this lot. Mr. Anderson: No, but I have tried to do some checking. It doesn't have to be that wide a building. Mr. Andrew: Why don 't you meet with the staff and decide if you want to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We could rezone the property but it wouldn't do any good. The Chair declares the public hearing on Petition 83-5-1-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-120-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-1-15 by Howard and Marjorie Anderson to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Weyher and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 , from RUF to P.S., lithe City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 83-5-1-15 for further study. IL, 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 83-6-2-20 by Edwin L. Laupmanis requesting waiver use approval to construct a funeral home on the west side of Wayne Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that Joy Road is not dedicated to its fullest extent. Mr. Shane explained the proposed site plan to the members of the Commission and audience. Mr. Andrew: Are there any deficiencies in the plan? Mr. Shane: No. Bradley Schelske, 8854 Roslyn: I am on Lot 29. Where is the entrance and how will this look from my property? Mr. Andrew: The Ordinance will require that he construct a wall along the property line. Do you have any questions at all on this site plan? 1[00 Mr. Schelske: No, I am not really concerned. Funeral homes usually are nice looking. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-2-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was 7963 1:0, #6-121-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-20 by Edwin L. Laupmanis requesting waiver use approval to construct a funeral home on the west side of Wayne Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-20 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan dated 6/21/83, prepared by Laupmanis Associates, P.C. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution; (3) that the requirement contained in Section 9.06(j) of the Zoning Ordinance that a minimum of 15% of the lot or parcel , exclusive of public right-of-way as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, be landscaped, shall be waived by the City Council . (4) that the Building Elevation Plan dated 6/2/83, prepared by Laupmanis Associates, P.C. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (5) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the build- ing shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit; for the following reasons: (1 ) The proposed use will be in harmony with and compatible to the surrounding uses in the area. (2) The subject site is served by two major thoroughfares capable of handling the added traffic generated by the proposed use. (3) The location and size of the proposed use and its nature and intensity are such that there will be limited negative effects on adjacent residential uses. (4) The general waiver use standards of the Zoning Ordinance con- tained in Section 19.06 regarding size, character, traffic, off-street parking and location and nature of buildings are being complied with. FURTHER RESOLVED that , notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 116, 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 83-6-2-21 by Gary Greenberg Associates requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Levan Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29. • 7964 1:10, Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no engineering problems in connection with this petition. Cary Greenberg, 29260 Franklin Road, Suite 119, Southfield, petitioner: We would like to take an existing restaurant of 56 seats and expand the restaurant for an additional 24 seats. The approach we are going to take is to try to procure a five year lease. We looked at the Shell Gas Station parking spaces and the amount of seats we want to expand and cut back to 24, making it 78 and requiring 39 spaces. We have 41 spaces on the site and will get seven from the Shell Station. Mr. Andrew: Your original site plan called for 30 additional seats; now you are down to 24. *Mr. Kluver entered the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Mr. Andrew: Do you have a lease drawn for leasing the spaces from Shell ? Mr. Greenberg: No, but that can be easily done. We do have this letter. Mr. Andrew: Is Mr. Share willing to give you a lease for parking spaces? Mr. Bob Silverman, 36480 Plymouth Road: Yes. Mr. Share told me to go ahead and bring this proposal to you. IL Mr. Andrew: The point is that we cannot approve an addition because you are in violation of the parking ordinance. You can show us a lease for the parking spaces you need or you can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a waiver. Mr. Falk: I thought we had an understanding of what a lease was and we don't have it. I believe we want to get away from people expanding their buildings based on parking their customers or employee's cars on someone else's land. We should table this petition until we get something legal . This is not a lease and I agree we can't act on this. Mrs. Naidow: Are youremployees or customers parking there now? Mr. Silverman: Yes, they are parking there now. I have never had a problem with the employees parking there but I agree I could have problems with customers. But, I took over a building that was of no use to the City and I think this will enhance the building. Twenty-four more seats will make it a more comfortable restaurant . Mrs. Scurto: Is the landscaping up to what we expected when the building was built? Mr. Nagy: The building predates our 15% requirement. There was no one else present wishing to heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-2-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was • 7965 #6-122-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on 1: June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-21 by Cary Greenberg Associates requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Levan Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 83-6-2-21 until the Study Meeting of June 28, 1983 at which time the petitioner is requested to present a lease confirming the use of parking spaces located on the Shell Station site. - A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES; Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Zimmer 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 83-6-2-22 by Mohamed Sayed requesting waiver use approval to utilize and SDD License within a party store proposed to be constructed on the west side of Middlebelt between Schoolcraft and Bentley in Section 23. IL Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that the front property line information shown on the petitioner's plan should be corrected to agree with record lot lines and a deed received from Bob Evans to accommodate a sidewalk transition along Middlebelt Road. It indicates there appear to be no other engineering problems connected with the proposal . John Carney, Attorney, 18518 Farmington Road: I am the attorney for the petitioner. Last week reports were made about certain promises made by Bob Evans. I have Mr. Cueter here who handled the rezoning of that property. You will notice that the site as proposed by the petitioner has 60' available at the rear to abut the residential development to the rear. There are some technical difficulties with the plan regarding the sidewalk but is no problem to the petitioner. George Cueter, 19802 Mack, Grosse Pointe Woods: I was asked to address the Planning Commission on items pertinent to the management of Bob Evans. When they came in with their waiver of use for Bob Evans, there was a question by the members of the Commission as to what we were going to do with the surplus property. We have 49 seats and more than adequate parking; more than required by Ordinance. Bob Evans feels they have no use for the additional property. Some time ago they erected a for sale sign. Over the months , they have had several calls but none which they felt would be a good use. This man sub- mitted an offer to Bob Evans and they accepted it; that is, if this IL Commission granted the waiver use. They wanted to reserve the right to make sure the site plan is compatible to their restaurant. Bob Evans did agree to enter into a contract that they will sell the 63' to the adjoining property owners. That contract is contingent upon the approval of this petition being presented to you tonight. Mr. Andrew: Thank you. I have a copy of the minutes from September 1 , 1981 in 7966 which Mr. Warehime made the statement that the only way he would develop into a parking lot would be in the event that the business would be so successful and there was a continued parking problem; that there was adequate parking space and the price of the lots would prohibit development of a parking lot and that eventually this property would be sold. What happens if the City approves the site plan and Bob Evans doesn't approve the site plan? Mr. Cueter: They want to sell• the property but the development plan has to be acceptable. Mr. Andrew: What if we get Bob Evans ' approval first. Mr. Cueter: We haven 't got a problem with that. I think they will be more restrictive than you are. We have the last work; Bob Evans has to approve the site plan. Mr. Andrew: What happens if we can't get together -- an impasse as to what con- stitutes an acceptable site plan? Mr. Cueter: If you approve and Bob Evans rejects it, what happens? Would they litigate you? We don't think they are that kine of company that would take that position. They have no problem with your decisions. Mr. Andrew: I guess I am not anxious to put the City in the position of approving a site plan and then Bob Evans revises it and then you come back to us. What happens then? Mr. Nagy: I think Bob Evans should approve it first. Mr. Carney: We don't have a problem with that. There isn't a party store there now. There are a limited number of licenses in Livonia, I realize. There is going to be five to six hundred thousant spent on the build- ing. There are no SDM or SDD's near there. I don't know the economics of the situation. As an entrepreneur, we would like to put a party store there and if it meets all other criteria, I dont see why not. Mr. Andrew: What happens if he can only get an SDM? Would he continue with the project? Mr. Carney: If he doesn't get an SDD, my client says it wouldn't be a profitable, viable proposition. Mr. Andrew: How near are other licenses? Mr. Nagy: Almost a mile away. Mr. Vyhnalek: What about Saturdays and Sundays regarding the parking situation when you can't find a parking place? I Mr. Cueter: According to Bob Evans ' management, the times you are talking about are very short lived. Bruce Covert, 14010 Beatrice: On Sunday mornings people park on Beatrice. Part of the granting of the waiver to Bob Evans and part of their public relations they were to close early in the evening which they do. A liquor store would be open until one or two in the morning. There are more than 7967 1:, enough liquor stores in the area now. The only ones I can see him serving are the people from the race track. We don't need that. In the afternoon, that intersection is impossible now at 3, 4 or 5 o'clock. If we can get a business or professional to locate on Middlebelt, we would be in harmony with them seeking a waiver. Carol Farrell , 14060 Beatrice: At the time of the Bob Evans public hearing, Bob Evans told us that if they sold that property they would only sell it for professional . I object to the liquor store. I have a child and we have trouble with, people trespassing on our property now going to Bob Evans -- breaking fences and all . Mr. Andrew: Did you ever attend a private meeting with perhaps your civic assoc- iation or residents and the Bob Evans people? Mrs. Farrell : No, we talked out here in the auditorium after the hearing and that is when they gave us this assurance. Mrs. Scurto: Are there other detrimental effects of the development as it is now on your neighborhood. Mrs. Farrell : Yes, they use Beatrice all the time for parking cars. Mrs. Scurto: But there is no other effects such as smell? Mrs. Ferrell :IL Yes, there is, but I haven't found it that offensive. Gerald Showiak, 14132 Beatrice: We get the light glare from Bob Evans and find that offensive. I am opposed to this petition for the reasons stated: Liquor stores are also subject to armed robbery. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, how many SDD Licenses are there within the 4 square mile area? Mr. Nagy; Five. Robert Ewald, 13962 Beatrice: I have no objection to having this party store behind us. We have been given the option of purchasing this property for a buffer zone. I have seen their store on Seven•Mile and Farmington and it is a beautiful store. I have no objection as the neighbor directly behind the lot. I am sure a proper wall will be built. Donald Croskey, 13974 Beatrice: I don't object to this either. I would like to have that 63' as a buffer zone as long as the wall is put up properly. Mr. Andrew: What does your option say? Mr. Cueter: It is subject to approval of the site plan by Bob Evans. Mr. Andrew: Will you explain when is the option to purchase effective. LMr. Cueter: Mainly, if you approve the plan and it is approved by Bob Evans, then they will sell the 63' to the neighbors; not until then. Mr. Morrow: I think an SOD use here will only increase the traffic. Chi Chi 's across the street will probably be equally as successful as Bob Evans 7968 1rThe hospital will cause people to be going in and out. Party store 160 with people coming in and out means more of that. In all good con- science, I cannot go along with this. Mr. Cueter; Party stores are limited as to their hours. They are compelled to stop selling at 11 :00 p.m. Any kid of business will be a traffic generator. Mr. Andrew: Party stores will, generate more traffic than other businesses . I think Bob Evans will have to expand their parking because people are parking on Beatrice. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing closed on Petition 83-6-2-22. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-123-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-22 by Mohamed Sayed requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within a party store proposed to be constructed on the west side of Middlebelt between Schoolcraft and Bentley in Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-22 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over-saturage an area with similar type uses as is being pro- posed by this petition. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 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 83-6-2-23 by Mohamed Sayed requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License within a party store proposed to be constructed on the west side of Middlebelt between Schoolcraft and Bentley in Section 23. I[w Mr. Andrew: The Chair requests that relative to this petition the same comments be indicated in the minutes as were made with regard to Petition 83-6-2-22. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was • 7969 1:00 #6-124-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-23 by Mohamed Sayed requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License within a party store proposed to be constructed on the west side of Middlebelt between Schoolcraft and Bentley in Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-23 be denied for the following reasons: (1 ) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over-saturate an area with similar type uses as is being pro- posed by this petition. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ILadopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced thenext item on the agenda is Petition 83-4-3-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #273-83 to vacate an alley located north of Plymouth Road between Arcola and Inkster in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from the Engineering Division in the file indicating that an easement for public utilities should be retained the full width of the alley; a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the vacating; and a letter from The Printery signed by Bruce and Toni Mette requesting that a favorable recommendation be sent by the Planning Commission to the City Council . Mr. Funk, 27434 Plymouth Road: I am the owner of Lots 45, 46 and 47 and if this alley is vacated, I would have no access to the building. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-4-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-125-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-4-3-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #273-83 to vacate an alley located north of Plymouth Road between Arcola and Inkster in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recom- mend to the City Council that Petition 83-4-3-1 be denied for the following reasons : (1 ) The subject alley is needed for public access to the several abutting properties . (2) Vacating the subject alley would not guarantee unobstructed public use of the right-of-way. 7970 (3) Public right-of-way should be vacated only when it can be demonstrated that it is no longer needed to serve public purpose. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance #50 of the City of Livonia. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Zimmer 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 83-5-3-2 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to vacate the west one-half of Cavour Avenue, north of Lancaster Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that a full width easement should be retained over the area to be vacated due to the locations of public utilities within this public right-of-way. There is also a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no objections to the vacating providing any existing Detroit IL Edison plant rights are retained. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-5-3-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow and seconded by Mrs . Scurto, it was #6-126-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-3-2 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to vacate the west one-half of Cavour Avenue, north of Lancaster Drive in the South- west 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-5-3-2 be approved subject to the retention of a full-width easement, for the follow- ing reasons: (1) The subject street right-of-way is not needed for any puboic purpose. (2) The right-of-way area could be more advantageously utilized in conjunction with the adjacent commercial property. (3) No City department or public utility has objected. FURTHER RESOLVED that , notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance #50 of the City of Livonia. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 7971 ' 1:, AYES: Kluver, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: Zimmer 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 83-5-6-3 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 11 .03(q) of Ordinance #543 so as to revise the regulations concerning enclosed theatres in C-2 Zoning Districts. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file dated June 6, 1983 from Jeanne M. Hildebrandt, Manager of the Livonia Mall Shopping Center, requesting approval of this amendment to allow them to divide their theatre and increase the seating capacity to a total of 1 ,437 seats. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-5-6-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #6-127-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on ILJune 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-6-3 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to amend Section 11 .03(q) of Ordinance #543 so as to revise the regulations concerning enclosed theatres in C-2 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-5-6-3 be approved for the following reason: (1) The proposed amendment will provide clear and specific standards which are more in keeping with national trends of theatre development and usage. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions on Section 19:05 of Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski , it was #6-128-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 24, 1983 on Petition 83-4-2-17 by Robert D. Prater requesting waiver use approval to operate a fast oil change and lube center on the southeast corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the North- west 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby tw recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-4-2-17 be approved subject to the following conditions : (1 ) that Site Plan dated 6/21/83, prepared by Speedy Oil Change, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan which is hereby approved shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certif- i,.h*o „f (lrr,inanry and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy • 7972 . I:, . (3) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance PERMIT: for the following reasons: (1 ) The standards and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance have been complied with. . (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use will be compatible to and 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSTAIN: Kluver ILABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was #6-129-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Ordinance #50 of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to vacate an easement located on the north side of Schoolcraft Service Drive, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. • FURTHER RESOLVED that notice shall be given in accordance with theprovisions of Ordinance #50 of the City of Livonia, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES; Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver, Sobolewski ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ILOn a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-130-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request by Michael Gresock, Manager of Customer Services for the U. S. Post Office, to install cluster mail boxes in the Hidden Pines Subdivision located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, subject to the following conditions: • 7973 (1) that the petitioner obtain a permit to perform work in the public right-of-way from the Division of Engineering; (2) that the clusters are located and constructed as represented including the installation of the wooden-roofed structure; and (3) that a cement pad surface be installed as represented by the petitioner's drawing dated 6/10/83. • A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was #6-131-83 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 344th Special Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 24, 1983 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Scurto ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-132-83 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 456th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 7, 1983 are approved . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it was #6-133-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby elect to serve a one-year term beginning July 1 , 1983 the following officers: Chairman - Daniel R. Andrew Vice Chairman - Jerome Zimmer Secretary - Joseph J. Falk IL Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7974 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, 1:, it was #6-134-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 83-6-8-16P by Robert Ciemiega requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to expand an existing clinic located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Sunset in Section 11 , subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 82.00, Sheet Z-1 , as prepared by Erwin Hartge, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevations as shown on Plan 82.00, Sheet Z-1 , prepared by Erwin Hartge, Architect, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the landscaping as shown on Plan 82.00, Sheet Z-1 , which is hereby approved shall be installed on the site before occupancy is granted for the additiona and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 457th Regular Meeting (V and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 21 , 1983 was adjourned at 11 : 10 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4‘,/,a.... .se•.' J. k, Secretary. ATTEST: // d,,,,..r . Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman ac