Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1986-04-15 9599 • • MINUTES OF THE 514th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 15, 1986, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 514th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 70 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver Jeanne Hildebrandt Donna J. Naidow Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski C. Russ Smith Michael Soranno Michael Duggan Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a re- o aning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, h turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition hvolves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten ys in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is rminated. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-1-7 by Veterans of Foreign Wars to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from R-9II to P. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition. George Bisel, Member of the VFW and representing the petitioner. All of our property is used either for the Post home or parking except this portion which is unusable for any purpose. We would like to expand to make space available for the members but we first have to provide parking area. Mr. Morrow: Does the Post currently own the property? Mr. Bisel: Yes. Milton Lebanbaum, 4724 Terra Court, West Bloomfield: I recently purchased the apart- ments where the present R-9 is. Unless the Planner corrects me, there would have to be a wall all around the property plus high parking lights. Most of the people living here are elderly and are satisfied there because of the convenient shopping in the area. To inject into the area a piece of parking I think is ridiculous. 9600 • • • There should be some sort of set-off between the residential and com- mercial. I just think it is bad planning and I think the noise and lights at night will be a bother to the people. What is permitted in parking? Mr. Nagy: Just parking, no structures. Mr. Lebanbaum: But they can put in lights? Mr. Nagy: You can put in other services to support the parking but all would be regulated by approval of a site plan. Mr. Lebanbaum: Can you regulate the coming and going? Mr. Nagy: No, just lights, signage, and other supporting services. Mr. Morrow: There would be a masonry wall required on the property line. Mr. Lebanbaum: The building is two stories so they will be looking right over the top of the wall. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long has this project been there? Mr. Lebanbaum: Since about 1961. Vyhnalek: Have you ever tried to buy this property? Lebanbaum: No. r. Soranno: I am curious about the light situation and exisitng parking. Does that cause a problem now? Mr. Lebanbaum: All the lighting now is directed on the pavement but with the expansion, it will have to be higher. Mr. Morrow: We do have control of heights and the types of lights. Ernest Jones, Sr. Vice Commander of the VFW: We just bought this property about three years ago after it had been up for sale for some time. All the lighting will be as they are right now, shining down into the park- ing lot. There is parking all around there now and most of the places in the area are open a lot later than we are. We will not interfere with the homes there. The people who live there use that space to go to Chatham's or Livonia Mall. Mrs. Sobolewski: How close would you say the nearest home is to where the wall would be erected around the place? Mr. Jones: Well, there is a swimming pool and a little west of that would be the apartments and they face south. lip'r. Morrow: Has the Post ever received any complaints from the residents in the immediate area for any reason: 9601 r. Jones: Never. r. Smith: Do any apartments face the Post? r. Jones: Yes, two. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you own the property south of Burger King? Mr. Jones: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: What will it be used for? Mr. Jones: Parking. Mr. Vyhnalek: It is nothing right now? Mr. Jones: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: The part south of Burger King -- will you eventually ask for parking for that? Mr. Nagy: It is already zoned for parking. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, hairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-1-7 closed. n a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was 4-82-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10, 1986 on Petition 86-2-1-7 by Veterans of Foreign Wars to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from R-9II to P, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petitioon 86-2-1-7 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would eliminate spot zoning in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would provide an opportunity to use the subject property in conjunction with the petitioner's adjacent property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Sobolewski, Duggan, Smith, Kluver, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: Vyhnalek 7. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 9602 10 adopted. 1rs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-1-9 by G. Cohen/J. Gilette/J. Friedman to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Bentley in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF to R-9. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states they have no objection to this proposal. Mr. Gilette, petitioner: We propose a single-story retirement facility. Efficiency and one bedroom apartments. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any other projects in Livonia? Mr. Gilette: I brought along some brochures of our other facilities for you to see what we have done in the past. One is in Livonia and one is in Farmington Hills. The one in Livonia is on Farmington Road at Plymouth Road behind Big Boy. This type of service is for senior citizens who are in need of one to two meals a day. We have housekeeping services, laundry, recreation and cultural pro- grams and transportation for shopping by van. Mr. Duggan: This is the property that the Blue house sits on. Have you been working with the Historical people on that? I have talked to them about it and I have agreed to assist them in the moving of the house. fir. Gilette: r. Vyhnalek: It will be a duplicate of the one on Farmington Road? Mr. Gilette: No, this is a two-story structure with seventy-five units in Phase I. They will be single rooms with kitchenettes. There is a demand for one bedroom apartments. We are trying to meet that demand by keep- rents in line at $1100 with fourteen meals. Mr. Morrow: What is the occupancy rate? Mr. Gilette: 100%. We have a waiting list. Mr. Sobolewski: Do you expect to utilize the entire seven acres for the project? Mr. Gilette: No. Mr. Stein, Architect: I was the Architect for the previous projects and I am the Architect for this. Mr. Stein explained the proposed site plan to the Commission and audience.Irs. Sobolewski: Will there be one or two exits on Middlebelt? r. Stein: One exist off Middlebelt. Obert Dennis, 14200 Beatrice: I live right back of the proposed site. Are they 9603 going to build a brick wall on the rear of my property? How close can they build to my property? tor. Nagy: No, the building itself will be brick but not a wall. They can't come loser than fifty feet to the property line. Mr. Stein: We will have about eighty-five to ninety feet between the property line. Bill Walker, 29525 Bentley: When you say fifty feet, do you mean the building? I am concerned about the employee traffic in and out of the parking lot. Mr. Nagy: No, the parking lot. Mr. Gilette: We will run the building with approximately three people after 6:00 p.m. We have a live-in night manager. After 8:00 p.m. , the residents are in and families are gone and there isn't a lot of traffic then until 8:00 a.m. Mr. Walker: I would prefer a greenbelt to a wall. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-1-9 closed. m a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, t was 4-83-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10, 1986 on Petition 86-2-1-9 by G. Cohen/J. Gilette/J. Friedman to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Bentley in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF to R-9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-1-9 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for elderly housing which is needed in the community. (2) The subject property is located in an area which will provide the facilities necessary to serve an elderly housing development permitted by the proposed zoning districit. (3) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mrs. Hildebrandt was excused from the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 10-s. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-1-10 by the Livonia Mall to rezone property located south of St. Martins between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA & P to P & C-2. 9604 yrs. Hildebrandt, Manager of Livonia Mall: We would like to expand with twenty stores. To do so, we wouldn t meet the required parking and we need the northwest corner rezoned to parking. We have two architects with us and I would like to turn it over to them. Mr. Morrow: You are the current owners of the property? Mrs. Hildebrandt: The developers are the owners of the property. Ken Nisch, Architect, Jon Greenberg & Associates: We are adding 126,000 square feet to the Mall facility, 70,000 square feet will be a major store. The balance will be for small, retail stores. We need to add about 500 parking spots. The addition will be compatible to the rest of the Shopping Center. We will have fifteen to twenty feet in land- scape berming, four to five feet high. The parking lot is about five feet lower than the store. We expect to start construction late in the summer or early in the fall. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the total square footage of the Mall? Mr. Nisch: 898,000 square feet total gross area. From the meeting with the residents, I think they would like there to be no noise and they would like landscaping. We should be able to satisfy that. We are going to control the traffic by curb cuts. It goes back to every- body likes it but nobody likes it in their backyards. The Mall has increased its security. The senior citizens were concerned about that. Leila Slowinski: I live in the Senior Building. They are going to build a berm but how are we going to feel safe walking to the Mall with tall shrubs like that -- someone could jump out and grab us. They are taking our wooded area away. As a group, we are against it because we wouldn't feel safe. Mr. Nisch: With the walks we are constructing, you will be safer than you are now, and it is not the type of landscaping that will harbor criminals. It will be taken care of and the height will not be a problem. Dan Colaluca, 29948 St. Martins: I have lived here for nineteen years and I am very concerned about this parking lot. There was an accused criminal hiding in the Livonia Mall parking lot a while back but it was kept secret by the Police and I believe that we should know about those things. The crime rate will increase. We are not satisfied with the Mall now and they want to enlarge it. I used to go out once a week and cut the grass and trim the trees for the sake of the senior citizens. Now, this will all be gone. We object to the expansion of the parking lot into our neighborhood. There will be a church on one side, a senior citizens building on one side and our IIW homes on one side. Why not let the employees and all the Semta cars that park here park on the other side on the east. I have a nineteen-year investment and love my neighborhood and there is no way anyone can tell me this will not change it drastically. 9605 1[40 Have they looked at all the alternatives? Can they build a parking structure? The parking lot now is only about 25% full at any one time. Isn't there some way they could build without having to increase the parking? Mr. Morrow: The Ordinance requires so many parking spots and that is what we have to live with. The Zoning Board of Appeals has the power to waive requirements of the Ordinance. We do not have that power. Arnold Kudzius, 29924 St. Martins: The acreage north of St. Martins could be paved and the people working in the Mall could park there leaving the whole parking lot at the Mall for customers. I have lived here since 1953. I love Livonia and I don't like to see this happen to us, to the seniors, to the kids or to future generations. There is plenty of parking there already. My son was held up at knife- point right on the Mall property. William Davis, 30018 St. Martins: A few years ago we didn't have a lot of traffic because it wasn't paved and not comfortable to ride on. The minute it was paved the traffic from the Mall increased on our street. If you take this wooded area and turn it into a parking lot and stores, that means there will be even more traffic in the neighborhood. Whatever they put in there it will still increase traffic on St. Martins and in a few years, all those houses will be up for sale. I think the dead spot could be utilized. The Mall parking lot now is never, ever full. In the east parking lot there are hardly ever any cars parked there. The only traffic is the Semta parking. I don't see where they need additional parking because they don't use what they have now. Mrs. Slowinski: How can Mrs. Hildebrandt be on the Planning Commission when she is the Manager of the Livonia Mall? Mr. Morrow: A prerequisite for being on the Commission is not to be unemployed. Mrs. Hildebrandt will not take part in this particular issue. Mr. Smith: How much crime does take place at the Mall? Mr. Hildebrandt: I don't have the statistics with me but it is considered one of the lowest in the area. Mr. Smith: I am for the proposal. Semta cars will no longer park there because customers will park there. We are talking about a Dayton-Hudson quality store being built here. It will increase the tax base of the City. When McNamara Towers was proposed, it was opposed by the people on St. Martins. When McNamara Tower II was built, everybody opposed the building. When Zeigler Tower was built, everybody was opposed. The developer, Mr. Klein, always supported those projects. For twenty-five years, the developers of that shopping mall have been excellent supporters of the City of Livonia. That area needs to be improved and when a major developer is willing to invest $7,000,000 to clean up the area, to improve the area and provide us with more services, I am for it. 9606 ILobert Ferry, 29904 St. Martins: Everyone says they don't want it in their backyards 4 but this will be in my front yard. If you have a parking lot you will have a bunch of kids with bottles parking, kids jumping over the walls. I want to tell you something. That piece of property is ugly. I would like to make a point that they don't even keep that piece of property cleaned up. If my neighbor didn't do it, it wouldn't get done. The parking lot is not even full at Christmas time and you want to increase it. Mrs. Hildebrandt: We maintain the back as well as we can. Trash bags are thrown in the field by the neighbors on St. Martins. Also, that field is no safer at this point for the seniors to walk through. We have con- sented to make a path for the seniors to walk through. We have picked up the trash in the field that has been dropped there by the people on St. Martins. Mrs. Sobolewski: Does the Livonia Mall own that property? Mrs. Hildebrandt: Yes, for twenty-five years. Mr. Colalucca: Sears bought the property just like I did. Mrs. Hildebrandt said they bought the property twenty-five years ago. Now that I have bought my home, and I wouldn't have if I had known it would be rezoned, why, all of a sudden, can they change the property? I can't change my zoning. :r. Duggan: It wasn't too many years ago when Livonia Mall started to look run- down and the customer count was going down. If you want to see the way a suburban shopping center can deteriorate, go out to Northland. Five or six years ago, the owner of Livonia Mall made a commitment, and they have upgraded the shops and fixed up the place. That is not an unsafe place to be by the standards of shopping centers. Suburban development is good and with the up- grading of the mall, it will guarantee to you that years down the line they will not let it slide. I think what they have done is positive and I think they should get some credit because I think it is much better than a shopping center that has been allowed to deteriorate. Helen Blavik, Zeigler Apartments: Three quarters of us walk to the Mall. Mrs. Hildebrandt said they would leave the one opening the way it is and I thought that was wonderful. They do have a good security there and when they see us seniors come along, they do watch us. Mrs. Hildebrandt: There won't be any further curb cuts and I will be happy to work with the seniors. Architect with Jon Greenberg Associates: The most economical thing for the developer to do would be to leave the parcel the way it is and I think this will help property values, not hurt them. ilers. Colalucca: Is there a way to approve the extension of the Mall without the parking zoning? 9607 'r. Morrow: I Stein: Additional parking would be required but we don't know just how much. I will commit to having a community meeting on the site plan. here was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #4-84-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10, 1986 on Petition 86-2-1-10 by the Livonia Mall to rezone property located south of St. Martins between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA & P to P & C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-1-10 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning districts will provide for expansion of the Livonia Mall complex as well as an opportunity to further upgrade the Livonia Mall property. (2) The proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the neighborhood. (3) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for additional com- mercial services to serve the community as well as increase the City's tax base. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Kluver, Soranno, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: None ABSENT: Hildebrandt Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimoulsy adopted, was it was #4-85-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concern- ing effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 86-2-1-10 by the Livonia Mall to rezone property located south of St. Martins between Middlebelt Road and Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA & P to P & C-2. roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 9608 1[14 in the immediate area. 'day Hurley, 19995 Gill: I am part owner of the property and over 30% of the pro- posed lots are in excess of 80' z 120' . r. Vyhnalek: How many lots do you expect to get at this zoning? Mrs. Veri: Sixty-one lots; not all 80' lots, there are some larger. About 35% are larger lots. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 86-3-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #4-86-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10, 1986 on Petition 86-3-1-11 by Lidia Veri to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-3-1-11 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning district is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (0 (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for residential uses that are consistent with the surrounding development in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan recommendation for the subject area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #4-87-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effective- ness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 86-3-1-11 by Lidia Veri to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3B. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.trs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-3-1-12 by Lidia Veri to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 9609 AYES: Vyhnalek, Soranno, Kluver, Sobolewski , Duggan, Smith, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: None L° ABSENT: Hildebrandt I Mrs. Hildebrandt returned to the meeting at this time. r. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-3-1-11 by Lidia Veri to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3B. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this rezoning proposal. Mr. Morrow: Mrs. Veri, do you own the property? Lidia Veri, 35762 Veri Court: I have a ninety-day option on the property to get it rezoned to an 80' x 120' lot zoning. Jeffrey Sarkisian, 34905 Norfolk: I moved from a residential home similar to the home they are trying to build here. I moved from that with the intention of moving to an RUF zone for purposes of owning livestock. We are opposed to rezoning to 80' x 120' . We would rather it be left alone but at the very least maybe they could consider half acre lots. That would be more in line with the other homes. We would like to see some consistency. Both sides of Norfolk is really the only property ;' left in RUF zoning and we would like to keep that. In the three years I have lived here, I have probably spent $20,000 upgrading my property -- enclosing the yard and building a barn for the horses. Larry Roesner, 34805 Norfolk: I moved here in 1972 and in 1974 or 75 we had a severe water problem. I asked the City to get involved to do some survey- ing. Water was coming down and backing up on my lot and it took half the summer to go away. I really think this zoning should stay RUF. The homes in the subdivision south are beautiful but they are too close together. Where will the water go if you make this property R-3? Mr. Morrow: That would be taken into consideration by the Engineering Division. Mr. Roesner: I ask that you consider this very carefully before rezoning it. There is no reason why every house in Livonia has to be smashed up to the one next to it and no reason why every house has to be the same. Mrs. Roesner: We have horses also and not only do people have to breathe but horses have to breathe, too. Leon Zolkower, Biltmore Developers We are the developers of Windridge Village Subdivisions No. 4 and No. 5. Windridge Village #4 was the site of the 1986 Homerama Program. In spite of the fact that we are zoned R-3, we are developing on 90' to 100' lots. We object to the zoning because it is opposite of what we are proposing and building 9610 from R-3A to C-1 & R-7 and R-7 to C-1. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division notes that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60 ft. ) in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan, and in addition, that it will be necessary for the proposed C-1 Zoning District to outlet storm drainage through the proposed apartment area to the Tarabusi Drain. The Engineering Division also recom- mends that if the proposed R-7 zoning area is to be used for ingress and egress to the proposed apartment area the proposed access point to Seven Mile Road be reviewed by the Wayne County Road Commission prior to final approval of the petition. Lidia Veri, 35716 Veri Court: We are making some changes. We are going to give the 200 - 300 feet to the developer in the back. We are asking for multiple and C-1. The multiple will go to Mr. Gottlieb. We have a plan showing the type of stores wil,l will put in. The road on the east will be the access road. We have cut down the size of the commercial development. Mrs. Hildebrandt: How many tenants do you propose? Mrs. Veri: About ten. 11::oyd Candlish, 32415 W. Seven Mile Road: There is a senior citizens home here. What concerns me is the piece-meal zoning we are approaching in this area. The land between the commercial and senior citizens you won't be able to give away unless you make it commercial. The rezoning of this will mandate the rezoning of the piece in between. We have between sixty and seventy businesses in this area including a K-Mart and Farmer Jack. Who needs more than that? We are taking the property apart a piece at a time. Another thing is the access onto Seven Mile Road. It doesn't line up with any access across the street. Don Fink, 32400 Seven Mile Road: I share this man's concerns about the access and traffic. The area doesn't need ten to twelve more businesses. The access to Seven Mile does not line up with any street on the south side of Seven Mile. Ralph Sitler, 32535 Seven Mile Road: I have lived here for thirty years and with all the development, we still don't have a sewer. I think we are very neglected. My wife is a Child Psychiatrist and years ago she asked if she could see a child or two a day and it was explained to us why she couldn't and we appreciated that and we understood. Now there have been so many changes and it is becoming very dangerous. I don't think the City really wants us to be abandoned in our drives but that is where we will be if we cannot get out. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, *' airman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-3-1-12 closed. n a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, ie 9611 it was 7-88-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15, 1986 on Petition 86-3-1-12 by Lidia Veri to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A to C-1 and R-7 and R-7 to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-3-1-12 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (2) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for a modest expansion of commercial and multiple family zoning districts in the area but, at the same time will preclude any further expansion of commercial zoning to the east. (3) The proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the developing character of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously ,opted, it was '-89-86 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 86-3-1-12 by Lidia Veri to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 from R-3A to C-1 & R-7 and R-7 to C-1. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-2-9 by James, Scheible, Zaccagni, Galayda, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within a building located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk and Seven Mile Road in Section 27. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states they have no objection to this proposal. Barbara Gaudreau, 19736 Stamford: I am concerned about a restaurant being constructed in this area. We already have rodents with the creek there and this will cause more problems. There is a lot of debris in the creek there without a restaurant. If there is a public restaurant, wouldn't it be open every day of the week? 9612 ILtoward Johnson, 19909 Farmington Road: When they have their Las Vegas Night, they don't have adequate parking so they take over the plaza on the other side of the street. It is already a restaurant. When they have dancing on Sunday nights, cars just swarm out on Farmington Road. Ms. Gaudreau: Are the petitioners part of the K of C or a separate group who wants to use the building? Mr. Nagy: The names on the agenda are architects acting as agents for the K of C. The K of C does own the property. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-2-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #4-90-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15, 1986 on Petition 86-2-2-9 by James, Scheible, Zaccagni, Galayda, Inc. , request- ing waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within a building located on the west side of Farmington Road between Norfolk and Seven Mile Road in Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 86-2-2-9 until the Study Meeting of April 22, 1986. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Naidow, Morrow, • NAYS: Duggan, Smith I ABSENT: None r. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-2-2-10 by by Southland Corporation requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within a party store proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Plymouth and Merriman Roads in Section 27. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this proposal. Don Schornak, 26533 Evergreen, Southfield, representing Southland Corporation: We have been before the Planning Commission and City Council and were granted waiver use and site plan approvals for an SDM License. We agreed to many concerns of the Planning Commission and Council and we are ready to start construction in about 45 days. If we would be granted this operation, this site would qualify for an SDD License. We feel it is a necessary tool in our business. We are aesthetically enhancing the site and ask for this operation to enhance our business at this location. Mr. Kluver: Do all you 7-Eleven stores have SDD licenses? . Schornak: No, only twenty-two. 9613 ii:k 1r. Vyhnaklek: Are there any others within 1,000 feet? Y Mr. Nagy: No. r. Smith: The closest is at Cranston and Plymouth. Stan Anderson, 28428 Elmira: I am representing the Clements Circle Civic Associa- tion. When we saw the notice of another party store proposed for Plymouth Road, I did a survey and between Inkster and Middlebelt there are six places available for beer and wine. From Middle- belt to Merriman there are none. Merriman to Farmington there are four more and Farmington to Wayne Road three more. It seems to me that Plymouth Road is becoming too much of a party store atmosphere. We support the Plymouth Road Beautification Plan. I am sure thirteen places to purchase beer and wine is very adequate. Party stores are not always the best housekeepers. Mr. Duggan: You represent the Civic Association -- has your Civic Association met on this? Mr. Anderson: We had a Board meeting last Saturday. The members of the Board asked me to represent the Board, not necessarily the membership but at least the Board. We have not had an opportunity to meet. Ron Parz, Parz Associates: I am happy that Southland is moving the complex out. I am against packaged liquor licenses for a number of reasons. First t 'e of all, we are dealing with a problem of image. Wonderland is spending $6,000,000. The people who control this particular center are people who spend maybe five minutes at the store and children drop in later. We are now going to introduce another packaged liquor store. They do not police the area around them. They are bad neighbors. I have spent time picking up litter around there. We are in the process of turning Plymouth Road around. I plan to do further development in and around Plymouth Road. I plan very shortly to spend another $6 to $7 million on Plymouth Road. It is our image that I am concerned about, and the children. It is that type of image I would like to restrict on Plymouth Road. Mrs. Sobolewski: What are you doing with the store you are moving out of? Mr. Schornak: We are selling it to Arnolds Associates. I am sorry I never had an opportunity to meet with the gentleman from Clements Cirlce Civic Association. When we talk about image, I think we should know what we are talking about and not with the prejudice of yester- day. Southland runs a retail convenience store. You can tell by the items we carry. We have made the effort necessary to enhance Plymouth Road. Mr. Soranno: Why didn't you request an SDD License before? Mr. Schornak: It was a matter of being advised by the Liquor Control Commission that a license was available. Southland tried for four years to have this license. When we were advised by the LCC that this was available, we made application for it. 9614 • There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-2-2-10 closed. / 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, 4 it was 1[0 #4-91-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 15, 1986 on Petition 86-2-2-10 by Southland Corporation requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within a party store proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Plymouth and Merriman Roads in Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-2-2-10 be denied for the follow- ing 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 proposed. (3) The proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible with the surround- ing uses in the area. IE FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow: I am supporting this motion but I want to make it clear that I have nothing against Southland Corporation. They did work with the Commission to help us upgrade Plymouth Road. My concern is with the use and I think the service is covered in that area. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat approval for Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of the C&O Railway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal. There are also letters in the file from the Police and Fire Departments stating they have no objections to this develop- ment. Dennis Rogers, Subdivider: We recently purchased this property and this development is almost identical to the prior development. It will be developed light industrial. • 9615 ',here was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Ihairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed. 4 In a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously opted, it was #4-92-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Preliminary Plat for Elliot Industrial Park Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of the C&O Railway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 subject to the following conditions: (1) that a greenbelt landscaping plan for the easement area along Merriman Road be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to submittal of the Final Plat; • (2) that Lots 1 and 2 shall have their front yards facing the pro- posed Glendale Avenue; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat complies with the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. • (2) The proposed Preliminary Plat provides for good utilization of the property for industrial development purposes consistent with good planning practices. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions on Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. [r. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-3-7-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designa- tion of property lying south of Eight Mile Road, west of Gill Road in Section 4 from single family residential to office and/or medium density residential (multi-family). There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-3-7-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #4-93-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning, having held a Public Hearing on April 15, 1986 on Petition 86-3-7-2 for the purpose of amending the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, the same is hereby amended by changing the designation of property located south of Eight Mile Road, west of Gill Road in Section 4 1: from low-density residential to office. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 9616 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City 1[110 Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the 4 City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Comission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Smith, Morrow NAYS: Kluver, Duggan, Naidow ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: That concludes the public hearing portion of the meeting and we will now commence with the Regular Meeting. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was 414-94-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a IL Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Haggerty and Six Mile Roads in Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. AND THAT, notice shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #4-95-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Horton Avenue, south of Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to R-1. AND THAT, notice shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. n a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was 1: 4-96-86 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 513th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings 9617 held by the City Planning Commission on March 18, 1986 are approved as corrected. I roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Smith, Naidow Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Sorrano Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-97-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-3-8-15 by Robert Seymour requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a retail store with tenant rental space on the east side of Farmington Road between Fargo and Eight Mile Road in Section 3 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 8528, Sheet 1, dated 3/27/86, prepared by Robert K. Seymour, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #8528, Sheet 2, dated 3/27/86, prepared by Robert K. Seymour, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the approved landscaping shown on Sheet 1 shall be installed on site prior to building occupancy and there- after permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #4-98-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-3-8-16 by Dimitrios & Sylvia Gotsis requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Civic Center Drive in Section 22 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Golden Lantern Restaurant Site Plan shown on Sheet A-5, dated 11/26/85, prepared by Cary Greenberg Associates which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 9618 (2) that Revised Building Elevations shown on Sheet A-5, dated 11/26/85, prepared by Cary Greenberg Associates which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that all landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed on the site prior to occupancy of the proposed addition and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Duggan, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-99-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application #2401 by Victory Sign Industries for Munford, Inc. , requesting to increase the area of an existing ground sign at 30255 Plymouth Road in Section 35 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the proposed sign is required to provide additional commercial advertising for his business. (2) Additional signage, as proposed, will be detrimental to the Iii, City's goal of encouraging superior architectural and aesthetic design in the Wonderland Control Area. (3) The placement of a sign on the subject pylon would not be in in harmony with or appropriate to the neighboring area. (4) The approval of the proposed sign will encourage other businesses of a similar nature to add to their signage, all of which will add to the visual blight of the area. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #6-100-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application #2609 by Edward S. Slinder for a satellite disc antenna on property located at 14421 Hillcrest in Section 23 subject to the following condition: (1) that the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Permit #2609 by Edward S. Slinder which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: lb AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Smith, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Morrow Soranno 9619 NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: None fir. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution Adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded .by Mr. Duggan, it was #4-101-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application #2620 by Thomas A. Miracle for a satellite disc antenna on property located at 18867 Lathers in Section 12 subject to the following condition: (1) that the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Permit #2620 by Thomas A. Miracle which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Duggan, Smith, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Morrow, Soranno NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. li: n a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 514th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 1986 was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. 147,1„,...K.,,et9e '.--ni.,Lee.(4—z-ci-- Donna J. Naidow, Secretary ATTEST:. R. Lee Morrow, Chairma ac