Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-01-27 9835 MINUTES OF THE 530th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 27, 1987, the City PlAhning Commission of the testy of Livonia held its 530th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. C. Russ Smith, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Herman Kluver Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Michael Soranno Richard Straub R. Lee Morrow Donna Naidow Jeanne Hildebrandt 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. Smith informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Commission holds the only public hearing on a i preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after tonight. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-48 by Melvin Borin to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 from RUF to C-1. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. Melvin Borin, 27300 Franklin Road, Southfield, Petitioner: I am asking for a rezoning of Lot 100 which is 60 feet in width. I have also acquired Lot 99 and 20 feet of Lot 98 and the addition of this 60 feet that I would like to extend C-1 zoning would allow me to do a site plan in which I could go four stores or 100 feet of stores across front. It has been too narrow for development. This will allow me to develop it. It is my intention to just develop in front of property back about 250 feet leaving a buffer of 100 feet. That is my intention. It is next to a 7-11 Store. I think it will be an improvement for the area, even with a vacant lot people dump garbage. I think this would make it look better. I own the building across the street, which is a medical clinic, and I think since that has gone in it has been an improvement for the tw area. It is my intention to keep improving the area. Mr. Smith: Did you say you own half of Lot 98? • 9836 Mr. Borin: Yes, I have a signed purchase agreement with 7-11 for Lot 99 and the north 20 feet of Lot 98. I would have 140 feet. Mr. Morrow: You would in no way have anything to do with 7-11? Mr. Borin: Right. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Borin, are you a developer? Is that your full time profession. Mr. Borin: Yes. I'm a real estate broker and a small developer right now. Mr. Kluver: Your purpose is to develop spec buildings? Mr. Borin: I have talked to a few retailers but mostly those type of buildings with commercial zoning are done more on specs. No tenants yet. Mr. Soranno: On Lot 99 the 7-11 currently owns, they are not using it for parking? Mr. Borin: No, not at present. Mr. Soranno: How about Lot 98. s Mr. Borin:110 Yes, some parking. When I do develop it I will put my drive on the northerly end of project and it will form a nice drive-thru. 7-11 is happy to see some stores going in. It would be convenience stores to serve neighborhood. Mr. Soranno: Have you touched base with anyone to the north. Mr. Borin: No, they are on Middlebelt and they are interested in maybe moving or selling. They are currently zoned RUF. I would suppose that some time in the future they may be rezoned office. They have no objections. Mr. Vyhnalek: What you are saying is you are going to build a strip shopping center. Mr. Borin: Yes sir. Mr. Vyhnalek: - Has there been any consideration at all on P.S. , having professional. Joy Road has all kinds of stores and a few blocks away is Wonderland. I don't think a strip shopping center is needed in that area. Mr. Borin: I have some experience with medical but there are enough doctors in there. It seems that the street has plenty of doctors. The area has plenty of doctors. Mr. Vyhnalek: Middlebelt sure has plenty of strip centers. 110: Bernard Matusz, 29197 Grandon: I did not receive a letter on this. 9837 Mr. Smith: You live too far away. Mr. Matusz: They put a business 50 feet from street and there are all kinds of weeds. Is there something that can be done about that even if it does not get rezoned? In back of everything there is nothing there. Mr. Smith: They would come with the site plans but weeds are a violation. The question tonight is should that lot be rezoned. Mr. Matusz: I would like to see it left professional service in my opinion. Steven Smith, 29173 Grandon: I would like to take this opportunity to let the Commission know I am opposed to this. There is also another proposition on the agenda to rezone property on the corner of Middlebelt and Grandon from professional service to C-1 and I believe that if they do rezone property north of 7-11 they would open up a can of worms. Myself, along with other residents of my street, don't want to be that close to a commercial establishment. I am opposed to it. Neil Caldwell, 29056 Grandon: I think the issues are clear tonight on this one and the next petition. It's either the quality of life or greed of the developer. I think we have enough stores and don't need any more by us. We have professional services that have done very well but to put more stores along there, I think it is not indicated. Peter Bennick, 29129 Grandon: I agree with both of the previous people that have spoken on the issue. I am opposed to any changes in the zoning code. In the first place they involve all the residential area and those three or four blocks from West Chicago to Joy Road and the amount of value of that property goes way up which means these businesses will affect the area, they will depreciate the value and people will lose money. Thank you. Mr. Morrow: How long have you lived there? Mr. Bennick: About 35 years. Mr. Morrow: Do you know a number of your neighbors? Mr. Bennick: Yes I do. Mr. Morrow: Do you feel like in this particular area you are short of neighborhood type of commercial. Do you feel you are well served? Mr. Bennick: We are very well served. We have chain stores and shopping centers all within a very short distance of home. Mr. Morrow: We try to give the people a mix of different types of classifications. 9838 . Mr. Bennick: I don't think we need any further developments because we have all types of shopping areas in there along Middlebelt, Plymouth and Joy Roads. John Bell, 29610 Grandon: I am a neighbor across the street from Pete. I have lived in the neighborhood long enough to see commercial build up and professional service and I would rather see commercial. I would rather see a funeral parlor than a restaurant. Grandon is a racetrack. If we put more commercial in this area, all I can see is someone getting killed in this area. I have stopped a lot of people from racing up and down but if you are going to put restaurants or C-1, you are going to see Grandon Avenue go to h-a-1-1. I don't intend to put up with it. I hope you people will listen and don't go C-1 because we don't need any more of this. I hope you will consider putting public service in and cut out the C-1 stuff. We don't need this sort of stuff in this area. Middlebelt should be twice as wide as it is now and there should be lights at every block. Every night I lay awake and I hear guns going off in this neighborhood. They talk about the south end of Livonia being a junk yard. We don't need that. Barbara Caldwell, 29057 Grandon: I would like to express an opinion regarding the area. When you spoke of strip shopping within half a mile of that area there is already some strip shopping. There is a restaurant, a meat market etc. We do have some good shopping and you really can walk to Wonderland. Right now it is residential along there as well as a few professional buildings. We have lived in area over 30 years. There are schools close and the kids do walk up and down Middlebelt and by adding the strip shopping it is going to increase the hazards they have to confront. I don't think it is in the best interest of our subdivision to put in more businesses. We would like to see that professional standards maintained. The building presents a good appearance. The one across the street has been maintained very well but if you change the zoning, we can say it will be thus and so but when it occurs there is a limit to what we can control. We have had some subdivision problems. They are not going to change but we certainly would appreciate having our boundaries maintained. Agnes Hilgard, Wilson Acres Homeowner's Association: I would like to go on record saying I support everything the other people said. Mr. Borin: I was hoping I could say one more thing in my defense. When I first got the land I saw the corner of Grandon was going to be rezoned and I agree with some of the things that were said here today. I already have 80 feet zoned commercial but I would like another 60 feet so I can build a real nice building. I also hoped for a little sympathy but I could build on the 80 feet. I would like an additional 60 feet to make it a nice building. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-48 closed. 9839 LOn a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #1-10-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-48 by Melvin Borin to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Joy Road in the Southwest-1/4 of Section 36 from RUF to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-48 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is not supported by the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office uses for the subject property. (2) The proposed change of zoning would encourage similar requests for changes of zoning to the north and would, therefore, cause more strip commercial zoning in the area. (3) Currently, ample vacant commercial zoning exists 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 41543, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 110 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-49 by Truman A. Strong to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt and Grandon Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36from P.S. to C-1. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. Truman A. Strong, 26325 Ivanhoe, Redford, Petitioner: I have owned two lots for a period of eleven years and I originally thought I would build there. The time slipped by. Mr. Smith: You wanted to build a home there? Dr. Strong: No, office building. I have had lots up for sale for five years. I have not had one offer. As you can see the area is saturated with P.S. The other gentleman waited a year and a half before he filled his building. I have tried to sell lot. I have-- practically ave=practically tried to give it away. I do not know what to do with it. It is my intention, if I do get it rezoned, to place a florist or beauty shop in that area. A ranch style building with ingress and egress on Middlebelt. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is P.S. He could put a building on there now. 110, Mr. Smith: Yes. He would have to have site plan approval. Mr. Soranno: You have been trying to find a tenant for five years? • 9840 Dr. Strong: I have been trying to sell it. I have got to do something with it. I am willing to develop it if I get a chance. Mr. Soranno: Why have you had such a hard time? Dr. Strong: I have offered it for sale for $2500=-fess than I paid for it. I have to do something with it. Charles Smith, 29173 Grandon: I would like to say once again that I am opposed to this rezoning. There are ample commercial establishments close by. I would rather see it sit as a vacant lot than a completed building with no tenants. I would welcome him to build a dentist office. Peter Bennick, 29121 Grandon: I have spoken about the previous matter. I want to state again that the residents in that area have millions of dollars into that area and I am against rezoning basically for the same reasons as I spoke before and I am in support with the other people. John Crocket, 29160 Grandon: Through the years since 1955 I made an investment in my home. I have been paying taxes up to this date. I have made many improvements. I feel sorry for Mr. Strong here that he made an investment and he cannot capitalize on it. That is his problem not mine. His downfall is he bought two lots on that corner and he can't capitalize on them. I don't feel that I should pick up on his problems and have that go C-1 and have anything put in that corner that is going to be detrimental to my property. i Neil Caldwell, 29056 Grandon: I am opposed to this petition because my concern is that proposed building first and then we will see one on the next corner and then one on the other corner not as well controlled. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-49 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #1-11-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-49 by Truman A. Strong to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Middlebelt and Grandon Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36from P.S. to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-49 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would constitute spot zoning in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would only encourage similar requests for commercial zoning both to the south and north as well as across Middlebelt Road which zoning would be detrimental to the area. I 9841 (3) The proposed change of zoning would not be compatible with the adjacent residential uses in the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning would be in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office uses 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-50 by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Angling and Lathers in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF, & P to C-1. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there is an existing designated floodplain associated with the Upper Rouge River that traverses a part of the site. No fill may be placed in this area in conjunction with the development of the site. The exact location of this floodplain will be determined by this office at the time that additional information (survey elevations) is shown on the plans. Thomas Kurmas, 30400 Telegraph, Birmingham, Petitioner: What we are trying to do here is we are looking at the parcel C-1. The total parcel is under 3 acres and the C-1 portion under 1 acre. What we hope to do is to better develop the C-1 portion but that will leave us with 500 feet that we would have no use for. There is not even an access to that site. We would like to combine that and build a strip shopping center. Mr. Vyhnalek: What would go in there. Mr. Kurmas: 30,000 sq. foot shopping center. Mr. Vyhnalek: You say it is 4 acres? Mr. Kurmas: No, 5.0 acres. Mr. Vyhnalek: How far is that from Seven Mile and Middlebelt? Mr. Nagy: About 3/4 of a mile to Middlebelt, closer to Inkster. West of Corsie's Restaurant. Mr. Morrow: My position is one of the reasons the property to the west is zoned P.S., we would be stepping down in zoning. My immediate reaction is not to expand the C-1 district but perhaps subsequently consider expanding the P.S. district. Mr. Nagy: Future P.S. zoning is reflected in Future Land Use. - 9842 ileGary Kramer, 19304 Lathers: Lathers is 1/2 mile between Inkster and Middlebelt. What we have at Seven Mile and Middlebelt on Saturday morning - we have a mess. We have Toys-R-Us. We have mini-malls as far as you can see. We have all kinds of video stores, fast foods, etc. We have too much in this area. If we are going to build anything, � why cram it in sideways. If you live on Lathers when you bought the property you could actually sit out back and it is beautiful and now I am going to have to look at a parking lot with more stores. We have more stores than people in area. None of us ever intended to be looking at a parking lot out of our kitchen window. My point is, I guess, I would like to invite any of you over on Saturday morning and see what we have now. Let us try to keep the traffic down in that area. Richard Myers, 19320 Lathers: I have four objections. (1) We now have four strip centers within 500 yards of my house. We also have the Livonia Mall. (2) I think this is a real intrusion into a residential area. It is an invasion of my privacy. There will be increased crime, etc. (3) Certainly it is going to decrease the money value of my residential property at a time when the neighborhood has agreed to pay to pave our roads. (4) I think this is important. I have an eighteen month old. I think this has a possibility of contributing to delinquency because it is so close to Clarenceville School. I think it is not good to have strip IL shopping centers next to a high school. Bob Sloan, 19314 Lathers: I have lived there 25 years. When we first moved in we wanted the streets paved and now it has come about. We don't mind spending the money to update our streets and neighborhood because we like it but I just can't see this strip going in. I don't think it is fair for us. Thank you. Donald Loftus, 19337 Angling: I came down here to question what was going to happen. Where I live I get a lot of noise from Corsie's. We will have a greater problem with drag racing. Debra Brule, 28100 Seven Mile: There is no existing fence there now. There is a greenbelt. We don't know where that is. I am not real thrilled about it but I know it is going to happen and we can't stop it. We knew when we purchased our home that it was P. We know the people who own it now. I don't understand what they would put in there. Mr. Smith: Right now the question is, is this the proper area for C-1 zoning. If the zoning is changed we will see what kind of stores. Mrs. Brule: Being that I am directly next door, where will I go for answers. Mr. Smith: Come over to the 3rd floor, Planning Department, and they will be very happy to answer any questions. Mrs. Brule: I want to know if it is C-1 what they would put up there. I am worried about if it is zoned C-1 what could go in there. 9843 Mr. Nagy: Retail sales of any kind of items, furniture, food, clothing, services like barber and beauty shops - local convenience stores. Mrs. Brule: What can go in there as it is zoned now? Mr. Smith: Doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Mrs. Brule: I really don't want anything to go in there but I can't stop it. Mr. Kurmas: I would like to make a comment about concerns of parking. It is the nature of the commercial to put building at back of site and parking at front. P.S. is opposite, parking is in rear. They would be in worse condition with parking if it goes P.S. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-50 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-12-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-50 by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Angling and Lathers in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUT, & P to C-1, the City 1[0 Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-50 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends office uses for the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would encourage similar petitions on properties to the west thus expanding the strip commercial zoning in the area which is contrary to good planning policy. (3) The area already contains ample commercial zoning and uses. • (4) The proposed change of zoning would not be compatible to the surrounding residential 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. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-51 by Dale A. Steltzner to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4 from R-3 to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating the eastely 45 feet of the site is encumbered with a designated floodplain. Therefore, no fill may be placed in this area in conjunction with the building operation. In addition, 9844 protective walls should not be placed in the floodplain area. (Please note that this would eliminate some portions of the wall shown along the south property line.) There is also a letter in the file from Stephen M. Lawrence, Secretary of the Livonia Woodbrooke Homeowners' Association, stating that it was their intention to oppose this petition. Mrs. Patricia Smith,Representative of Petitioner: This should be easy because everyone else wants commercial I just want to go to P.S. I want to mention a problem. I think it was Mr. Vyhnalek who said he would like to see building and use restrictions and we do have a problem. We would like to have public hearing and then table the petition to allow us to resolve this problem. This is part of subdivision and they have building restrictions that allow residential only and we were intending to build office building. In order for us to change restrictions we will have to have 60% of lot owners agree. We would like to hear from residents tonight. Steve Lawrence, 34313 Navin Drive: I am still baffled as to why they would want to build an office on area that is intended to be subdivision. I can't understand why Mr. Soave cannot lease some space in the professional building nearing completion across the street. We would like to see a well designed home built there. I represent the Woodbrooke Homeowners Association. We thought it would be (10 interesting to see what would happen if we went around with petitions to find out what support we would have. The bottom line here is we collected 117 signatures in four days. We have a lot of support. They are opposed to rezoning. Mr. Smith: You may make that petition as part of the record by presenting it to Mr. Nagy. Mr. Vyhnalek: $350,000 just to build on corner. What is value of property in subdivision? Mr. Lawrence: $130,000 to $150,000. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you live there? Mr. Lawrence: Yes I would. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long has lot been there? Mr. Lawrence: Since 1979. Mr. Smith: You collected 117 signatures. What percentage of homeowners in subdivision? Mr. Lawrence: Approximately 80 %. Some are husband and wife. Mr. Smith: Clearly you have a majority. 9845 1:0 Mr. Kluver: There are some reasonably priced homes that were built on the northwest corner of Eight Mile and Newburgh on exactly the same kind of corner. I think residential homes could go up on Eight Mile. I support the residential development of mile roads. Mr. Morrow: There are many homes that were sold with that as a-residential lot. To move to a different use, I just can't follow that. I think it should be developed residential. Charles Mirabitur, 20498 Gill: One of the things that you have to remember is that Curtis Building had a sign and that sign came up before the City Planning Commission and City Council and we found that we would have to leave sign up. The only reason that lot was empty was because of the sign. It is an attractive piece of property and it is part of the subdivision. It seems like since I moved to Livonia I have come to so many meetings I feel like I know everyone here. We moved into Livonia because it was a good community. All the other people think so too. When we bought the property it was supposed to be a residence there. Jim Lokar, 20564 Gill: I have to agree with Charlie. When we bought this home it was zoned residential. First of all I look out my front window I see berm. I see another berm along side of house. We will have another berm - he has to have service ramp. This is ridiculous. If he puts up office for himself, I don't think he would have a parking problem but I just think that a residential house in this area could do nothing but add to luxury of our neighborhood. to, Terry Hoeft, 20520 Gill: I also object to the rezoning of this from R-3 to P.S. I was here a number of times. I think in keeping with the continuity of the rest of the area it would be necessary to leave this R-3. Ed Billings, 20542 Gill: I also oppose this zoning change and everything I have to say has been expressed already. Shelley Lawrence, 34313 Navin Drive: When the gentleman first purchased this lot he was aware of how it was zoned. Another thing is once he moves into this office and once it is rezoned, he could move out tomorrow and move in someone who would have little concern for us homeowners. We have a development going in right across the street which will increase the traffic which is already a problem. I see no reason why we need a professional office. Mr. Vyhnalek: I think Mr. Curtis screwed up when he didn't build a house on that lot. Mrs. Hildebrandt: I am strongly opposed to an office building on that corner. Northville has built some beautiful homes on Eight Mile and they sold like hot cakes. Mr. Lawrence: We talked about deed restrictions and we are all aware of that and if you went through subdivision to get 60% vote, you would have problems. 9846 t Pat Smith: Everyone has made comments that a new home could be built there. The lot has been for sale since 1979 and all of these people did not choose to build there. Mr. Lawrence: It has not been for sale since 1979. A sign was on the lot. Jane Comstock, 20212 Pollyanna: To clarify, the sign by builder was a large sign. It has now been changed to advertise Deer Creek Subdivision. That lot was not shown as an available lot. The home you were referring to out in Northville that was $350,000 has an indoor pool. Mr. Vyhnalek: You asked for the petition to be tabled and I think it would be a waste of time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-51 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #1-13-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-51 by Dale A. Steltzner to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 1[0 of Section 4 from R-3 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-51 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends low density residential use for the subject lot. (2) The subject lot is part of a developed residential subdivision and should, therefore, be developed as such. (3) Other office facilities already exist in the area immediately across Gill Road from the subject lot. (4) The subject lot has sufficient width so as to allow its development for residential purposes and the development of a greenbelt for screening purposes adjacent to Eight Mile Road as required by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-1-52 by L & H Associates to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Schoolcraft in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to P.S. 9847 [I, Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. We also have a letter in the file from Elmer F. Siterlet listing 7 property owners who are against this petition. Don Leidal, 14600 Fairladei Petitioner: We owned that house for a number of years. We have rented it and it is a pretty old house. It is over 40 years old. We have had problems with this house and we sold the house and we have had to take it back because he didn't pay the taxes and didn't pay us either. We felt that we could help the community out by putting a real nice office building or professional building in there. I am sure it would be an asset and I am sure that I would not do it unless I knew I meant it. Some of you know my reputation. Elmer Siterlet, 33159 Scone: I would like to ask this gentleman a few questions. Could you tell me exactly how many years you owned this property? Mr. Leidal: 8 - 10 years. Mr. Siterlet: Weren't you the first owner that tried to have this rezoned? Mr. Leidal: No. Mr. Siterlet: When the people sold you this property did they guide you? Mr. Leidal: No. The people that owned this were an old couple and after their death we bought it. Mr. Siterlet: I was in front of board a good many years ago. You are all new members. At that time at Kimberly Oaks Subdivision they tried to put in a building and they did not want it. We don't want it. We are opposed to it. I have four businesses behind me and it doesn't help the appraisal of my property nor does it help the rest of the neighborhood. These businesses have caused a lot of problems - traffic, dirt, noise. Other neighbors complain about all the dirt and the businesses leave their dumpsters open. I don't need any more dirt and dust in my back yard. I am opposed to it. Joyce Siterlet, 33159 Scone: I am Elmer's wife, mother of eight. I spend 70 - 80% of my time in the kitchen. We have Shaw Electric behind us who are wonderful people who said we would not have big trucks going in and out and we have had walls broken. We have Auto Electric that are wonderful people also but again we have burning of oil cans and this goes into air. We have Edison plant and Total gas station. We moved to what we considered the most perfect city. We love our home and plan on living there forever but we cannot put up with another office building. It has depreciated our home immensely. to Mary Stretten, 14063 Westmore: In addition to all the reasons that the people have mentioned all along Schoolcraft starting from Hubbard there are all kinds of vacant "For Lease" spaces. The traffic is 9848 unbelievable. When I come home from work it is next to impossible to turn on Summers to get in to subdivision. The traffic is unreal. If the zoning is changed the other people will subsequently creep up in that whole section. I don't want to look out my back yard and see that. Richard Croin, Civic Association: Our Board of Directors has voted we are against this rezoning of property because it is within our boundaries and we don't need professional space. There is plenty of extra space in that area. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Leidal said he would put something nice on there but my concern is, I know he has some real estate problems, I am troubled with the expansion of any P.S. zoning along Farmington Road. I cannot support this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-1-52 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #1-14-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing haveing been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-1-52 by L & H Associates to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road, north of Schoolcraft in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-1-52 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would encourage similar zoning requests on properties to the north which zoning would be detrimental to the area. (2) Ample similar type zoning districts and uses already exist in the area to adequately serve the needs of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning will not be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning 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. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-2-41 by Basil Fernimos requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive collision shop within an existing building located on the west side of Stark Road, south of the C & 0 Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. 110 Mr. Smith, Chairman, turned the gavel over to Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. 9849 liey Basil Fernimos, 7136 Chadwick Ct., Canton: What I would like to say I am not changing a zoning, I am applying for a waiver use. There isn't a zoning for this. There is not going to be any outside storage. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is in first part of building? Mr. Fernimos: A machine shop. Mr. Vyhnalek: You will have nothing to do with the rest of the building - just the section you are renting? Mr. Fernimos: That is correct. It is stated in lease that tenant will not leave automobiles outside building. Mrs. Hildebrandt: Any damaged vehicles or parts? Didn't you stress no vehicles outside. Mr. Fernimos: Only automobiles outside will be employees. Mrs. Hildebrandt: No vehicles left overnight? Mr. Fernimos: No. Mr. Morrow: We are trying to increase shops of this nature to locate here. I certainly hear what you are saying and I certainly hope you can live with what you are saying as long as you don't have any cars waiting for work. Mr. Fernimos: I understand. If I break lease I will be thrown out. Mr. Soranno: You will devote 1,000 square feet for storage of cars. How many cars could you handle at one time. Mr. Fernimos: I could probably work on 10 cars at on time and store 6 or 7. Mr. Soranno: What will you do with parts you do not use. Mr. Fernimos: We have dumpster that is emptied about twice a week. Mr. Soranno: Would there ever be parts that would not fit in dumpster? Mr. Fernimos: No. Mrs. Smith, 34401 Capitol: I am facing the new building. I have one thing, the noise. Don't tell me they will not open the doors in the summer. Why is there never a buffer put up? Behind bank there is a buffer. Mr. Nagy: The subject building that is shown has been split in two pieces. The buffer goes on line where it joins residential. At time of ILO building this building they were not required to put buffer in there. A wall will go in when the south parcel is developed. 9850 IL Mrs. Smith: As a resident, I have no choice. Mr. Nagy: The wall will be constructed when vacant lot is built upon. 46 Mrs. Smith: I am against it for the noise. Mr. Vyhnalek: He is just a tenant, he did not build the building. Mrs. Smith: Where do you test cars? Mr. Fernimos: On Stark Road. Mr. Soranno: How far is she away from the building? Mr. Nagy: 200 - 250 feet. Henry Schires, 12191 Brewster: There is going to be a noise problem. I am talking about the owner of the property not the building. I feel he should put up a wall because it is going to be an eyesore and a noise problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: If someone builds north of there, there will be a wall then. Mr. Schires: How long will that be? We don't want to have an eyesore there. I feel they should have to put up a wall. Mr. Vyhnalek: By ordinance they don't have to. Mrs. Tingley, 34388 Capitol: I am the closest. I am more concerned about the noise. A collision shop has to have the doors open in the summer. The noise is going to go through my house. Mr. Morrow: Could this gentleman inform us about the noise. Mr. Fernimos: There is a lot of replacement work. There will not be a lot of noise. The building just south of my building, I think they have a machine shop and behind their building they have all kinds of outside storage. Mr. Kluver: Did we get a letter from the Fire Marshall? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Kluver: I would request a letter from the Fire Marshall because of flammable material. Mr. Nagy: Wayne County Air Quality Control would inspect that. Mrs. Hughes, 12088 Brewster: We do get noise from those buildings now and I know this is going to be a lot louder. We are thinking of the summertime. We have been used to like living in the country. We all have half an acre or better. All we are asking is to give us ILO some protection from the noise. 9851 Mr. Soranno: Would you consider air conditioning your shop so you could keep the doors closed? 410 Mr. Fernimos: I have question about the noise. They live by a railroad. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding=this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-2-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #12-15-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-2-41 by Basil Fernimos requesting waiver use approval to operate an automotive collision shop within an existing building located on the west side of Stark Road, south of the C & 0 Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-2-41 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the site plan dated 3-21-86 prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That all customer vehicles shall be parked or stored inside the building at all times. for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies in every respect with the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. (3) The proposed use is 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 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. Mr. Vyhnalek, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Vyhnalek returned the gavel to Mr. Smith, Chairman. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-2-42 by Eugene A. Eicher, Jr. , requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto reconditioning and waxing business within an existing building located on the northwest corner of Stark Road and Glendale in Section 28. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating ILW there appears to be no problems connected with this petition. Eugene A. Eicher, 7417 Admiralty, Canton: The business we are going to operate is the cleaning and waxing of cars for dealers. We will pick the cars up from the dealership and take them back. No mechanical work and no storage. It is going to be clean. 9852 There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-2-42 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #1-16-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-2-42 by Eugene A. Eicher, Jr. , requesting waiver use approval to operate an auto reconditioning and waxing business within an existing building located on the northwest corner of Stark Road and Glendale in Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-2-42 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the site plan marked sheet A-1 dated 10-30-80 prepared by McGrath, Dohmen & Associates, Inc. , Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That all outside storage or parking of customer vehicles shall be prohibited. (3) That this approval is limited to auto washing and waxing as requested and, accordingly, there shall be no auto repair permitted. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance 11 with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-2-43 by R. L. Moles for Jacobsons Stores requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within a retail store located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating • they have no objections from an engineering standpoint to this petition. R. L. Moles, Jackson, Michigan, representing Jacobson Stores: We are petitioning here to operate a restaurant which will be on the second floor of our retail store. The restaurant will be wholly owned and operated by Jacobsons The hours of the restaurant will be from IL 9:30 am to 5:00 pm except for Thursday and Friday nights it will be open until 8:00 pm. No direct access from outside to restaurant. The restaurant itself is approximately 4,000 square 41100 feet. 9853 Mrs. Sobolewski: Is this a new concept for Jacobsons? ILMr. Moles: We have ten stores in Michigan. In those ten stores, seven of 460 them have restaurants. Mrs. Sobolewski. As large as this one? Mr. Moles: Some are larger. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is it mostly lunch. Mr. Moles: We have sandwiches, soups and quiches. We have a dinner menu. There is a lighter menu. Mr. Soranno: You anticipate that the primary patrons will be Jacobson shoppers rather than from the rest of the stores in the mall? Mr. Moles: Jacobsons is a designation store where people like it and stay for a while. The restaurant hours will be the same as the store hours, no longer. Mr. Morrow: The Class C - Is it possible to operate your restaurant without the Class C? Mr. Moles: Yes sir. Of our seven restaurants that we operate in Michigan we have four liquor licenses. We have applications pending in the li remaining three and have had them pending since years ago. We were the first liquor license awarded in the City of Grosse Pointe. Mr. Morrow: I am one of the biggest supporters of Jacobsons coming into this area but as you probably well know you will trigger the domino effect and every petitioner wants full restaurants with Class C liquor license. I am not adverse. I have to give some thought to the Class C. Mr. Moles: We do not operate a bar as such. Mr. Morrow: We will hold that in abeyance until the next petition. There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-2-43 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously approved, it was #1-17-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-2-43 by R. L. Moles for Jacobsons Stores requesting waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within a retail store located on the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-2-43 be approved subject to adherence to L the previously approved site plan and conditions imposed by the Planning 9854 Commission and City Council for the Laurel Park development and the following additional conditions: (1) That the floor plan drawing marked sheet R-1 dated 11-13-86 prepared by Jacobsons which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: (1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) That the proposed use is 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 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-2-44 by R. L. Moles for Jacobsons Stores requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License for a restaurant within a retail store located at the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objetions from an engineering standpoint to this petition. Bob Moles: I guess I would continue along the line I was speaking before. We didn't apply for liquor license necessarily to make the restaurant successful but did apply for them because our customers want them. We want to provide what our customers want - a glass of wine, a bottle of beer. The restaurants with the Class C licenses are more successful. Ron Mardiros: I believe I can say I have never had the privilege of having a drink at Jacobsons. I look at liquor licenses as inventory. I think you can do very well with this restaurant without the liquor license. I would like to see what liquor licenses we have held for the other developments that are going in Livonia. I don't think that is wise in a retail store. Mike Polsinelli, on behalf of developer: When we were before you and presented the total development, we proposed at that time that we would have motels and hotels etc. Subsequent to that date we have been successful in getting two hotels with full service and which connect to the mall as well as an office building that would need a full service restaurant and we will be back requesting Class C 41011 liquor license and would not like it to come as a surprise. 9855( . Mr. Morrow: Mr. Nagy, who gets Class C? Who goes against quota? Perhaps you could enlighten me. 16 Mr. Nagy: City has 13 licenses yet to be issued. As far as hotel and Class C either one counts against city quota. We have 13 yet to be issued and it is entirely within the prerogative of the City Council as to worthiness to issue liquor license. The actual award of license is another realm of City Council. Mr. Smith: 13 left. Is that according to population. Mr. Nagy: Based on the 1980 census. Mr. Morrow: We have 13 left regardless of whether it is a hotel? Anything counts? Mr. Smith: That is correct. Mr. Soranno: If we would approve this, because of Stuart Andersons, we would have to make it contingent upon waiving the 1000' rule? Mr. Nagy: That could be granted at Council level. Since this is used in conjunction with a restaurant it meets criteria of potential waiver by City Council. IL Mr. Soranno: If we were to grant this and Council would grant this and other stores come in they would have to go through same thing? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. Mr. Moles: We expect to be in this location a year to a year and a half before other developments, so I would encourage you to help us by granting the license here. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-2-44 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #1-18-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-2-44 by R. L. Moles for Jacobsons Stores requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License for a restaurant within a retail store located at the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-2-44 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000' separation requirement found in Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance #543 by the City Council and the following additional conditions: (1) That all conditions of approval for the Laurel Park development ILO previously imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to. 9856 for the following reasons: IL (1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) That the subject site has the capacity to accomodate the proposed use. (3) That the proposed use is 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 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-7-8 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the east side of + Farmington Road between Pickford and Curtis in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from residential to office. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in our file. There was no one present in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-7-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-19-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-7-8 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Pickford and Curtis in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from residential to office, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-7-8 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed amendment will encourage the use of the subject lands in keeping with the developing character of the area. (2) The short depth of the subject lots are such that low density land use is not a feasible land use designation. ILO (3) Thelocational elandscisare supported by theePlanningnCommission's of general office for the subject 4110, adopted Goals and Policies for office development. 9857 AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Plan, 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 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 Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-12-7-9 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between I-275 and Newburgh from medium density residential to office. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in our file in connection with this petition. Paul St. Henry: This will change master plan, is that correct? Mr. Nagy: Future Land Use Plan. 140 Mr. St. Henry: Does this change the zoning at this time or would that have to be another petition to change zoning. Mr. Nagy: Another petition. Mr. St. Henry: The little strip between Seven Mile and partition. Is that easement or would that be the homes that are along there? Mr. Nagy: It would take in existing homes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-12-7-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was 1-20-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-7-9 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between I-275 and Newburgh from medium density residential to office, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-7-9 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed land use designation will encourage uses that are compatible with surrounding existing and proposed development in the area. 9858 L (2) The proposed land use designation of general office complies with the locational characteristics of office use as found in the Planning Commission's adopted Goals and Policies for development. (3) The proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan is in keeping with the developing—character of lands along the I-275 Freeway corridor. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Plan, 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 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 Commission 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: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Smith NAYS: Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the resolution failed. IL On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #1-21-87 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 27, 1987 on Petition 86-12-7-9 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between I-275 and Newburgh from medium density residential to office, the City Planning Commission wishes to table Petition 86-12-7-9 to the February 3, 1987 meeting. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Hildebrandt ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. - Mr. Smith, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission will proceed with the regular meeting agenda. On a motion made by Mrs. Naidow and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #1-22-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 529th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 13, 1987 are approved. 9859 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was 411-23-87 RESOLVED, that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit Application #3137 by Ettro Carozzo requesting approval to install a satellite disc antenna on property located at 36271 Pickford, subject to the following condition: (1) That the site plan and specifications submitted with Permit #3137 by Ettro Carozzo are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Soranno, Sobolewski, Straub, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Morrow ABSENT: None Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-24-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-8-1 by Hobbs & Black Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an outpatient clinic on the north side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in Section 26, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #8520 prepared by Hobbs & Black Associates dated 1-21-87 is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (2) That Building Plan #8520, Sheet A-3 prepared by Rothman and Wall Architects is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; (3) That Landscape Plan #8520 prepared by Hobbs and Black Associates dated 1-21-87 is hereby approved and be adhered to; (4) That the approved landscaping be installed on site prior to building occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9860 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously IL approved, it was #1-25-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Final Plat for Summer Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. (3) The Engineering Division recommends approval of the Final Plat. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 530th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. a Lie-14-1— -11! Donna J. Nai ow, Secretary IL, ATTEST: C , r C. Russ Smith, Chai =n jg