Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-05-12f . 9953 - MINUTES OF THE 537th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 410 On Tuesday, May 12, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 536th 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 approx- imately 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Donna Naidow Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Herman Kluver R. Lee Morrow Michael Soranno Richard Straub Members absent: Jeanne Hildebrandt 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 IL 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 preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until 410 seven days after tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying reso- lutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-1-15 by Ted D. Zuchlewski for Simoni Associates, Inc. , to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUF to C-2. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there is no immediate City storm sewer system available for the site develop- ment, therefore, all storm water run-off must be retained on the site or appropriate easements must be obtained from adjacent property owners. If the site requires more than the existing domestic water service now on site, there may be an excessive cost to the owner in crossing five lanes of pavement to tap the 12" water main on the east side of Farmington Road. "1 Ted D. Zuchlewski, 842 E. Columbia Ave. , Battle Creek: I represent Simoni Assoc- iates. I have an artist's conception of the building we are planning. We have final engineering and landscape drawings. s Co 9954 Mr. Smith: I will be glad to pass them along but you understand we are talking only about whether or not this is a proper place to put C-2 zoning. r. Zuchlewski submitted the material to the Commission. &Mr. Straub: Does your firm own the property presently? Mr. Zuchlewski: We have an offer to purchase and our development is contingent upon the rezoning. Mr. Straub: The proposal is to put up an oil shop? Mr. Zuchlewski: Yes. Mr. Straub: There seems to be an explosion of oil shops and I am wondering what are the prospects for the future oil shops and if there is room for another one. Mr. Zuchlewski: Based on the study we did, there is. Before I was in this business, I was in the fast-food business -- McDonald's, Wendy's. We are try- ing to take this building and really dress it up. We are trying to make it look like it belongs to the area. Mr. Morrow: I was amazed to see what a nice job you did at your location at Ten Mile and Middlebelt from a structural and landscaping point. I was troubled with this area when McDonald's went in an voted against it. My feelings did not prevail but as one Commissioner, I do not want to see any more traffic in that area. .Representative of Seven Mile/Farmington Partnership, P. 0. Box 267, Southfield: I 46 manage the R-7 which is north of this area and I oversee the K-Mart for cleanliness. I would like to say I agree with Mr. Morrow's comment about traffic. We constantly have accidents around McDonald's. It is very, very active in this area and I can't see that an oil facility will help. Mr. Zuchlewski: Our project has about twenty cars per day. We are not talking about a great deal of traffic here. The maximum would be thirty cars a day. Mr. Sorrano: What is the current status of the fire station adjacent? Mr. Nagy: It is fully operational and has E.M.S. and fire fighting personnel there. In the foreseeable future, I understand it is one of the stations designated for relocation but not at the present time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-1-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was #5-95-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-3-1-15 by Ted D. Zuchlewski for Simoni Associates, Inc. , IL to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFC to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council 41010 that Petition 87-3-1-15 be denied for the following reasons: Co 9955 (1) There is no need for additional C-2, general commercial, zoning in the general area of the petition. (2) The proposed zoning would not promote the development of the area in a manner which would prevent additional traffic congestion in 4110 the area. (3) The proposed zoning would be incompatible with and not 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, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Straub, Kluver, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Soranno, Smith ABSENT: Hildebrandt 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 87-3-1-16 by Herrel F. Sutton to rezone property located on the north side of Angeline Avenue, east of Edington in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A. tr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this proposal and that the south thirty feet of the lot should be deeded to the City for dedication of right- of-way. ight-of-way. 41110 Herrel Sutton, 33825 Plymouth Road: I bought this property to build a couple homes there. Mr. Kluver: You own the entire parcel and are just taking the corner and develop- two lots. Do you have ultimate plans? What is your total scheme? Mr. Zuchlewski: We plan to develop it into residential. Mr. Kluver: The entire parcel? Mr. Zuchlewski: Yes, at some future date. We will probably start as soon as we get these built. Mr. Soranno: Is there a reason why you're not doing the whole parcel now? Mr. Zuchlewski: There is not an immediate demand right now for lots in that vicinity. I put a sign up and had only a few replies. It is really a matter of subdividing the property and selling off these two lots and then developing the rest. ILO,Mr. Morrow: What is the size of the property? Mr. Zuchlewski: 3.* acres. It is L-shaped. • • 9956 IIMr. Morrow: I am just wondering how much property is lost by splitting it off. Robert Olah, 10881 Edington: We would like to see a little bit more planning. Instead of just two houses there and speculative zoning. We would like to see an overall plan and hope the zoning remains as it is, sticking 410 to larger lots. Mr. Smith: Mr. Nagy, what is the zoning in the subdivision adjacent? Mr. Nagy: That is Wellington Woods and is zoned R-1. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was: RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-3-1-16 by Herrel F. Sutton to rezone property located on the north side of Angeline Avenue, east of Edington in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-1-16 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will not provide for reasonable development of the balance of the subject parcel. (2) The proposed change of zoning is not based on an overall land Iliuse plan which would indicate how the change would benefit the adjacent undeveloped land in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is not in the best interests of 410 the community at this time. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with theprovisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance 41543, as amended. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was 415-96-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-3-1-16 by Herrel F. Sutton to rezone property located on the north side of Angeline Avenue, east of Edington in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-3-1-16 until the Commission's Study Meeting to be conducted on May 19, 1987. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Straub, Soranno, Morrow, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Hildebrandt ", Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • 9957 rs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-4-1-17 by Joseph Dettore for United Construction, Inc. , to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman and Milburn in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-9. r. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objections to the rezoning proposal and should the rezoning be approved, their office will review the site plan for utility avail- ability and street configuration. There is a petition in the file which has been signed by thirty-four residents on Sunset, Milburn and Fargo who are opposed to this rezoning. Joseph Dettore, 30845 Eight Mile Road: We would like to put senior citizens, one- floor buildings on the property. We think it would be appropriate for the property because it is not large enough to go for single family homes. Mr. Smith: Will it be a private development? Mr. Dettore: Yes. Robert Kuznia, 30944 Fargo: Where would the traffic come from into this develop- ment? Mr. Smith: Sunset, the reason being that they did ask the owners of the apart- ments if they would like to open up Morlock but they did not want to participate. They wanted the buffer strip in there. fir. Kuznia: Will there be an entrance on Eight Mile Road? 110,Mr. Smith: No. 110 Mr. Kuznia: To allow more traffic in there would really hurt me. Guy Miller, 20150 Sunset: We passed the petition around and we couldn't figure out where the traffic would go and how they would get to these homes. I am opposed to the rezoning primarily because of the traffic. We moved there because it is a nice area and I just don't want all the additional traffic. Mr. Smith: There are only 37 dwellings. All seniors. Probably 37 people. There is room for a large road there. Katherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I have a question as to if he has enough property considering the size of the units. I think housing for the elderly is better than apartments but what will be between the housing for the elderly and our homes on Milburn? Mr. Smith: Our only question tonight is, is this a proper place for senior housing in Livonia. It has nothing to do with the size of the buildings. ,Mrs. Sullivan: The property is only 165' wide. Mr. Smith: If this passes, he will then make a site plan for the Commission's approval. That is when we have input on the buildings, landscaping, tow how many units and the sizes. 9958 Mrs. Sullivan: He was supposed to put up a wall last year. Mr. Smith: Is it up? Mrs. Sullivan: No. I think R-9 is the best for that area but there is also the traffic and whether or not there is enough room. Janet Stevens, 20014 Sunset: I am wondering about the traffic, too. We moved to Livonia because it is countrified. We will be hearing all this machinery all day long and the traffic, and that is a lot of build- ings for that area. I think the traffic will be terrible on our street. Mr. Smith: If they build houses, you will have more than 37 people. Edward Wolverton, 20099 Milburn: I am definitely opposed. You say only 37 people in there. We have McNamara Towers less than a mile away. Livonia has a pretty fair percentage of elderly housing compared to other communities. The Planning Commission has done a wonderful job building houses for the elderly. but I don't think this is the right area for it. Mrs. D. Finney, 30852 Fargo: The lots are 165' wide -- most of our lots are that big. We don't need the additional traffic. It is a dust bowl now. Let him put in a couple of nice homes there, not all these units on the property. I am opposed to it. 410 Bernard Edington, 20139 Milburn: Right now Milburn and Fargo have become a shortcut for traffic. We have asked the Police Department to control this and t haven't got any answers. If they put that in there it will double the traffic we are getting now. James Ramsey, 20098 Sunset: I oppose this also. I have seen the site plan and there is inadequate space there. There is no way you can get them 75' off the lot line. Mr. Morrow: You have seen the site plan? Mr. Ramsey: I went to the Planning office. Mr. Dettore: The matter of the wall did not pertain to the lot in question. It was the lot next door. They made a mistake when they sent out the notices. Shirley Miller, 20150 Sunset: I am opposed because this is a beautiful area. They just put up more apartments at Seven and Merriman and at Eight Mile Road. We are in the Clarenceville School District which is a small district and I think anything that goes up should be single family so we can get more children in the District. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you own the property to the west? Mr. Dettore: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you try to purchase it? ,11 4 9959 Mr. Dettore: I asked him if he wanted to sell or participate or buy mine because 411, the two combined would be a better development. He said he is not interested in buying. IL: Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you own the machine shop? Mr. Dettore: It is a construction company. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is there a way you can put a drive off Eight Mile to alleviate the problems with the traffic going out to Sunset? Mr. Dettore: I have considered that. Mr. Vyhnalek: I don't think it is feasible going out Sunset at all. I would like to see the project go in but with traffic going out on Eight Mile. There are 600 people on a waiting list at McNamara Tower and I would like to see this developed. Mr. Soranno: Do you think the negotiations with your neighbor might materialize? Mr. Dettore: It might. Mr. Soranno: Do you feel that something could be worked out? Mr. Dettore: I dont know -- I tried. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this itemand Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-1-17 closed. ILOn a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #5-97-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing have been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-4-1-17 by Joseph Dettore for United Construction, Inc. , to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between Merriman and Milburn in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-9, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-4-1-17 until the problems concerning the project can be solved and a feasible plan for the project can be developed. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Morrow, Straub ABSENT: Hildebrandt 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 87-4-1-18 by Anthony C. Rea to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2. 4 9960 Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states they have no Ihw objection to the petition. Robert Stowers, 18060 Mayfield: I feel strongly that this will be compatible with IL: what is already at the corner and there are other areas with C-2 to the south. I feel that working with the Planning Department on the site plan, I could build a proper type of buffer between the area in question and the residential area. The traffic is a very important consideration but not one that can't be handled. Ellwood Gross, 9031 Laurel: The problem we face is that a couple years ago that location was zoned C-2 with no objection but now you are creeping up onto Ann Arbor Trail which is a residential area. You are knock- ing on our back doors. We feel in our area that we don't want to see the C-2 coming in right onto Ann Arbor Trail. What is proposed to go in here? Mr. Smith: A car wash. Mr. Gross: So the cars would be exiting onto Ann Arbor Trail. On Ann Arbor Trail on the week-end, you will see a traffic line there and I don't see how they will get the cars out of the car wash. John Cottrell, 9024 Laurel: Wayne Road at Ann Arbor Trail is a major intersection in the lower part of Livonia. We have the Westland Shopping Center directly south. The busiest part of the car wash business is in the 46 fall. We have people coming into this area from all parts of Livonia down Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail which also takes care of the traffic from the park. It is a very heavily congested area. Trying to get onto Ann Arbor Trail is life and death. It took Mr. Rea two years to clean up the existing property. A letter was written to the City and he finally made a move after numerous phone calls. I don't think it is necessary that we have a car wash there. There are two on Farmington Road. We have another on Wayne Road, north of Cowan in Westland. When you exit onto Ann Arbor Trail from my street either way the traffic is very heavy. If the entrance is on Ann Arbor Trail, you will never get to turn at that corner. Wayne Road going north is two lanes and there are numerous accidents at that corner. I am opposed to this petition. Harry Wiese, 9043 Laurel: We have been in the City thirty years. One of the things we moved away from was an auto wash on Evergreen and Grand River. We would like to enjoy the rest of our lives in this neighborhood. I also speak for my neighbors on Lots 37 and 38. We have enough C-2. Keep it C-1. The quality of life for a very small subdivision would be changed. Traffic there already is heavy on Ann Arbor and Wayne. There would be a traffic hazard with a car wash. There is noise but it is not the kind we would have from this type of operation. This will completely abut our properties. Richard Allen, 34665 Grandon: I have three reasons for opposing this. The first one Clo is the very high traffic in that area. It is difficult at times to get out from Laurel or Grandon. A car wash would add to the traffic problem. Second, we have mid-aged and elderly people in the neighbor- hood and a car wash would bring excessive noise to the neighborhood. 9961 C Third, to have a car wash there would devaluate my property and the property of my neighbors. For all these reasons, I oppose the rezoning 1: of this property. . Betty Cottrell, 9024 Laurel: I also oppose this on the basis of the traffic and the senior citizens did try to get away from Detroit and are delighted with Livonia in this secluded place. There is quite a bit of noise and there is very little space between us and this property. I believe C-2 would be hazardous and depreciate our property. Mr. Morrow: C-1 is a neighborhood type classification. I feel to upgrade that to a more intensive commercial zone is something that I cannot do. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #5-98-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-4-1-18 by Anthony C. Rea to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-1-18 be denied for the following reasons: 410 (1) The subject area is currently well served with the existing C-2 zoning classification. 416 111, (2) The current Zoning District, C-1, local commercial, provides the petitioner with ample opportunity for development of the subject property. (3) The proposed change of zoning will be injurious to and not compatible with the adjacent residential district in the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning will permit uses that will tend to significantly increase the traffic congestion 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 87-3-2-10 by Jarrett-Mills-Schron & Associates for Target Stores for waiver use approval to construct a retail store on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating it may be necessary to extend a public water system through the site to interconnect to the future dead end of Tech Center Drive north of the site. In addition, the plan should be reviewed by the Michigan Department of Transportation relative to the drive approach locations 1 within the Plymouth Road right-of-way. Also, the easterly drive • 9962 approach may present a conflict with left turn movements into the 40, Wonderland Shopping Center. Thomas Bonneville, Target Stores, 33 South 6th Street, Minneapolic, Minn. : Target Stores is a division of Hudson-Dayton Stores. This location fits into our overall site area investigation in the Detroit area. We have projects under construction in Westland and Dearborn. The complete engineering package has been placed in the hands of your Engineering Department. We would like to address a couple things having to do with water that have been brought up and are willing to work with Engineering. The Highway Department informed me that we needed to proceed immediately with that. We have a document that says we will not be denied access from our site to Plymouth Road. We recognize the importance of access to our site. Much of the traffic from the east we expect to make a right turn in. As people learn where the department store is they will come up to the store and at first they will take the first right turn in. There is a heavy duty drive on the west for trucks. Our trucks will come into the site on Tech Center Drive and make deliveries at the northwest corner of the site and go out the southwest corner. I believe all other ingredients have been addressed. We will have our store front approximately even with Builders Square. We are under the parking ratio. If your Commission feels it is necessary that we derive additional parking, our choice would be that we add parking in the back. Mr. Bonneville explained the site plan in detail concerning parking and driveways to 46 the members of the Commission. 41, Robert Schron, Jarrett-Schron & Associates: The Highway Department is considering 111, moving the traffic signal so there will be a more even traffic flow. Mr. Bonneville: We hope you will approve the project subject to our working out the traffic problems. Mr. Soranno: I am not familiar with the Target operation and where you will get a constant flow of people. Mr. Bonneville: It is an upscale discount operation. Target Stores have the most up-scale type of merchandize among discount operations in the United States and the highest volume of sales. We do not have building materials. No auto service center but approximately one-third soft lines; men's women's, children's, and about two-thirds hard lines; television, hardware. We are a family-oriented store. We have 50 to 70 thousand units - individual items that can be bought in the store, and we have a snack bar. Target Stores participate in the community and give 5% into social activities and cultural activities. Mr. Soranno: Those very things concern me on this site. It is a high traffic area. It is across from the Wonderland area. It sounds like the ingress and egress is not settled yet. , I can appreciate your desire to find a location that would have heavy traffic from cars going by but we, as a Commission, have to look at what's going in there and I as one Commissioner would like more specifics on the impact of the project. Mr. Bonneville: We would be happy to address those areas tonight if possible. I / I understand the traffic is one issue that we would address and ask that 9963 if you could possibly feel that we can work with your staff to reach at least a level of approval on the plan as well as what the Highway Department would do to make the smoothest cross-over. The State is looking very closely at that. Mr. Smith: The State initiated a traffic study in the area. We want to make sure we don't put something in there that is hazardous. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this your standard size building? Mr. Bonneville: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: Most of your stores are 100,000 square feet. How many parking spaces? Mr. Bonneville: 552 in front and side and if we achieve your parking ordinance, it would be 611. We would have to make up the difference in the rear. Mr. Vyhnalek: Will you have compactors for your trash? Mr. Bonneville: Yes, we always have that. Gerald Karasinski, 9831 Fremont: We have a lot of traffic on Middlebelt. I don't think this will be good for us at all. At this time, given the traffic situa- tion, I am opposed. M. Christ, 9833 Middlebelt: With Builders Square and the Red Lobster opening up, there 110 is an increase in traffic, especially people coming from the east. There is more than enough congestion now. This should have come about ILi fifteen years ago before all the other development. IL, Mr. Morrow: While I feel we wouldn't work a hardship on any petitioner if we can help it, I think this is a major project and as one Commissioner, I am not that familiar with the Target operation. I am concerned about the traffic and ingress and egress and I would be in favor of a tabling resolution. Ron Parz, 31157 Plymouth Road: We are in the process of developing the rest of Tech Center. I believe there is a Salem and Leone's there and a piece of vacant property. We are working to solve development problems. I own Builders Square on Plymouth Road. I take pride in this community. Before I even considered Dayton-Hudson, I checked out their reputation. They come from the Hudson family. I went to the expense of flying the entire Council, Mr. Nagy and other people of the City to Minneapolis to find out just what Hudson's is. They plan to put many stores in Michigan. Every major City having 80,000 or more will have this store. I wanted to make sure this community is not sold a pig in a poke. Will you develop this, Mr. Bonneville, if the State will only allow you one entrance into this complex? Mr. Bonneville: I cannot answer the question from the standpoint of one exit. We would like to be able to have the ability to have two entrances with full turning movements. We understand some of the heavy traffic out there cuts our level of service. I tried to answer that question but I don't feel confident at all with one entrance because we don't think a store of our size could operate with one entrance. I believe a single entrance can get overloaded. 9964 'Mr. Parz: What you are saying is that there is danger with truck traffic rolling into the site? 'Mr. Straub: I agree that this matter needs much further study and this is not the time or the place to pursue it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-2-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #5-99-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-3-2-10 by Jarrett-Mills-Schron & Associates for Target Stores for waiver use approval to construct a retail store on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-3-2-10 until the Planning Commission Study Meeting to be conducted on May 19, 1987. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 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 87-4-2-11 by Richard Hinkle for waiver use approval to operate a vehicle repair . facility within an existing building located on the west side of Stark ILO Road, north of the C&O Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objection to this propsal. Mrs. Sobolewski: Will you be servicing anything besides automobiles and trucks? Richard Hinkle, 33400 Plymouth Road: No. Mrs. Sobolewskik: What will be your hours? Mr. Hinkle: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Sobolewski: Will you also be operating your Mobil Station on Plymouth Road? Mr. Hinkle: No. Mr. Kluver: Any heavy work within your facility like transmissions? Mr. Hinkle: R and R transmissions, yes. Mr, Kluver: Replacements? Mr. Hinkle:.t Yes. Mr. Kluver: Engine rebuilding? Storage would be internal if you would do anything like that? 9965 Mr. Hinkle: Yes. lieThere was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-2-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #5-100-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-4-2-11 by Richard Hinkle for waiver use approval to operate a vehicle repair facility within an existing building located on the west side of Stark Road, north of the C&O Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-2-11 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan dated 7/4/86, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that all customers' 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. 410 (2) The proposed use is in compliance with all of the pertinent waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section IL16.11 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. ILO (2) The proposed use is comptaible 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 19.05 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 87-4-2-12 by Franco M. DiMattia for waiver use approval to operate general office uses within a building proposed to be constructed on the southwest corner of Middlebelt Road and Robert Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this petition. Franco DiMattia, 3503 Bagley, Detroit: There is multiple residential to the north and a Detroit Edison sub-station to the south. We should have no difficulty in accommodating our use in the building, and we will meet the Ordinance requirements. We will have less traffic using general office than if we were proposing professional services. t? Mr. Morrow: Do you have a particular tenant in mind? 16 9966 I: Mr. DiMattia: Yes, we do. Executive search. Mr. Morrow: I have a long-standing record of having no problem with general offices in professional zoning. Marian Richards, 29440 Robert Drive: There is so much traffic on Middlebelt now. The traffic light at West Chicago is gone. The light at Orangelawn is stopped. We feel this will increase the traffic problem. The area is treed now and very pretty. We get traffic from Wilson Barn up and down the street. There are no parking signs across from where this business will go. We have a lot of traffic going through Orangelawn to get to Wonderland. Mr. Smith: Do you understand it is already zoned professional service. They are going to build the building and they want to use it for general office instead of professional office. Mr. Nagy, will you give us the uses for professional services? Mr. Nagy: The existing zoning classification includes architects, engineers, accountants, lawyers, medical, dental. Uses other than those I mentioned fall under general office. They are prohibited except, upon petitioning the prohibition can be waived. The question before this Commission is not whether an office building should or should not be built on the property but whether or not they should broaden the use to general office. t0Mr. Smith: As you have heard, there is not a lot of difference between the tenants. 4 Mr. Morrow: I think the lady heard prior to her coming to the microphone that I have a long-standing support of general office use because general office use will be less intensive than a medical professional use. I feel professional uses will generate more traffic. I don't see this use, executive search, as a large traffic generator, as would be a doctor. Isabel Hunter, 29432 Robert: I am speaking for us who live in the condo there. My biggest concern is where will the exit and entrance be? One man work- ing there stated it would be a real estate office, someone said it would be a medical building. I was shocked when he said it was for an employment office. Another person told me there would be an office building there with a landscaped area between the property and ours. Mr. Smith; You do not object to the tenant? An architect as opposed to a dentist? Mrs. Hunter: Anything there will add to the traffic. People use our private drives as a drive-thru to avoid a traffic light. Doing nothing would decrease the traffic. Mr. Morrow: We cannot preclude the development of the property. Gerald Karasinski, 9831 Fremont: I have no problem with a building being put there as long as there is no parking along Robert. M. P. Christ, 98t3o 3 bFeremPtrt oI hve e pnrooblremoblfom meithis thhebnwdve How hbion ieo- ing 9967 belt, we have to go in Robert Drive and people wanting to make left 410 turns get into the left-turn lane way down close to West Chicago. He is going to have a hard time turning in there. ;Building Contractor: We have a complete set of plans. We want to make this work as nicely as possible. Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you know what your materials are? Building Contractor: The building will be done in low-profile, hip roof, L-shaped, 3,000 square feet, brick veneer. Mrs. Sobolewski: Entirely brick? Building Contractor: Yes, all brick. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-2-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #5-101-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-4-2-12 by Franco DiMattia for waiver use approval to operate general office uses within a building proposed to be constructed on the southwest corner of Middlebelt Road and Robert Drive in the North- east 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-2-12 be approved subject to the following conditiosn: (1) that Site Plan, revised date 5/8/87, prepared by Franco Mario DiMattia, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscape Plan, revised 5/8/87, prepared by Franco Mario DiMattia, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that the Building Elevation Plans dated 4/13/87, prepared by Franco Mario DiMattia, Architect, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) the proposed use complies in every respect with the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 4104 (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4 • 9968 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. 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 87-4-2-13 by Livonia Jaycees for waiver use approval to conduct the Annual Spring Carnival on the southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in Section 25. Mr. Nagy: Letters in the file from the Engineering, Fire and Police Departments state they have no objection to this petition. Avedis Samarian, 14021 Arcola, representing the Jaycees, was present. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is the size of the carnival going to be the same? Mr. Samarian: Yes, same as last year. Mrs. Sobolewski: Same company? Mr. Samarian: Yes, Crown. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-2-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was I: #5-102-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-4-2-13 by the Livonia Jaycees for waiver use approval to conduct the Annual Spring Carnival on the southeast corner of Middle- belt Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-2-13 be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that all truck parking, temporary housing units and all other related transportation equipment and apparatus relating to the operation of the carnival shall be parked or stored on the D.R.C. property adjacent to the carnival site; for the following reasons: (1) The site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies with all special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 41,4 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 1160 adopted. 9969 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-4-2-14 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. , for waiver use approval to operate a movie theatre within a shopping center proposed to be located at the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Michael Polsinelli, 14416 Yale, was present. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you go before the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Polsinelli: No, the recommendation was to wait until we had this public hearing. Mrs. Soboklewski: There seems to be concern about the number of theatres and maybe it is because they don't follow the Ordinance and I think we have some difficulty with that. Robert Schostak, 29623 Northwestern Highway, Southfield I think the best way to address the question is to take a brief look at the motion picture business. We call the single screen a 2,000 seat audience. That was great when Hollywood produced two or three pictures a year. Now they produce many more and it is better to have a larger choice of films. Now they build up to fifteen theatres with an average range of seats of 150 to 400 seats. It is not common to see a large theatre like in the past. The initial ten days of a movie is the biggest draw. The way the theatre has developed now is that it is very possible that if they have a great show they could show the same picture simultaneously in more than one auditorium if they would expect 700 people. We feel it is important for our Laurel Park development to add the excitement of a movie-plex theatre. We have purchased this property and developed a plan for mixed uses. Part of the mixed uses are the hotel and the enclosed mall. In adding the theatre, we wanted to create a new downtown for Livonia. Laurel Park needs the excitement of a movie theatre. Mr. Kluver; I share some of the concerns of my fellow Commissioners. One is the number of theatres, aside from the volumn of people coming in, your security within the facility, the ripple effect on the surrounding areas. There is a tremendous amount of this type of entertainment in this area. And, there is a purpose to our Zoning Ordinance but there is a conflict in what you are proposing and our Ordinance. Looking at this development, I feel possibly there could be some kind of a review to see if it should be more in context with what we have in the City today. Mr. Schostak: We share that. We are professional managers of commercial property. As you know, we are the developers who improved Wonderland Shopping Center. It, too, is a security and traffic conern. How do you move the masses of people who work and live there. We have an enclosed mall, two hotels, three office buildings; we will have an active site. We are going to take every step necessary to make it safe. We find that we do what we have to do and we will have a safe shopping center there. With respect to the Ordinance. I know the Ordinance was not prepared for concerns relative to the theatre business that today doesn't exist. They wanted to make sure only quality pictures come into the City. 4 9970 The present Ordinance of 400 seats is not current with the marketplace. ILI am not asking you to change the Ordinance. To expect a development IlL to be successful without giving it the impetus of what's important to the marketplace is like taking the wind out of our sails. 400 seats per auditorium at Wonderland was acceptable for Wonderland. We can't get a theatre company to do anything today except what their prototype is. Mr. Straub: I appreciate your assurances with respect to security in the overall development. I have concerns about the number of screens. He con- vinced me that perhaps our Ordinance is not adequate in today's market, but I received word that this company is less than solvent and you are putting in a ten-plex based on AMC. Mr. Schostak: American Movie Company is the second largest theatre company in the Nation. We, as the landlords of the building, will have great concern if they are insolvent. I will assure you that bank will not fund us if our client is not solvent. Let me assure you that they are solvent and we selected them because theatre companies get films for the month based on their ability to pay and most important is their ability to show that through the greatest amount of screens. They are able to bid the highest dollar. If the bottom dropped out of AMC Theatres, we will be very unhappy. Mr. Straub: I assume that other theatre companies were offered bids. t Mr. Schostak: All the theatre companies want ten- to sixteen-complexes today. We selected AMC because of the quality of their construction and design of their building which is hands down above the rest. Mr. Soranno: I was concerned about the use more than the number of screens. I am still concerned about the use extending into the evening and perhaps midnight. I don't know if excitement is always positive and the potential traffic that you might get into with a midnight show. I am not sure that Six Mile and Newburgh is quite the right place for that excitement in the evening. Mr. Smith: What are the hours at Wonderland? Representative of Wonderland: It is only open late occasionally. Until midnight on Friday or Saturday. Mr. Morrow: I have no problem with this use going in a multi-use facility but when we are going against the Ordinance, one of the things we have to do is respect our own Ordinance. We have no powers to change the Ordinance but we have to proceed very cautiously when we approve something going against the Ordinance. Somewhere along the line, those have to be waived. I am convinced that if anybody can resolve it, Schostak Brothers Real Estate Company can. There was no on present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Ar Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-2-14 closed. w On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was s 9971 #5-103-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-4-2-14 by Schostak Brothers & Co. , Inc. , for waiver use approval to operate movie theatres within a shopping center proposed to be located at the northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of te Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-2-14 be approved subject to the waiving by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the 400 seat minimum requirement of Zoning Ordinance #543, for the following reasons: (1) The site has the capacity to support the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies with all of the specific standards of the C-2 District Regulations that relate to the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is complimentary to and compatible with the broad range of uses that are customarily associates with com- mercial development of the scale as is proposed. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Straub, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Soranno ABSENT: Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing reslution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-3-3 by I: Lidia Veri for the vacating of a portion of Stamford Avenue located south of Seven Mile Road between Whitby and Myron in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that should this portion of Stamford Avenue be vacated, it is recommended that the petitioner provide for a road dedication south of the commercial zoning line within the residential property. This area would accom- modate a recommended offset cul-de-sac in connection with the ultimate development of Stamford Avenue. They also note that Stamford Avenue from Clarita north to Seven Mile Road is currently included within a proposed special assessment district paving program now under con- sideration by the City Council. Consumers Power's letter dated 5/6/87 indicates that they have facilities in the subject area and object to this petition unless a provision for the operation and maintenance of their facilities is included in the final resolution. John Mahn, representing S.E.M.M.G. Co. , 15510 Farmington Road: We are in a joint venture with Mrs. Veri. Mr. Smith: Do you have any trouble with the Engineering or Consumers Power letter? Mr. Mahn: No. Kenneth Hunt, 19006 Stamford: I am opposed to the closing off of Stamford. I have no objection to any of die zoning changes. I think these streets were 9972 developed for through lanes for traffic. The blocking off of the road for myself and for the neighbor across the street will cause traffic on the other streets. Why would you block off Stamford Avenue? From the developer's standpoint, it is financial gain in that they may end up parking there, but not for the people on Stamford Police-wise or fire-wise. Mr. Vyhnalek: I thought Stamford was blocked off already. Mr. Hunt: The City administration put a barricade at the end of my property but everybody goes around the barricade. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many homes besides yours on Clarita? Mr. Hunt: There is another home not shown on your map. Donald Maston, 18389 Stamford: I am in favor of vacating that section of Stamford. It is a residential area, 25 miles per hour speed limit. Daily and nightly cars go at 40 miles per hour down our street. I don't know where they come from but they come through from Clarita and speed to go out to Seven Mile. We have several new babies and young kids on the street. I favor vacating the street and putting in a cul-de-sac. Carl Matthew (Lot 468): There are a lot of small children in this area and I would like to see that street closed. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, tChairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-104-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 12, 1987 on Petition 87-3-3-3 by Lidia Veri for the vacating of a portion of Stamford Avenue located south of Seven Mile Road between Whitby and Myron in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-3-3 be approved subject to the dedication of additional right-of-way to provide for the construction of a turn-around area south of the south line of the portion of Stamford Avenue to be vacated for the following reasons: (1) No reporting public utility fo City department objects to the proposed vacating. (2) The subject area is not needed to provide access to abutting properties. (3) The subject area can be more advantageously utilized by the abut- ting private property owner and can be placed on the City's tax rolls. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, announced the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 4 n adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was 9973 #5-105-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-3-1-13 by S.E.M.M.G. Company to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, west of Stamford in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to R-2 and C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-1-13 be approved except for the west 14' which shall be reserved for a greenbelt, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning districts are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (2) The proposed zoning districts represent a continuation of similar zoning on adjacent properties. (3) The proposed zoning will provide for commercial and single family residential uses that are consistent with the existing development located east and north along Seven Mile Road and south along Stamford Avenue. 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was 1[410 #5-106-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987, on Petition 87-3-2-8 by Andrew Ansara for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant operation located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-3-2-8 subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan prepared by Architectural Design Consultants which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the Building Elevation Plan prepared by Architectural Design Consultants which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) All waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543 have been complied with. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4 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. 9974 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 'adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #5-107-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 537th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 21, 1987, are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Naidow, Soranno, Kluver, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Morrow, Straub ABSENT: Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #5-108-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 4/23/87 from Jeff Ames, Rapid Oil Change, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve a modification in Petition 86-4-2-14 for approval to utilize an existing building located on the northeast corner of Joy Road and Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of 1: Section 36 for a brake & tune-up center, subject to the following revised conditions: (1) that Site Plan #4565, Sheet SD-1, dated 4/20/87, prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the landscaping, which shall include the installation of the underground sprinkler system shown on the approved Site Plan, shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that Building Elevation Plan #4565, Sheet A-2, dated 4/20/87, prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered toi; for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposal complies with all of the specific and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.02 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (3) The proposal will provide for redevelopment and upgrading of a vacant t+ building and the proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resoluton adopted. . 9975 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-109-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 4/20/87 from William P. Lindhout, the City Planning Commission does hereby re-affirm its previous approval of Petition 79-8-8-25 for the construction of an addition to the St. Jude Convalescent Center on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Edward Hines Drive in Sectioon 33, subject to the following revised conditions: (1) that Site Plan #8610, Sheet 1, dated 4/13/87, prepared by William P. Lindhout Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #8610, dated 4/20/87, prepared by William P. Lindhout Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that this approval supersedes approval given in Planning Commission Resolution #8-154-79, adopted on 8/21/79. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was t #4-92-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 4/15/87 from William V. Titus, the City Planning Commission does hereby re-affirm its previous approval of Petition 83-11-8-31 for the construction of a commercial building on the south side of Five Mile Road at Santa Anita in Section 24, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #83-08, Sheet SP-1, prepared by Shiels Associates, dated 4/27/87, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevations as shown on Plan #83-08, prepared by Shiels Associates, dated 4/27/87, 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 building occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #5-111-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 4/24/87 from Manufacturers Bank, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 78-8-2-22 to allow for the addition of a 24-hour drive-up teller kiosk at the bank located on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Merriman Roads in Section 22 be approved subject to the following conditions: 9976 (1) that the Site and Kiosk Plan prepared by Manufacturers Bank for Livonia Branch #1, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the Bank provide a visual security device for the protection of its customers using the 24-hour teller kiosk. ILA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Straub, Vyhnalek, Kluver, Morrow, Sobolewski, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Soranno ABSENT: Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-112-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Building Elevation submitted in connection with Petition 85-9-8-21 for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to expand an exist- ing commercial building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Wayne Roads in Section 28 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed architectural change to one unit of the building is too drastic to be in harmony with the remaining units as pre- viously approved. (2) The petitioners sign will provide sufficient identity for his business without an architectural change of such magnitude. (3) The proposed change for one store front and store front canopy, if approved, would only encourage other future tenants to seek similar changes in their respective store fronts which will diminish the overall integrity, harmony and compatibility of the building design. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #5-113-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-8-11 by Italo-American Building Corp. , for approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-family dwelling on the west side of Fairfield between Hubbard and Brookfield in Section 22, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan #117880, prepared by Calvin Hall Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan, Sheets 7 and 8,s prepared by Dick Zambishki, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 9977 (3) that each unit will have a trash compactor; outside storage of trash is not permitted on the site; and (4) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-114-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-4-8-12 by Fred J. Armour for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a retail store on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge in Section 23, subject to the following con- ditions: (1) that the Site and Landscape Plan #87D-665, Sheet #1, dated 4/4/87, prepared by Affiliated Engineer's, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan #87D-665, Sheet #2, dated 4/4/87, prepared by Affiliated Engineer's, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; IL (3) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy con- dition; and (4) that any signs proposed to be located on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #5-115-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-4-8-13 by Fred J. Armour for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to con- struct a retail store on the north side of Joy Road between Inkster and Cardwell in Section 36, subject to the following reasons: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan #87D-668, Sheet #1, dated 4/15/87, prepared by Affiliated Engineer's, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan #87D-668, Sheet #1, dated 4/15/87, prepared by Affiliated Engineer's, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall t be adhered to; 4 ib 9978 (3) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site tprior to building occupancy and thereafter permanently main- tained in a healthy condition; and 110 (4) that the location of dumpsters on the site is prohibited. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #5-116-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-4-8-14 by Mike Harris Builder for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a professional office building on the east side of Middle- belt Road between Grandon and Joy Road in Section 36, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan #87106, prepared by Danny R. Cooper, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan #87106, prepared by Danny R. Cooper, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the approved landscaping, including an underground sprinkler system, shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and 4 (4) that there shall be inside storage of trash; the location of out- side dumpsters is prohibited. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: (10 AYES: Kluver, Sobolewski, Soranno, Morrow, Straub, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Vyhnalek ABSENT: Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 537th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 12, 1987, was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. CI ING C I SION . drien,„,4,4_, / Donna J. Nai , Secretary ATTEST: C J 1 4 0 V. C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac r