Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-08-18 s . . • 10022 MINUTES OF THE 543rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY 1: PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 18, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 543rd 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 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Donald Vyhnalek Michael Soranno Donna Naidow R. Lee Morrow Richard Straub Members absent: Herman Kluwer Sue Sobolewski 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 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 seven days after tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon li, 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 87-7-1-28 by Richard Herbel to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh, north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29 from RUF to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that while a field review was not conducted in connection with this petition they do not believe that the existing structures could be utilized for commercial uses in light of the current building code and zoning re- quirements. Richard Herbel, 43600 Cottisford, Northville: I have made this request for several reasons. I believe it is a logical extension of the current zoning and there is local business to the south. It is a logical extension of the Master Plan and the Riverside Church across the street. I would like to improve the property. t Mr. Smith: Would you use the existing structures? 10023 Mr. Herbel: I would like to eventually convert those to offices for small, local businesses. Mr. Smith: Within the next several years you want to change the structures? They are now residential homes that you rent? Mr. Herbel: Yes. Mr. Morrow: The use would be compatible with the Church? Mr. Herbel: No, my comment was that it would provide a more stable environment for the Church than industrial or manufacturing. Mr. Morrow: What would you use the property for? Mr. Herbel: I am updating the property now and converting to gas and City water. I have replaced roofs and have done interior work and want to continue that to make it more compatible for business type uses. Mr. Morrow: I assume that it would not be commercial. Mr. Herbel: I would want to go to commercial as Newburgh Road is widened and because the residential use is going to be rather limited. Mr Morrow: We wouldn't normally go from a light neighborhood use to a high com- mercial use such as C-2. 1110 Mr. Herbel: I called Mr. Wagner of the State Farm Insurance Company and he said he has C-3. At City Hall, they said C-1. In view of the traffic problems 4 within the next several years, I thought a C-2 would be more compatible. I could go to C-1. Mr. Vyhnalek: The Department of Engineering and Building states that they do not believe the existing residential would fit the code for commercial because they are too small. Mr. herbel: That is true, but as I indicated I am upgrading them and making them suitable for businesses. Mr. Morrow: What business use? Mr. Herbel: I am thinking along the lines of office uses and possible other.uses. Mr. Vkyhnalek: I think at this point, you could only use professional in those small homes, not commercial. Mr. Herbel: Eventually, that is my goal. With C-1, I could still have offices and have flexibility as my goals progress. Mr. Vyhnalek: We are against commercial in neighborhood areas. If you want C-2, you would have to tear it down and put up a building. I think you could go for P.S. for two or three years, then come back for C-2 if you tear down the building. Could he knock the buildings down in three or four years and build a new building? t Mr. Nagy: Yes. 10024 Mr. Herbel: In the three or four years I have owned the property, I have put sub- 9 stantial funds into it. Mr. Vyhnalek: I'd like to ask the petitioner if he will amend his petition to P.S. at this time. kMr. Herbel: Yes, I will. Mr. Nagy: The petitioner can amend it orally but we recommend that he follow it up with a letter. Mr. Vyhnalek: Even if the building could not be used? Mr. Nagy: They would have to be upgraded to meet the Building Code. It is unlikely with office or business that the homes could be converted. Mr. Herbel: Can I continue to rent them in a P.S. zone and request an inspection by the City to see if they are okay for office? Mr. Nagy: If the rezoning were successful, you would then have noncomplying homes. You can continue to rent and use them for residential purposes, and while doing that, you can call for an inspection. They can advise you what you would have to do to bring them up to Code if at all possible. Mr. Straub: I personally would not be able to support it for the reason that when- ever we are faced with an encroachment on residential property it creates problems and I think it merits a better thought out scenario than we have here. I appreciate the petitioner's willingness to amend the petition. Perhaps in the future, I could support it but it just seems to quick at this point. Mr. Morrow: I would advise the petitioner to bear with the P.S. classification. It sounds like some of the uses are waiver uses and you would have to petition the Commission again for approval for those uses rather than for doctors, lawyers or dentists. General offices are waiver uses and you would have to come back to request permission to use it in the general office category for uses such as sales offices. Mr. Soranno: We have the option of tabling this until a study meeting when you have a better idea as to what your options area; unless you are under some type of pressure. Mr. Herbel: I have been upgrading the property for about four years. I am not under any pressure to do anything now. I just wanted to move along and get some flexibility to develop this into some investment property. Mr. Soranno: I would suggest you contact the Planning staff to work out the details of your plans. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-1-28 closed. 110 On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was , 10025 #8-183-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 on Petition 87-7-1-28 by Richard Herbel to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh, north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29 from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-7-1-28 until the Planning Commis- sion Study Meeting of August 25, 1987. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Soranno, Vyhnalek, Morrow, Straub, Naidow NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, 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 87-7-2-32 by Michael Cardasis for waiver use approval to establish seating within a carry-out restaurant located in the shopping center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Levan Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objection to this proposal. 110 George Malais, representing the petitioner: Presently the restaurant is a carry- out and the purpose of our waiver of use is to bring in forty-nine seats. The business concept is still to be a carry-out but we wanted to have seats available on an as-needed basis. We do not intend to turn into a full-scale restaurant. We think it is important to have this because there are approximately twenty-four spaces capable of being leased, however, there are only four or five actually leased out. It is our belief that adding the forty-nine seats will make the restaurant more viable and valuable to Livonia. In addition, we canvassed the restaurant as to residents and workers and have a petition with at least 500 signatures including those on Leon and Ford Motor across the street with no place to go for lunch. This would be a good opportunity to bring business into the City of Livonia. There is also a bar/restaurant next to us and they have no objection to our waiver tonight. It is important to note that we have already two barrier-free restrooms and there are 232 parking spaces at the shopping center. Before I came here tonight, I had a opportunity to speak with Mr. Karol and there is no prohibition as regards this shopping center because we can use the parking spaces on a collective basis and the Ordinance would be satisfied. Mr. Cardasis has been a resident of Livonia for the past twenty-four years. He also is a proprietor with a business in the City of West Bloomfield. I would like to read into the record two very short letters, one from Mary Lou Callaway of Union Lake who is a reporter for the Observer-Eccentric Newspapers, and from Ron Fournier, Ordinance Enforcement Officer from the Charter Township of West Bloom- field, attesting to the fact that Mr. Cardasis operates a respected, 110 friendly business. The only point I want to stress once more is that we want to still maintain a carry-out restaurant business but bring in seats on an as-needed basis. We will not turn it into a full-scale restaurant. taurant. 10026 Mr. Smith: Forty-nine seats is a full-grown restaurant and that is what this will 10 be. Many restaurants change hands and this could be sold. Are you 4 aware that not more than a few months ago we denied a restaurant at that location? Mr. Malais: Yes, I have heard that. Mr. Smith: We did a study of restaurants on Plymouth Road and at that time we thought we were doing an injustice by adding to them, and our charge is to determine whether or not this is the proper place for a restaurant because the waiver of use will go with the land. Mr. Malais: Mr. Cardasis applied to Wayne County for sixty-six seats and was approved for sixty, but he doesn't want sixty. We could have asked for sixty. I think that is a demonstration that we do not want to be a full-grown restaurant. More quick service than sit-down. Michael Cardasis, 17437 Doris, petitioner: We canvassed the area and have 500 signa- tures of residents in the area having no objection to this. We sell pita sandwiches, salads, fish and chips, and we have people who come in and have no place to sit. We are a self-serve type. Mr. Smith: Would you like to submit the petition of signatures and it will be made part of the record and go on the Council. Mr. Cardasis submitted the petition and Mr. Smith read the petition to the Commission members and audience. 1100 Mr. Straub: You mentioned something about receiving approval from the County for sixty seats. Mr. Cardasis: When you file for a license, you have to file for how many seats you want. Our license was approved for sixty six seats by Wayne County. Mr. Straub: I assume that is a minimum category, not necessarily an investigation of the site. Mr. Cardasis: With our allotment for seats, it basically works out to about fifty square feet per seat. We feel we would be a service to the Center, too, because there is no place to go for lunch. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-2-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was: #8-184-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 on Petition 87-7-2-32 by Michael Cardasis for waiver use approval to establish seating within a carry-out restaurant located in the shopping center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Levan Roads in the North- east 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-2-32 be approved subject to 111,1 adherence to the previously approved site plan for the subject shopping center and to the condition that customer seating shall be limited to no more than forty-nine (49) seats, for the following reasons: 10027 (1) The proposed use is in compliance with all of the special waiver use standards as set forth in Section 11.03 of Zoning ,; ' Ordinance #543. (2) The subject property has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Straub, Soranno, Naidow NAYS; Morrow, Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow: If this is approved, shouldn't we see a plan at this time? Mr. Nagy: There is no exterior change and no need for a site plan. Mr. Soranno: When this came before us last time, I was opposed because I think Plymouth Road is oversaturated with restaurants but I am rethinking ILthis that you are in operation and apparently making a go of it. I am assuming that the signatures on the petition are not primarily customers there. I can see that it is in a center that could support it. I don't know why the center has not built up. Mr. Cardasis: I left the petition with Mr. Nagy with the names and addresses. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-7-2-33 by Robert German for waiver use approval for general office uses within a building located on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates that the have no objection to this proposal from an Engineering standpoint. Robert German, 31660 Bobrich: The P.S. classification is very restrictive. I have some potential tenants that would like to lease some space for general office space. It is not an intense use, in fact, probably less than some of the allowable uses such as medical. Mr. Smith: Would you care to tell us what it is? Mr. German: A manufacturer's representative. They sell office furniture to whole- salers such as McCauley's. ILMichael Taylor, 33351 Broadmoor Ct. : We circulated a petition among the homeowners in the area and I would like to present it to you. As you can see, the petition represents some thirty signatures but on the attached 10028 page, all the shaded areas represent all the homeowners who signed the petition who are not in favor of general office in that area. The petition reads "The below listed residents living not more than one block from the recently constructed office building at the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Rayburn are opposed to rezoning of the property from professional service to general office as requested in Petition 87-7-2-33." On page 4 of the petition, there is a petition filed on May 21, 1985 that requests a waiver of use to general office. The Council did not approve that petition based on the increased traffic, a usage that the homeowners are against. The last attachment was a a request submitted to rezone this property from P.S. to one family residential on October 23, 1984. You will find that most of the home- owners in this area did not really support that petition because it would have caused a hardship on the property owners. The neighbors are reasonable in that area but are opposed to the increased traffic within the building. Mr. Smith: The history of the Planning Commission and Council finds very little difference in P.S. or general office and we have seen very little repercussion in changing to manufacturer's reps or architects. Mr. Taylor: We discussed that and normally an eight-to-five business is acceptable but how about the next guy? I don't think it would be acceptable for a real estate office because of the nature and hours of that type of business use. Frank Ogrocko: 33387 Broadmoor Ct. : We are opposed to general office. When Mr. German bought the property, we had a conversation and lengthy meeting and one of the things brought up to Mr. German was that it was professional service. He says he can't rent it but, like you say, if there is not that much difference between P.S. and general office, why not have it P.S.? Mr. Smith; That is what we want to know -- we are going in that direction. Mr. Ogrocko: I don't think we can go with general office, like a real estate for instance. Also, I was under the impression that they were supposed to have compactors in the building but they don't have them and there are papers blowing around all the time. Mr. German: I have the right to set my trash out for pick up. Mr. Ogrocko: Mr. Mudge said there was supposed to be a compactor and that it is his responsibility to put it in. Mr. Nagy: I don't have the previously approved site plan before me but I certainly will look into it and let you know whether or not he is required to have a compactor, but whether or not it is compacted, every property owner has the right to put his refuse out for pick up and the contractor is required to pick it up so long as the refuse contractor does not have to go upon private property. Mr. Smith: Are you concerned about the papers blowing around the area or about whether or not this should be general office? That is our question tonight -- is this where we want general office. There is little or no difference between P.S. and general office. You don't like the refuse; maybe that is what's bothering you more than whether of not it is general office or professional service. If the problem is a real 10029 estate office, we could probably make a condition on the real estate office. 10 Paul Link, 33363 Myrna: I participated in the petition that was circulated. One of the complaints I got was that a greenbelt was supposed to be installed. There were some small trees but the greenbelt has never been installed. It seems he cuts corners whenever he can and if someone else gets in there, they will cut more. My objection to general office is that even morticians could go in and I think there would be substantially more traffic and car lights shining from the parking lot. Mr. Smith: There could be much less. Architects have less. Mr. German, is the landscaping complete -- is there something you did not do? Mr. German: There is only one house where the lights could possibly shine and he said he doesn't want it. Mr. Link: The neighbors had an option of a concrete wall; they wanted the green- belt but are not satisfied with it. Any other use could get in there and we can't do anything and you can't do anything about that. We have a City plan -- why not follow it? Mr. Morrow: I have been a long supporter of general office and professional service coming together as one classification. As one Commissioner, I supported an Ordinance amendment a while ago to that effect that it was not supported by Council. As a Commissioner, I have always supported general office in professional service because in my mind, general office will be less intensive than professional service regarding extended hours or extended days. Council chose to keep the uses separate. Mr. Straub: I would concur with Mr. Morrow. I, too, would have voted for general office in a professional service classification, however, I will not vote for this petition because I believe we should evaluate each petition on its own merit and I would not have an easy conscience after hearing from these thirty people. I would have no problem with combining general office and professional office uses. Mr. German: There was an old shack on the corner and I think now that it is a very attractive corner. The petition that was taken around -- if it is how Mr. Taylor read it, it was misleading regarding the rezoning of the property. I am not here to rezone the property. I am here for a simple waiver of use. If the people here have some specific use they are against, I would like to hear those specific uses because maybe we can make it a condition of approval if the Commission so wishes. Mr. Soranno: Had you attempted to get a tenant for P.S. and failed or is this the first tenant that didn't want professional service? How long have you tried to get tenants for the building? Mr. German: Six to ten months. I have a CPA and some medical in the building and I assure that this general office will be much less intense. The CPA is in there all night and on Sundays. It will be about 20% general office. 10030 Lillian Andriekus, 33251 Rayburn: We object because we don't know what can come in IL general office and you can't pass any restriction from him to anybody else. If he bought it for professional office, it should stay that way. We are impressed by that building because it looks nice but what isn't nice is the cars from Farmington coming into their parking lot and making a U-turn back out to Farmington Road. This issue came up two times before and we haven't received a notice. Mr. Smith: Usually office people arrive at 8:00 and leave at 5:00. This is why we don't usually have opposition to this and I am trying to find out what you would be opposed to. Mr. Soranno: Are you implying that it is a lesser grade of tenant in general office? Mr. Link: Yes, because there is a tremendous amount of those that might not be good. This is a residential area. Mrs. Andriekus: I object to anything in there like that. Mr. Ogrocko: General office means general office and we don't want that. We want professional service. That was decided before Mr. German bought the property and he knew that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-2-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #8-185-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 on Petition 87-7-2-33 by Robert German for waiver use approval for general office uses within a building located on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Plan- ning Commission doe hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-2-33 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all of 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. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (4) There is little or no difference between professional type uses and general office type uses with respect to their effect on the development of a particular parcel of land or the surrounding properties. 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: Soranno, Morrow, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Straub, Vyhnalek ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt 10031 10 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. a On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was i #8-186-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concern- ing effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 87-7-2-33 by Robert German for waiver use approval of general office uses within a building located on the northeast corner of Farming- ton Road and Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Soranno, Straub ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, 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 87-7-2-34 by Sean P. Kavanaugh requesting waiver use approval to operate a kennel business on the south side of Munger Avenue between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14. Illi4 Sean Kavanaugh, 35210 Plymouth Road: The Carlson's, the original owner, built his first kennel in 1954. Back at that time there were no regulations regarding the size of the lot needed to run a kennel and in 1966, the City of Livonia passed an Ordinance requiring five acres. This lot is about 2.7 acres and there are no kennel businesses in the City with five acres. They are on less. We are seeking a waiver to con- tinue this business which has been there for thirty-three years. We haven't had any static with neighbors. Mrs. Carlson wants to sell this business and can't sell it until she gets the proper papers from the City of Livonia, according to the County. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a waiver to continue this business subject to approval by the Planning Commission. John Schroff, 29606 Greenland: I have lived there for a long time and have never heard any complaints about this business. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-2-34 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-187-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 on Petition 87-7-2-34 by Sean P. Kavanaugh requesting waiver use approval to operate a kennel business on the south side of Munger Avenue between t Middlebelt and Henry Ruff in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-2-34 be approved subject to adherence to the stipulation by the Zoning Board of Appeals that the kennel be restricted to operating at a capacity of no more than 120 dogs and 30 cats, for the following reasons: • . 10032 (1) The proposed use complies with all waiver standards, as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals, set forth in Section 5.03(e) and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The use has been operating in the same location for over thirty years. (3) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 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 87-7-2-35 by John Del Signore for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in conjunction with a banquet hall proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles and the I-96 Freeway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19. Charles Tangora, Attorney: This is right next to the K of C Hall and is not in an area where there is a neighborhood. There is commercial across the street. We purchased the residence and it will be demolished. There was one one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, 10 Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-2-35 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #8-188-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 on Petition 87-7-2-35 by John Del Signore for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in conjunction with a banquet hall proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles and the I-96 Freeway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-2-35 be approved subject to the waiving by the City Council of the 1,000 foot separation requirement as set forth in Section 11.03(h) of Zoning Ordinance #543, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. j 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. 10033 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-7-2-37 by Lidia Veri for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a party store located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Lidia Veri, 35189 Vargo: We bought this business and are requesting this license. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-2-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #8-189-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 by Lidia Veri for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a party store located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-2-37 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for the Stark Plaza Shopping Center, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to support the proposed use. 11640 (3) The subject SDM License already exists on the site of the Shopping Center as opposed to this being a request for the utilization of a new License. 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 87-5-3-6 by Arturo Tartaglia for the vacating of the portion of Haldane Avenue lying east of Fitzgerald, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that since there are overhead electrical facilities crossing the subject street right-of-way, it is recommended that a full-width easement for public utilities be retained over the street right-of-way to be vacated. Also, the letter states that the petitioner should be advised that, in the opinion of that office, one-half of the above street right- of-way should be attached to Lot 52 with the remaining portion of the right-of-way reverting to Lot 53. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-3-6 closed. • 10034 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 4adopted. 'On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #8-190-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 by Arturo Tartaglia for the vacating of the portion of Haldane Avenue lying east of Fitzgerald, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-3-6 be approved subject to retention of a full-width easement for public utilities over the street right-of-way to be vacated, for the following reasons: (1) The subject street right-of-way is no longer required for any public purpose. (2) The subject road right-of-way could be more advantageously used if attached to abutting private propery owners and would be placed on the 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, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution li: adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Willow Woods Subdivision proposed to be located north of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicating three comments: (1) Since only one access point to the subdivision is being proposed, appropriate pavement widenings of Newburgh Road will be considered by that office at the time that the engineering plans for the subdivision are submitted. (2) Due to the limited capacity of the existing ditch near the southeast corner of the subdivision, the pre- liminary plat contemplates a retention pond at the rear of Lots 38 and 39. Based on a preliminary review of engineering data submitted to their office by the developer's engineer, surface drainage could be retained in this pond area anywhere from a depth of one foot to five feet depending on the storm frequency (10 year, 100 year storm). The alternative to the retention pond is an offsite storm sewer extend- ing southerly and easterly along Seven Mile Road to a point approx- imately 700 feet east of Fitzgerald Avenue. The City would require jurisdiction over the retention pond area inasmuch as the public street system would outlet to the pond area. (3) The development of the subdivision will require that the water system be looped to Fitzgerald Avenue by way of the Pembroke Avenue right-of-way. This construction t may cause the removal of some trees within this public, unimproved, right-of-way. A letter from the Fire Division states that the site plan does not contain sufficient data on water supply and roadway dimensions, there- 10035 fore, the approval of the Fire Division is contingent on acceptable design of those items. The Traffic Bureau states in its letter that the layout of the proposed subdivision resents no problems and should minimize traffic but undoubtedly it will be necessary to install "no outlet" and/or golf course direction information signs at St. Martins, and that the pavement portion of the street should be constructed to the thirty-one foot standard to minimize backing-from-drive accidents and problems. Paul Riggio, representing the developer, was present. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Willow Woods Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 4#8-191-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Willow Woods Subdivision proposed to be located north of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the following condition: (1) that a plan for an entrance marker as required by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to approval of the Final Plan; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat is well designed and forms a good land use solution to the subject lands. (2) The proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable standards, requirements and regulations as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Stamford Acres Subdivision proposed to be located at the northwest corner of Stamford and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering & Building Department notes that since Stamford Avenue has been recently vacated north of the subdivision area, the 50' x 100' street dedication adjacent to Lot #9 10036 will be required to accommodate a cul-de-sac area. In addition, this section of Stamford Avenue is currently being considered by the City 4 Council along with several other streets in the Seven Mile Super Highway Subdivision for improvement under the provisions of a special assessment program. The Fire Division's letter states that the plan does not contain sufficient data on water supply and roadway dimen- sions and the Fire Division's approval is contingent on acceptable design of those items. The Police Division indicates in their letter of 8/14/87 that no problems are foreseen in connection with the proposed plat. Lidia Veri, 35190 Vargo, developer: Three lots will be 70' x 120' and the rest will be 75' x 217' . Kenneth Hunt, 19006 Stamford: I have no objection to the way the lots are laid out. The first time this came forward, I though everything looked in order. In the meantime, Stamford Road was shut down. When I finally started looking at the project, one of the initial drawings I saw showed Stamford as twenty two feet. Does the City determine the road size. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering letter pointed out that this street is under con- sideration for a special assessment. Their notice will notify you regarding that assessment. Mr. Hunt: But what size is the road? Mr. Nagy: The road is being put in whether this subdivision goes in or not. That is why they initiated a special assessment. That special assess- ment takes precedence over what the subdivider shows. The width of the road and type of improvement is encompassed in that special assess- ment and that information should be part of the notice. Mr. Hunt: I think the notice said three different types of improvement. Mr. Nagy: They will determine what the improvement will be. Mr. Hunt: They propose closing off the road and continuing the masonry wall. Can a man opening be left in that masonry wall? Mr. Smith: The residents could petition to have that done if they want it. Walter Kostaroff, 18946 Stamford: I want to support Mr. Hunt on a man hole through the wall big enough for a bicycle to go through. Many of the resi- dents walk to the shopping center and children bike to it. The residents' objections before to the traffic was to car traffic down Stamford but there was no objection to people walking or children biking to get to Seven Mile Road. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-192-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 18, 1987 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Stamford Acres Subdivision proposed to be 10037 located at the northwest corner of Stamford and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 be approved subject to the waiving of the open space requirement set forth in the Subdivision Rules & Regulations, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat represents a design which is compatible to the surrounding residential development. (2) The proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable regulations and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Smith: That concludes the public hearing portion of the evening. We will now proceed with other items pending before the Commission. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was 1[0 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1987 on Petition 87-6-1-26 by Schneider Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Road in Section 30 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-6-1-26 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is supported by the Future Land Use Plan which- recommends medium density land use for the area which includes the type of residential units permitted by the R-7 District. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for residential dwelling units that will serve those persons and families that desire an alternative to single family houses. (3) The location of the subject land will provide for the amenities and major recreational facilities which will accommodate an increased population density that the proposed change of zoning would permit. (4) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. tA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Soranno, Morrow, Smith NAYS: Straub, Vyhnalek, Naidow ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt 10038 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion fails. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1987 on Petition 87-6-1-26 by Schneider Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Road in Section 30 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-6-1-26 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will permit uses which are in close proximity to several other similar uses existing or proposed in the general area of the subject property. (2) The proposed change of zoning will be incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would tend to isolate the existing abutting singly family residential subdivision called Chaney and Bakewell's Plymouth Park because of the proposed multiple family residential project located just west and abutting the subdivision. alternative to single family houses. 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. LA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Straub, Naidow NAYS: Sorqnno, Morrow, Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion fails. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #8-193-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 21, 1987 on Petition 87-6-1-26 by Schneider Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles Road in Section 30 from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-6-1-26 until the Planning Commis- sion Regular Meeting of September 1, 1987. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Soranno, Straub, Vyhnalek, Naidow NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution toadopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was . . 10039 100, 418-194-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 7/31/87 from Russell Barnett, Saperstein Associates Corporation, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension of approval of Petition 86-8-8-48 for approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-family development on the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh and Stonehouse in Section 31, be granted for a period of one-year sub- ject to adherence to the previously approved Site Plan for the subject development, for the following reason: (1) The project has considerable merit and would be an asset to the City, if developed. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #8-195-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to reconsider its action taken in Resolution #6-150-87, adopted on June 30, 1987, recommending to the City Council that Petition 87-6-2-24 by Shigeru Yamada for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be located within the shopping center located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Fitzgerald and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 be denied. 110 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 #8-196-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 30, 1987 on Petition 87-6-2-24 by Shigeru Yamada for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed to be located within the shopping center located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Fitzgerald and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-6-2-24 be denied for the following reason: (1) The proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a 1,000' separation between the proposed use and any existing Class C Licensed facility. 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, announced the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #8-197-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 542nd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 4, 1987 are approved. _. 10040 t4.. 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 #8-198-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-12-8-65 by Centrum Development Company for approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a three-story senior citizen building on the south side of Jamison between Sunbury and Middlebelt Roads in Section 24 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 86-16, prepared by Archon Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Landscape Plan 87-03, Sheet L-6, prepared by Archon Assoc- iates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to with the additional condition that the site be serviced with an under- ground sprinkler system; (3) that Building Plan 86-16, Sheet A-15, prepared by Archon Assoc- iates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ILadopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #8-199-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effective- ness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 86-12-8-65 by Centrum Development Company for approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a three-story senior citizens building on the south side of Jamison between Sunbury and Middlebelt Roads in Section 24. 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 #8-200-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Permit Application by RCA Commercial & Telephone for approval to erect an earth station antenna on a site located at 17200 N. laurel Park Drive in Section 7 subject to the following condition: (1) that the Permit Application by RCA Commercial and Telephone for a nine-foot diameter disc antenna at the courtyard by Marriot Motel in Laurel Park, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 10041 IL Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-201-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application for Mervyn's Department Store for three wall signs and a ground sign on property located at 29650 Seven Mile Road be approved subject to the following con- ditions: (1) that the new pylon sign addition shown on Plan 8614, dated 5/15/87, by Gordon Sibeck & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the new ground sign shown on Plan 8614, dated 5/15/87, by Gordon Sibeck & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the new wall signs shown on Plan 8614, dated 5/15/87, by Gordon Sibeck & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. IL #8-202-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effective- ness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Sign Permit Application for Mervyn's Department Store for three wall signs, a ground sign and a monument sign on property located at 19650 Seven Mile Road. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution _. adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 543rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 18, 1987 was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. CITY P ING COMM SSION 174--4:041-4..r"" ATTEST: C ' le(A ,, - ) &1:-...dA. Donna J. Naidow, retary C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac