Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-09-29 10048 11 MINUTES OF THE 545th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 29, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 545th 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 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Donna J. Naidow Sue Sobolewski Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Richard Straub Members absent: *Michael Soranno *R. Lee Morrow 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 t 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 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 87-7-1-27 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located between Five Mile Road and Roycroft, east of Farmington Road in the South- west 1/4 of Section 15 from C-1, C-2, C-4, R-1 and P.L. to P.S. , P.O. , and P.L. Mr. Nagy: We have received no correspondence regarding this petition. The purpose of the petition is to try to have the zoning classification correspond to the use of the subject land area. P.S. would more appropriately reflect the established use of the bank and credit union. Commercial zoning is not practical for the undeveloped land along Westmore Avenue. Veteran's Park at the corner of Five Mile and Farmington Road is not appropriately zoned inasmuch as it is City owned property. The lot at Five Mile and Shadyside is also owned by the City of Livonia. i. *Mr. Soranno entered the meeting at 7:08 p.m. J Richard Eckenswiller, 15445 Shadyside, representing the owner of the property: I object because I don't need a four-story building looking into my 10049 backyard. I think this is entirely uncalled for. I would like privacy in my backyard. I think there is some business minded faction behind this but nobody says anything about it. i Mr. Smith: The City owns some of the land and there is some scattered ownership It was felt that rather than have hodge-podge zoning in the area, a more comprehensive zone plan was needed. The C-4 zoning is already in place there and will already permit a four-story building. The change is from commercial to office. The purpose of the petition is to shift the commercial zoning away from Roycroft and bring it out to Five Mile Road and the area on Roycroft is going to low-rise, two-story office. Mr. Eckenswiller: Why don't they put homes there instead of putting in high build- ings that would be speculative in a residential area for more com- mercial. Mr. Smith: This would be a less intense use such as office, and only 1 or 2 stories high at the most. Mr. Straub: This does not represent further commercialization of the area and speculation has nothing to do with the petition. Mr. Kluver: There is existing C-1 and C-2 zoning in the area. Any individual can purchase it and develop it in C-1 or C-2. The purpose of this petition is to eliminate that type of condition and reduce the effect of that. That zoning is already there. This petition is to reduce the impact by putting in P.S. , P.L. , and office type development that would not impact the area as C-2, C-4 would. Low grade zoning with higher quality of development. Any developer of the property would have to come to the City for site plan approval. There is more control and less impact on the area. Mr. Eckenswiller: I understand that but I am still opposed because I want a private backyard. If it was just single story, it wouldn't be as bad. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-1-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver , seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #9-214-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-7-1-27 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located between Five Mile Road and Roycroft, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 from C-1, C-2, C-4, R-1 and P.L. to P.S. , P.O. , and P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recom- mend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-1-27 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changes of zoning are in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan. (2) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for uses which are more compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area as well as reflect uses already existing on a portion of the subject lands. 10050 (3) The proposed P.O. zoning district will provide for 3 or 4 story IL high buildings which will compliment the City Hall structure and the new Library currently under construction in the Civic Center area. (4) Office uses, which will be permitted by the proposed P.S. and P.O. Zoning Districts, are consistent with existing development 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 11543, 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 87-8-1-29 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Osmus in the North 1/2 of Section 3 from R-3A to RUF. Mr. Nagy: This petition originated from the City Council by a letter from area residents which requests to have properties in their general area which conform with RUF codes rezoned from R-3 to RUF. The petition has been signed by 42 residents of the area. This is not a petition brought forth by the Commission but at the request of the neighhor- hood property owners in the area. Vicki Villa, 20414 Mayfield: This would allow residents with farm land to be able li, to keep animals for pets on our property. Also, most of the land on the northern border of the City is already zoned RUF. By bring- 3 ing this property to RUF, it would bring it into conformity with the rest of the area. Mr. Villa, 20414 Mayfield: This was supposed to be rezoned a long time ago but we understand that it wasn't allowed because the Council didn't inform the people of the rezoning and we feel the Council should consider this either by referendum or by resolution because nobody told us it was going residential. There was no public notice given to the people. Mr. Nagy: The record shows that the R-3 zoning was placed on this property in 1965. Mr. Villa: Was there a hearing where the residents could contest. I understand it was only a temporary zoning. Mr. Nagy: Not that I know of. Mr. Smith: The City doesn't temporarily rezone property. Mrs. Robert Hastings, 20220 Parker: We have some 58 residents who do not want to change the zoning. In 1965, when it was changed from RUF to R-3, every 4i resident had a chance and they chose to go residential at that time. The majority of us would like the zoning to stay this way. Livonia will never be farming again. We have just as mujch right to developlment as anyone. 10051 Michael Petteys, 20411 Shadyside: I would like to see this rezoned so it is close 110 to what is on the other side. There are animals here and have been for a long time. I would like to see it go back to RUF. Victor Merino, 20180 Mayfield: I am against the rezoning. The area has a very low density of people there and from Hubbard to Farmington and Eight Mile to Pembroke the paving is pretty expensive. I had to pay three times more than my neighbors. I may also be interested in splitting my property someday. Cathy Andrek, 19949 Mayfield: I am a resident and I feel it is qualified for horses. With one acre, you are allowed a horse and I think a person who wants a horse should be able to have one. Joyce Myers, 20010 Mayfield: When we moved here, it was real neat with the horses. I would like to keep it that way. Mr. Soranno: If people that have these farm animals currently and if this remains R-3, that wouldn't effect their ability to have the animals? Mr. Nagy: They could continue to have their farm animals as long as the use was continued but if the use was discontinued and stalls and fences removed and the use for all intents and purposes abandoned, then it would not be permitted again. Mr. Soranno: The R-3 advantage is that possibly someone might want to split a lielot to deveop it. i John Harlow, 20015 Osmus: I like people to have what they like, like horses, but who cleans up their mess on the pavement in front of my house. I used to live in a place where horses came by my house and tore up the land. Mr. Villa: When you have a rural zoning, does that mean you cannot split your lot? Mr. Nagy: No, it is that the rural lots are larger. The one gentleman had an acre so he could split it in half. There is a little higher density with R-3 than with RUF. Lynda Scheel, 19980 Mayfield: I would like to see it pass to rural urban farm. If the people who would like to have a horse or something on the property with over an acre, does it have to be RUF for them to do so? Mr. Nagy: The zoning would permit it if they have an acre and RUF. With R-3, they would have to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals through the appeals process. *Mr. Morrow entered the meeting at 7:35 p.m. li; Marshall Deedler, 20064 Mayfield: That whole area is just about one acres lots. On the street front lots, I see they are starting to chop them up. How will that effect the guy next door whose lot is not on the street? His lot is going to be devalued because the other owner cut his lot 10052 10 in two. If that is allowed, that area should be some way fixed so that if one guy can do it, everybody can do it. ,f Mr. Smith: If it remains zoned R-3, everybody can do it. Mr. Deedler: There have been a lot of splits in the area. Why does the City Planner approve so many splits when it's R-3? Mr. Nagy: The City Planner does not split property. I want to make this perfectly, clear here. That goes through the City Assessor. Our office reviews and comments along with the Engineering and Building Departments. Where a lot is divided and where both of the lots meet the re- quirements, the City Assessor has the right to grant the lot split. If 3 or more lots are proposed or if any of the proposed lots don't meet the zoning requirements, than it takes Council action. Our interest is to see that the lots conform to the prevailing lot sizes in the area. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-8-1-29 closed. Mr. Kluver: This body is made of nine members appointed by the Mayor. We are not elected officials. We serve for the purpose of developing the kind of zoning this City should have. Each petition that goes through the Planning Commission has a decision made on it. That decision is passed onto the Council. The Legislative body makes the final decision. The decision made here does not necessarily impact the Council. If you have an interest in the petition, you should contact your Councilman. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was li, X69-215-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-1-29 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Osmus in the North 1/2 of Section 3 from R-3A to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 98-8-1-29 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The subject area has the capacity to accept additional dwelling units which may result from future development occurring in accordance with R-3A zoning district requirements. (2) A more intensive utilization of the land area envolved will not be injurious to the continued use and enjoyment of the existing residential properties in the area. (3) All existing lots in the subject area at least conform to the R-3A zoning requirements or larger. (4) If this petition were to be approved, 49 existing lots would then become nonconforming. (5) The subject area has been zoned R-L or R-3 (80'x120' size lots) 4i since 1960 which has led to more efficient use of the land in 10053 most instances, a fact which the Planning Commission believes is of paramount importance, particularly in these times of high cost of land and housing. 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 S7-8-1-30 by Giuliano Soave to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Gill Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division notes that Gill Road and Seven Mile Road have not been dedicated to their fullest extent in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Guiliano Soave, petitioner, was not present. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-8-1-30 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was li; #9-216-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-1-30 by Giuliano Soave to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Gill Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4 from RUFB to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-8-1-30 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would provide for the development of residential lots which are consistent with those existing lots adjacent on the north and in the surrounding neighborhood. 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 87-8-1-31 by James Ballard to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road between Concord and Capitol in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-1. John Gargaro, 32901 Schoolcraft, representing petitioner: The property east of us and north of us is zoned M-1, and I believe this to be the best use 10054 of this land. We would like to develop into some type industrial building. We tried to buy Lot 116 and Mr. Ballard is trying to buy other property there. I: Mr. Ballard, 12146 Stark: The owner said in about a year. The daughter is living there now. Dorothy Barnes, 3 .851 Beacon: We are very concerned about this. We were :old that Mr. Ballard owns two other homes which are the third and fourth homes on Stark. We want to know what is going on. Mr. Ballard: I sold those two homes. Mrs. Barnes: We don't need any more traffic which would come from this property being developed in industrial. Josephine Smith, 34401 Capitol: I went down to the City Hall for information on this petition and one of the records says Alden Village is one of four residental areas existing within the City's industrial belt and the Future Land Use Plan seeks to maintain those areas by designating them as residential. Despite the pressure to rezone lots within the Alden Village Subdivision the City has, so far, resisted such attempts. If it is still the Planning Commission's desire to maintain Alden Village as a viable residential area then this rezoning should be denied. It is our position that a denial would be in the best interests of the City as well as the Alden Village neighbor hood. 10 I feel the same way. Our streets are paved and we knew we would get commercial on the other side of the railroad tracks but not in our Village. I have lived here for thirty years. Beverly Wilson, 12036 Brewster: I have been there since 1968. We have small children in the neighborhood and I would like to reiterate on the traffic sit- uation. We fought when you were talking about putting roads in. I have spent over $3,000 for that road and I want to maintain the residential area and get it so that it will be safe for our children again. Also, when the road was put in, the Council recognized that we were one of the oldest villages in Livonia, and would not want to see this in our Village. Raymond Barnes, 34851 Beacon: I feel the same as everybody else. Esther Snowden, 34239 Wadsworth: I am opposed to the petition. Mr. Vuhnalek: Your client is looking for M-1 in that area. There is a lot of vacant M-1 zoning. Mr. Gargaro: He doesn't own that land. He owns this land. This property is an island and there is industrial all around him. Mr. Vyhnalek: I have a hard time moving M-1 out to Stark Road. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-8-1-31 closed. t 10055 1: Mr. Morrow: I think this is spot zoning in a residential area and I concur with 3 Mr. Vyhnalek that the spot zoning would encourage the extension of M-1 zoning in the residential area. On a motion duly made by Straub, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was d/9-217-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-1-31 by James Ballard to rezone property located on the east side of Stark Road between Concord and Capitol in the South- east 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-8-1-31 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends the retention of Alden Village Subdivision as a viable residential area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would encourage similar proposals on other residential properties in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning if approved would be inconsistant with the policy of maintaining viable residential areas throughout the community. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance 110 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 4 adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-7-2-38 by George Gomalak for waiver use approval to utilize and SDM License within an existing retail store located on the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Knolson in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department in their letter indicate they have no objection to this petition. Eugene Rizzo, 15760 Woodside, representing the petitioner: Mr. Gomolak has been operating this store for two years at an economic loss. An SDM License would put him on an equal basis with other businesses in the area. It is merely for beer and wine and it would not change his hours of operation. He closes at 7:00 p.m. every day. It is very necessary to his business to give him this permission to be able to more completely service his clientele and perhaps bring in more clientele to increase his business. There are about twenty employees, fifteen or sixteen of them are Livonia residents. Mr. Gormolak supports the City's athletic programs. Mr. Soranno: There is an establishment across the street. Do you own or run IVthat business? Mr. Rizzo: No. 10056 Mr. Soranno:1: Is that a competitor? Mr. Gomolak, 38741 Ann Arbor Road: They changed hands about three months ago. Quik Pick used to be there and I heard they are moving out and someone else moving in. My business is mostly perishibles. Mr. Soranno: They currently sell beer and wine? Mr. Gomolak: Yes. Mr. Soranno: Are you familiar with the Ordinance about the distance between such licenses? Mr. Smith: This petition is against our Zoning Ordinance with the other business so close to you. Mr. Gomolak: I do need this to bring in more walk-in trade to my business. I would do that area no harm. I have three sons and a daughter and I am not here to hurt anybody. I have perishibles in the store and they don't last very long. I do not run the typical party store as you may think of it. My store is more of a market. Mr. Vyhnalek: The Council is the only body that can waive that 500' requirement, and there are places within the City within the 500' . The Council can waive it but the Planning Commission cannot. 1[0 Mr. Straub: Have you noticed a fall-off in your trade that is attributable to their license? It seems to me that the type of merchandize is different. Mr. Gomolak: I have only been in the business for two years and I have been struggling to get the neighborhood trade to come in and we have to have people come in our store because of the perishables. I cannot answer you as to whether or not they hurt me or not but I have to have more items in my store. I bought the store two years ago and I am new in this business. I do need extra help or else I might not make it there. Mr. Straub: I would encourage you to seek the waiver. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-2-38 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #9-218-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-7-2-38 by George Gomalak for waiver use approval to utilize and SDM License within an existing retail store located on the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Knolson in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-2-38 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is in violation of the waiver use requirement set forth in Section 10.03(g)(1) which requires that there shall be a 500' separation between existing and proposed SDM licenced facilities. 10057 (2) The petitoner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.09 of the Zoning Ordinance x,543. 9 (3) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, amoung other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance X1543, 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 87-8-2-39 by Louis G. Redstone Associates for waiver use approval to renovate and construct an addition to the existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file stating the Engineering Division has no objection to the waiver use proposal. There is a letter dated September 15, 1987 from William N. Ponder advising the Commission that he has reviewed the plans and supports the petition to allow Bill li, Brown Ford to erect the addition as requested. Daniel Redstone, 28425 Eight Mile Road: We have not made any changes in the plan since the last meeting except to correct some errors in the parking. The 1 landscaped area was modified to take into consideration the comments made and we feel that the site plan as presented in extremely positive to the City of Livonia and an improvement in the aesthetics along Plymouth Road. Mr. Smith: Is the Beautification Committee happy with the plan? Mr. Nagy: The Committee did not take a position on the matter in terms of a communication. There were those both for and against. The general thought was that it is an improvement. Mr. Redstone: Bill Brown Ford is among the top ten automobile sales dealerships in the country. I have a letter from the Ford Motor Land Develop- ment Corporation stating that the plans are in the process of being reviewed by that office and they note that the total site area is only 55% of guide requirements based on the dealership's current planning volume and that if the parking in the front of the existing showroom is not maintained, they recommend that a site search for an alternate location be considered. Mr. Brown does not have jurisdiction over the dealership but I think this will be approved by Ford. tJohn Hillman, 14317 Yale: I am basically representing Bill Brown Ford who has been planning this for seven years and has procured the necessary property. We are one of the top ten volumeproducing dealerships in the U. S. Our hope is not only to maintain that type of volume but to be able to 10058 service with parts the people that we sold. Therefore, Mr. Brown is making an effort to put the additional service bays and parts depart- ment in. There was a comment made that it has been said that if for some reason the parking were denied, another location should be con- sidered. It is possible that that would be an alternative. It is not a threat and we already don't comply with quite a few Ford fac- ilities. The plans have been changed many times. We have input from all the managers. If the plan is changed, we will forget it and find another spot. We feel this is a very viable plan for Bill Brown and for the City. Overall the plan speaks well for the expend- itures Mr. Brown is contemplating. Mr. Redstone: We have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they have granted the required variances requested. Mrs. Sobolewski: I am disappointed that something more has not been done in land- scaping, and the seven parking spaces in the front. This Commission would go along with any comments made by the Plymouth Road Beautifica- tion Committee. I know Bill Brown has been there for thirty years and this is the first time they have done anything to upgrade the area. The hardship because of the seven parking spaces I don't feel will be great because you are adding twenty three more and it is my thought that after thirty years you are doing something for yourself and for Livonia. That is a nice corner and we would like to keep it niece. Mr. Redstone: We talked about giving up the spaces but the problem is that for shopping for cars you need convenience. Those seven spaces are the convenient spaces. We have discussed possibly giving up one more space. 4 Discussion was held by the Commission and petitioners regarding the overall site plan as presented to the Commission. J. Schuler, representing Allied Commerce Center: I went through this about a year and a half ago when that corner became a very big issue and traffic was brought up and the island they wanted torn out or landscaped. We got around all that and Bill Brown has been there a long time. The comment about the parking being used by customers -- I always park in the front. I think what Bill Brown is asking for is reasonable and Oppenheimer will support this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-8-2-39 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #9-219-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-2-39 by Louis G. Redstone Associates request- ing waiver use approval to renovate and construct an addition to an existing automobile dealership located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard and Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Plannning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-8-2-39 be approved subject to the following conditions: 10059 (1) That the site plan sheet SK-1 dated 9/29/87, as revised, prepared by Louis G. Redstone Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That the building elevation plan sheet SK-1 dated 7-28-87 prepared by Louis G. Redstone Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthly condition. 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 the Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposal represents a substantial improvement of the existing facilities and a major upgrading of the adjacent property upon which the use is proposed to be expanded. liW 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: Kluver, Morrow, Straub, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow 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 87-8-2-40 by Senate Coney Island for waiver use approval to relocate to another location within the Stark Plaza Shopping Center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department indicates they have no objection to the proposal from an engineering standpoint. Mrs. Sobolewski: You are increasing or adding services? William Harris, 16075 White Haven Drive, Northville: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, IL Chairman, declared the public hearing on Oetutuib 87-8-2-40 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was 10060 119-220-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-2-40 by Senate Coney Island for waiver ..:se approval to relocate to another location with the Stark Plaza Shopping Center on the southeast corner of Plymouth and Stark Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-8-2-40 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved Site Plan for the Stark Plaza Shopping Center and a limitation on the number of customer seats to 170, for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance X1543. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (4) The proposed use does not represent a new restaurant in the area but rather, is simply moving from one location on the subject site to another. 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 1110 adopted. 4 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-8-2-41 by James Blain, Inc. , for waiver use approval for general office uses within an existing building located on the southwest corner of Six Mile Road and Quakertown Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department indicates in their letter that they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. James Blain, 31800 Northwestern, Farmington Hills: We are here to change this use again. From professional office to general office. Mr. Nagy: General office would have been a permitted use when the property was originally C-2. Mr. Kluver: Looking at the previous project, you didn't have any screening put on the facility on the top. Mr. Blain: I didn't think those units would look so bad but they really looked bad. t Mr. Smith: You are going to screen this building the same? Mr. Blain: We will screen it the same as the other building. Corrugated metal. But we dont't want to put in green. It will be a color that will look black but it is dark brown. 10061 Mr. Morrow: Is the Americenter like the Turnkey operation where you go for clerical? Mr. Blain: Yes. I Mr. Soranno: What are your plans for irrigating along Six Mile Road? Mr. Blain: The City informed me that I have to sod the area and sprinkle it. We are in the process of doing that. Quakertown was torn up once and we are in the process of putting in a sprinkler on Quakertown. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-8-2-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Kluver, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 118-221-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-2-41 by James Blain, Inc. , for waiver use approval for general office uses within an existing building located on the south- west corner of Six Mile Road and Quakertown Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-8-2-41 be approved subject to the condition that the Six Mile Road right-of-way shall be irrigated with an underground sprinkler system and sodded, for the following reasons: (1) There is very little difference between professional office uses and general office uses with regard to their effect on the subject site. (2) All waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 have complied with. (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 87-8-2-42 by Michael Sabatini for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located within a building located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Department states they have no objection to this petition from an engineering standpoint. There is also a letter in the file from Angelo Barile, President of Pizza Man, stating he has no objections to the petition. Mr. Sabatini has presented a revised site plan incorporating the items discussed at the study meeting. J. Schuler, representative of Allied Commerce Center: We have no objection with one 10062 exception. The people who frequent his place I have a problem with. They don't realize the exit to that place is on Plymouth Road and I would like to have one restriction that he put up a fence behind 1[10 his property. Mr. Schuler and Mr. Sabatini discussed the possibility of having the fence behind his property extended to include the entire lot and Mr. Sabatini agreed to do that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-8-2-=:2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was X19-222-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-8-2-42 by Michael Sabatini for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located within a building located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-8-2-42 be approved subject to the follow- ing conditions: (1) That the site plan marked SD-1 dated 9-24-87, as revised, prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates, Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That the expanded restaurant use shall be limited to 156 seats as depicted on the floor plan dated 8-21-87 prepared by Thomas W. Kurmas & Associates. (3) That the existing chain link fence shall be extended the full width IL of the subject property. 41010 for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above 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 87-7-3-7 by the City Planning Commission to vacate several alleys located north of Joy Road between Hix and Stonehouse in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department indicates they have reviewed the petition and there are existing utility poles and a ten-inch sanitary sewer located within the subject alley. They therefore recommend that a full width easement for public utilities be retained over any 10063 portions of the alley to be vacated. Detroit Edison Company states in their letter that they have no objection to the vacating providing iweasements are retained. Christopher Vaughn, 37912 Joy: I would like the vacating because the four houses on the corner are brand new and do not come with garages. I would like to build a garage but it would limit the space for other uses such as a garden. There is a door wall in the back of the house and we expect to build a patio out there some day. This would give me some green room although it is not a whole lot of space. Diane Moyer, 8845 Houghton: I originally put the petition in. I have had to put up with trash from the party store and this is an invitation to the kids in the neighborhood to hang out there. Cars pull into the alley and the lights shine into our yards. Helen Sheppard, 8865 Houghton: That really has been nothing but a problem. It is full of glass and junk. It has never been used by a car because the trash from the 7-Eleven builds up so high. Kids with motor- cycles use the alley and people have slept in the area. Robert Corney, 38134 Joy: I support the closing of the alley. By closing the alley where would the pedestrian traffic go? There are no sidewalks pro- vided there. Recently they expanded Joy to three lanes with a left- hand turn at Inkster and Joy but at that time the Wayne County Road Commission put in ditches but no culverts or drains. If they are going to put in sidewalks, why wasn't this done in the first place? ivMr. Smith: Do you have a lot of pedestrial traffic down the alley? Mr. Corney: People going to the party store and school kids. 16, Mr. Smith: Most of the stores customers drive up and go in the front, right? Mr. Corney: Yes. Mr. Nagy: The City can, through assessment procedings, install sidewalks but the property owners would be paying for it. Mr. Corney: Also, traffic goes through there forty miles per hour at times. Mr. Smith; Those things will be looked into by the Code Enforcement Officers. Mr. Corney: My neighbor uses a portion of the alley -- would that part still remain open? Mr. Smith: No. Mr. Nagy: The alley will be divided equally through the center so they will have to confine themselves to that which they will gain title to. Rick Roberts, 38120 Joy: My aunt owned the house at the corner of Butwell and Joy 54 and over the past ten years the house has been broken into twice. I hope with the alley closed, it will keep kids out of the alley. LI support closing the alley. Mrs. William Olesky, 8844 Houghton: The only way I can get into my garage is by 41, coming through the alley. What am I going to do with the telephone poles? I want the alley closed buit we have two poles there. 10064 Mr. Smith: How do you get through there now? 1[ Mrs. Olesky: We go through the easement. 10 Mr. Kiuver: Maybe someone should investigate before we do this. 411, Mr. Shane: I was out there and, in my opinion, you can make the turn but it will be tough, and there will be ten feet more. Mr. Nagy; There is really no public purpose in the City retaining its interest in this alley. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-7-3-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was 419-223-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 29, 1987 on Petition 87-7-3-7 by the City Planning Commission to vacate several alleys located north of Joy Road between Hix and Stonehouse in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-7-3-7 be approved subject to the retention of a full-width easement to protect existing public utilities, for the following reasons: (1) The subject alleys are no longer required to serve any public need. (2) The subject alley right-or-ways can be more advantageously used and maintained in private ownership. 4110 (3) The vacating of the subject alleys will place the land area back 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, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Smith, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission will proceed to pending items. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, it was #9-224-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 544th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on September 1, 1987, are approved. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 41, adopted. ILOn a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was • 10065 119-225-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the 1[11, City Council that Petition 87-9-8-29 by Jeffery Yaffai for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance 11543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing commercial building located on the south side of Plymouth Road at Garden in Section 36, be approved 410 subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 118205, Sheet A-1, prepared by James L. Krupa, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to with the added condition that the existing service station sign pole also be removed along with the old light poles and replaced with a new conforming sign; (2) that Building Plan 118205, Sheet A-3, prepared by James L. Krupa, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the approved landscaping as shown on Sheet A-1, including an undergrground sprinkler system, shall be installed on the site prior to occupancy of the new building addition; and (4) that this approval is subject to the granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of a variance for an addition to a non- conforming building. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Soranno, Kluver, Sobolewski, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Morrow, Straub 1 ABSENT Hildebrandt 410 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #9-226-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 73-6-8-23 by El Nibble Nook Restaurant for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance 41543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing restaurant located on the south side of Eight Mile Road at Grand River in Section 1, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Building Plans for El Nibble expansion as shown on Sheets 1 and 2, dated 8/17/87, prepared by Edwin S. Shymanski, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the expansion plans are only for a vestibule and customer waiting area and that the restaurant dining capacity will remain at 190 seats. ILMr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10066 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, toi it was 119-227-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 79-6-8-18P 16-0 by Don Miller for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance 11543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the north side of Schoolcraft between Middlebelt Road and Cardwell in Section 24, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 1187-73, Sheet SP-1, dated 9/17/87, prepared by Billett Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan 1187-73, Sheet PA-1, dated 9/17/87, prepared by Gillett Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan #82-73, Sheet LS-1, dated 9/17/87, prepared by Gillett Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that the landscaping shown on the approved plan shall be installed on the site prior to occupancy of the new addition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 1[1, On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, 46 it was 119-228-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 87-9-8-28 by John Del Signore for approval of all plans required by Section 11.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a banquet hall on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Eckles and I-96 Freeway in Section 19, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan marked Sheet 1, dated 9/21/87, prepared by Kamp DiComo Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2, dated 9/21/87, pre- pared by Kamp DiComo Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that a landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval within thirty (30) days of this resolution; and (4) that a plan for any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. Ili, Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 10067 On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted, IblV it was 419-229-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Neumann/Smith & Assoc- iates for approval to construct a monument sign at 38705 Seven Mile Road, be approved subject to the following condition: (1 ) that the monument type sign X18727 for the Duke Development, prepared by Neumann/Smith & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 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 #9-230-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Lucy D'Orazio for approval to erect a new ground sign on an existing pole located at 33529 Seven Mile Road, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the new sign panels as shown on the drawing prepared by Lucy D'Orazio, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #9-231-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Burns Sign Company on behalf of Loveland Plaza for approval to construct a monument sign and wall sign standards for a building located at 32630 Seven Mile Road, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the monument type sign for Loveland Plaza, prepared by Burns Sign Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the wall sign standards for all signs to be erected on the building, prepared by Burns Sign Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 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 10068 #9-232-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-8-8-50 by Dominic 11001 Soave for approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a retail and office building on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Northland Road in Section 6, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Revised Site Plan #8625, Sheet A-1, dated 7/14/87, prepared by Sam Dorchen Architect, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Revised Building Plan #8625, Sheet A-9, dated 7/14/87, pre- pared by Sam Dorchen Architect, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that all other conditions pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 9-242-86 shall remain in full force and effect. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #9-233-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat approval for Bobrich Circle Subdivision proposed to be located north of Six Mile Road, west of Louise Avenue in the South- east 1/4 of Section 11, for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat has been drawn in conformance with the Preliminary Plat. (2) All financial obligations imposed upon this propriator by the City have been satisfied. (3) The City Engineer has no objection to the approval of this Final Plat. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 545th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 29, 1987 was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Donna J. Naidow, Secretary ATTEST: C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac