Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1983-09-20 MINUTES OF THE 461st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 20, 1983, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 461st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. 'Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings' to order at 8:05 p.m. , with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel. R..Andrew; lee R. Morrow Sue_Sobolewski Joseph J. Falk "' Judy "Scut-to Donald 'Vyhna 1 ek Donna Naidow Members absent: *Herman Kluver Jerome Zimmer Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Andrew 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 which, in turn, holds its own public hearing and decides the question. If a petitionis a waiver use request and the petition is denied by the Planning Commission, the peti- tioner has ten days in which to appeal for relief. With a vacating petition, only one public hearing is required. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 83-8-3=6 by Melvin, Menuck ,to vacate a portion of:an easement located_ south of Plymouth Road and east- of Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 Of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated 8/22/83 in the file from Melvin Menuck stating that his reason for this: request is that the five feet of the easement is needed inlorder that a residence may be placed on the lot. There is also a letter from the Engineering Division stating that there are no City maintained utilities within the easement and that they have no objections to the proposal . There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-8-3-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #9-183-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1983 on Petition 83-8-3-6 by Melvin Menuck to vacate a portion of an easement located south of Plymouth Road and east of Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend too the City Council that Petition 83-8-3-6 be approved for the followiing reasons : � L (1) The Engineering Divison has no objections to the proposed vacating since there are no City maintained utilities within the subject easement. (2) No objections to vacating the subject easement have been received from the public utility companies. (3) The 15-foot wide easement area to be retained is sufficient to maintain an adequate greenbelt. FURTHER RESOLVED that, ntoice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance #50 of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretarlr; nrocft�ced the next `item on theagenda rs Petition $3=$2-32 6y�Jack-Johnson requesting waiver use approval to utilize property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Spanich Industrial Court and Henry Ruff in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 for landscape contracting and related landscape supply and services. Mr. Andrew: We have a letter from the petitioner indicating his desire to with- draw this petition, therefore, if there is no one present wishing to speak on the petition we will entertain a motion to approve the with- drawal . ith- drawal. James Hosey, 14954 Flamingo: On that particular corner there is the ABC Sand and Gravel Company which has nothing to do with manufacturing. I just wonder why this type of business is allowed when it shouldn't even be in the neighborhood. Mr. Nagy: ABC is the petitioner and he proposes. to expand to become a landscape contractor as well as a supplier, but the Ordinance does now allow thatwith out -a waiver of use approval . In applying the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, the requirements regarding setbacks nearly renders the property useless. Mr. Hosey: 1 can't understand why he got in there in the first place.. He is creating a nuisance in the neighborhood. When you call City Hall about it, they say he has a permit to operate. In my opinion, the man is in there in violation. Right next door you have RUFB, residential . Why should people have to have more dirt without even having a public hearing on that piece of property to begin with. Mr. Andrew: The Commission does not know how he got in there. Mr. Hosey: I think the matter should be investigated. Mr. Nagy: The matter has been investigated and this is what brought his petition about. Mr. Hosey: When I asked about that three years ago, the Inspection Department couldn't tell me anything. Mr. Andrew: We will investigate it and get back to you in thirty days. Martin Ferris, 29408 Lori : In defense of Mr. Johnson, he does have a built-up earth berm' in front of the property. I don't think it is that much of a public nuisance. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #9-184-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1983 in Petition 83-8-2-32 by Jack Johnson requesting waiver use approval to utilize property located -on the' south -side of Five Mile = Roadbetween Spanich Industrial Court and Henry Ruff in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, for landscape contracting and related landscape supply and services, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 83-8-2-32. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-8-2-33 by William L. Roskelly of Basney & Smith, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a Burger King Restaurant on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from Harold E. Abbott of the Michigan Department of Transportation dated 9/13/83 indicating he has reviewed And tentatively approved the access and that drainage pipe size will have to be reduced to a 4" diameter. There is also a letter from the Engineering Division stating that there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service the site. William Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly: I would like to construct a Burger King Restau- rant on this site. I believe you have the necessary plans showing all details. I have made three different changes for the State Highway Department to pacify them on the approaches. They were concerned about Plymouth Road traffic. Mr. Roskelly displayed a copy of the site plan and discussed it in detail with the members of the Commission. Mr. Andrew: There are two existing curb cuts? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. Andrew: It would appear from the comments of the Transportation Department that you will be retaining water on the site? What would happen in the event of a 100 year rain? Mr. Roskelly: This is an engineering maneuver and they indicated that they would give us a 4" outlet. Some water would be held on the site. Mr. Andrew: What storm do you tap in - on Wayne Road? Mr. Roskelly: We do not tap in. Mr. Andrew: The site plan indicates two lanes; one for by-pass and one for drive- thru. Will there be a physical separation between the two lanes? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, either by curb or something of some other nature. Mr. Andrew: Something other than just a line? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mr. Andrew: The building will be brick and wood siding? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, up to Livonia standards. I believe we have to add some more masonry. Mr. Andrew: --;Do you'propose any li-ght standards in-ifie parking -lot? Mr. Roskelly: Yes, I believe they are shown on one of the sheets of the plans. Mr. Andrew: Do you propose a transformer on the building? Is that indicated on the plan? Mr. Roskelly: It will be at the rear of the building. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, at the study meeting, one of the Commissioners asked for traffic Counts. Have you obtained them? Mr. Nagy: Yes and we have a graphic to put on the screen to illustrate those counts. The traffic counts were displayed on the screen and Mr. Bakewell explained them to the Commission and audience. Mr. Andrew: Do you feel those counts are representative of what is being experienced during the day? Mr. Nagy: Yes, I think so. There has been no lane widening -- no increased capacity. Mrs. Scurto: I wonder, since Burger King was the forerunner of the drive-thru, if we couldn't use them as a forerunner in providing drive-up trash. facilities. I don't mean the ordinary garbage can. You can take food in the car and there is a problem if you are not living close-by in taking home your garbage. I think it is the responsibility of these drive-ins to provide drive-away garbage. If this proposal is passed, I think that is something Burger King can do for the community -- not just the cus- tomers using the facility there but for the whole community. Mr. Roskelly introduced Gary Orthner of the Burger King Corporation. Mr. Orthner: Approximately one year ago, one of the requirements was posting of signs saying that it was against the City ordinance for customers to consume food in vehicles. These signs have been posted. To the best of my knowledge there haven't been any complaints and we have established a policing policy by the employees of the restaurant. Mrs. Scurto: There has been a problem with convenience windows and the increase lately in litter in parking lots of office buildings. What I am saying to you is that as a businessman encouraging drive-thru pick up of food, I think you should be obliged to provide drive-thru garbage facilities. • -5- Mr. SMr. Orthner: We would be happy to work with you in that respect. Mrs. Scurto; We would like you to be in the ;fore front on this and to get your competitors to do the same. Mrs. Sobolewski : Is this site larger than the Plymouth Road site? Mr. Orthner: It is probably l0-15% larger. The building is smaller. Mrs. Sobolewski : How many seats compared to the other one? Mr. Orthner: Approximately 70 seats in the proposed building. _= • J Mrs. SoboTewski: (s that more-or l-ess tlaari--the other? -` Mr. Orthner: That is less. Mrs. Sobolewski : Is there anyting to restrict traffic from heading southbound on Wayne Road? Mr. Roskelly: No. Mr. Morrow: Is there one ingress and egress into the restaurant? Mr. Andrew: Two. One on Wayne Road and one on Plymouth. For the record, will the petitioner indicate how many seats in the proposed restaurant? Mr. Orthner: The seating layout shown on the plan shows 84. I stand corrected. Mr. Morrow: I am concerned about creating any more of a traffic hazard in the area. Mr. Andrew: Does Burger King own the site at the present time? Do you have an option -- purchase agreement? Mr. Orthner; It is my understanding we are involved in a purchase agreement with the seller. Mr. Andrew: Subject to certain conditions such as approval of the waiver use? Mr. Orthner; Yes. I understand there is another petition which will discontinue the existing restaurant. Mr. Andrew: The Commission is aware of a pending petition relative to the Pear Tree but there is no petition before this Commission on which we could take action. Mr. Orthner: That restaurant would be discontinued before ctonsumation of the agree- ment. Mr. Morrow: My concern is more regarding entrance into the site related to east- bound traffic and traffic entering in or leaving the commercial use on the corner. Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Abbot indicated he though this is an improvement over the present situation and hoped that this would go in. Mr. Morrow: I am in disagreement with the State's comment. *Mr. Kluver entered the meeting at 8;45 p.m. Mrs. Naidow: What are the busiest times? Mr. Orthner: The lunch and dinner hours. Mr. Scurto: Is this going to be one of your open until 4:00 a.m. restaurants? Mr. Orthner: No. Mrs. Scurto: Normally do you close at 12 :30 a.m.? Mr. Orthner:„ lt _is-_up to each individual restaurant.restaurant. This one will behandled.by. the-same--operator as Plymouth Road and I believe he operates from 10:00 a.m. until 2-2:30 a.m. Mr. Morrow: I have nothing against Burger Kind but Plymouth Road has its share of eating establishments, and I don't feel we need another one. Mr. Orthner: We are trading one-for-one. We are eliminating the Pear Tree. Mr. Currin, 11258 Wayne Road: My property abuts the site. What kind of barrier goes in there? Mr. Andrew: They will be required to build a wall along the south property line. a 5' -7' wall . Mr. Currin: That will be like a prison with a wall around my house. Mr. Andrew: The wall can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals but they must show the wall on the plan. Priscilla Hunter, 34901 Standish: On the other side of the wall, you are in my back yard. I feel that a very good traffic study should be done. There is a tremendous amount of traffic. I can't understand how you can - put another eating establishment in to add to traffic. There are 16 places between Wayne and Farmington Road where you can order a sandwich and drink to take out. We don' t need any more bright lights shining in our windows or trash in our back yards. Beth Drummond, 34765 Standish: I agree with what Mrs. Hunter said. Norman Woolscheid, 33051 Perth: There is some discrepancies when you use an '81 traffic count in a 1983 situation. Putting a Burger King in there I think is really terrible as far as traffic is concerned. This is just bad news all the way around. Mr. Currin: What will stop the traffic going west on Plymouth Road from cutting through onto Wayne Road to beat that traffic? Mr. Andrew: Nothing would restrict it. Mrs. Hunter: The traffic would only exit east. Mr. Andrew: There would be a sign saying right turn only. They are supposed to turn around and go right on Wayne Road. Ralph Horowitz, owner of the property: I want to enlighten you in regard-to traffic. The seating capacity in the existing restaurant is approximately 94 seats. The reason this has come about is that for the first time in approximately 15 years there is no lease. It is leasible as it is. We are not asking for an additional restaurant. We are closing a 94 seater to open an 84 seater. If the existing restau- rant becomes a flower shop and if he would get 4 to 5 cars an hour he would be very busy. He is busy at the holiday times. Mrs. Scurto; Mrs. Hunter, I would like to ask, if you would allow me to assume that the gentleman who owns the property has been paying taxes do it and has the right to develop it, what could go in there that would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mrs. Hunter; A grocery store. Mrs. Scurto; But what about the traffic generated from that? There is far too much traffic and I think it is the most un-safe section in our town. Mrs. Hunter: This is a bad area. Two people have died in my back yard coming through the wall. I have no. idea what he can put on the property. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-8-2-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #9-185-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1983 on Petition 83-8-2-33 by William L. Roskelly of Basney & Smith, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a Burger King Restaurant on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-8-2-33 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively demonstrate the proposal complies with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use, the site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area. (3) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over-saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. (4) The proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the adjoining uses of 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: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-9-2-34 by John Dinan requesting waiver use approval to construct general office buildings on the_east side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and Five'Mi le-Road rn` the N8?-ifiwest -7/4-of ection 22. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this project and a letter from the Traffic Bureau regarding a left-turn lane indentation on Farmington Road and the southerly site ingress/egress at Farmington Road. There is also a letter from the Wayne County Road Commission regard- ing the driveways and cross-overs required in Farmginton Road. John J. Dinan, petitioner: I am also the developer of Middlebelt Square and am just completing an office complex at Brentwood and Eight Mile Road. We realize this is a sensitive location and I would like to work with the neighbors on a compatible layout. We would like to extend our full cooperation to try to make this peoject a success to the City and the neighborhood. There will be three phases to the project. We have a rendering showing the buildings. We plan Early American decor on one story constructions. All mechanical equipment will be hidden below the roof. This building will have field stone on the larger section in the center. The building will have two elevations both the same facing east and west. The building will be 80% used for general office which will not create traffic in the area. We agree with the Police Department and the Wayne County Road Commission in laying our entrance north of Lyndon to line up with the crossover on Farmington Road. We are flexible as to the layout of these build- ings. The greenbelt could be widened to save many of the existing trees. Each of the three buildings will be 12,000 square feet each. Mr. Dinan explained the rendering to the Commission and audience in detail . Mr. Andrew: There continues to be an existing petition before the City Council by LPR Land Company on this site that has not been withdrawn? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Andrew: At the time that petition was filed, the owner of the property was indicated as LPR, Carl and June Monaco. The petition you filed in- dicates the owner of the property as Ben Crabill . Can you clarify for us who owns the property? Mr. Dinan: Mr. Crabill was apparently selling to the other group. Mrs. Monaco has a house on the property. She is selling to Mr. Crabill . Our particular agreement is with Mr. Crabill and that is why we listed him. He said he does not own the property outright but has equity in it. I . Mr. Andrew: What does the Ordinance say with respect to who must sign a petition? Mr. Nagy: The owner must sign and his signature must be notarized. Mr. Andrew: Is Mr. Crabill an owner? Mr. Dinan: Yes, he is an owner; either on land contract or he has bought part of it already. He is the owner I dealt with. Mr. particular agree- ment is with Mr. Crabill . Mr. Andrew: This question wiillbe referred to the Law Department for a ruling as to whether or not the petition before the Commission' is a valid petition, and Mr. Crabill should contact Mr. Nagy and furnish evidence of some ownership interest in the property. Mr. Andrew: Do you have any problems with the comments from the Wayne County Road Commission? Mr. Dinan: No. Mr. Andrew: You indicated a phased construction. Which would go in first? Mr. Dinan: The southerly building. It would take probably three to four years for a project of this size. We would start building number two when 80% of the building is leased. Mr. Vyhnalek: In Phase 1 you would complete everything from the south line up to the proposed second building? Mr. Dinan: Yes, everything running north to the north of the driveway. Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the landscaping? Mr. Dinan: It probably would be better to complete the landscapingfor each phase. The greenbelt would probably be built in two stages. Mrs. Scurto: Could you give me some kind of idea of the size of the previous buildings? Mr. Nagy: The previous buildings proposed approximately 60,000 square feet. This one has 36,000 square feet based on his proposed reduction tonight. Mr. Scurto: What is the space between the buildings? Mr. Dinan: About 80' between one and two; 100' between two and three. Mrs. Scurto: There is no way this could be done with only two buildings? Mr. Dinan: We don' t like to build to big a building. Aesthetically a smaller building looks better. Mrs. Scurto: Which of your three previous developments would you suggest we look at for an example of landscaping? Mr. Dinan : Seven Mile. • )d Mr. Falk: When did the Council table Mr. Monaco's two buildings? Mr. Nagy: At least three months ago. Mr. Falk: I don 't think we should build a building here or Metrovision on the other side. There is no guarantee that these three buildings will be put in. I don' t think I will ever see three buildings there in my life. I think the City should keep that area open; I don' t think we should put everything up around Five Mile and Farmington Road. Mr. Dinan: I have enough faith in the area to have invested over one-quarter million dollars in the property. Mr. Andrew: Section 19.04 of the Ordinance states that each petition shall con- tain the petitioner's name and address and iihte rest in the petition and the name and address of every person having a legal or equitable interest in the land covered by the petition. I am inclined to table the petition until you get that cleared up. It is a problem and will have to be resolved. Connie Gale, 33145 Oakley: I have been here at many meetings for the prior buildings and I still have the same concerns. It is a very intensive use of the land; the parking area, the traffic, and I want to emphasize that this is a very child intense area. The intersection is highly hazar- dous. Paul Toupin, 46540 Featherstone, Utica. 48087: I concur with the statements made by Mr. Falk, and that we are asking for more traffic. David Hulgrave, 33209 Lyndon: What is the City's stand on the prior petition by LPR? Mr. Andrew: They have not withdrawn the petition and the City Council has not acted on it. Norman Wollscheid, 33051 Perth: What are the plans for handling the trash? Mr. Andrew: All trash will be inside the buildings. Mr. Wollscheid: What about the transformer? Mr. Dinan: Two transformers will be heavily landscaped and not visible from the subdivision. We could put all the landscaping in before we go to building two. Donald Falk, 33233 Lyndon: This is head and shoulders above anyting we have seen to date. As we have expressed a number of times, we are concerned about the trafficin the area. The tall pines might discourage pedestrian traffic but perhaps a physical barrier would be better. The 20% proposed -- will that be the Phase I or what? Mr. Dinan: That would be for the entire development. Our prime market will be general office. Our program is designed for 20% or less of medical . James Thompson, 33042 Lyndon: The property is still not deep enough and you are now talking-about phases. Resident, 32738 Barkley: Is it possible that the original petition may be valid? ll Mr. Andrew: It is possible. Mr. Thompson: If that is, then this isn't? Mr. Dinan: Theyare selling the property to me through Crabill who apparently is associated with them. Alan Baum, President of Kimberly Oaks Civic Association: Can we presume there is no reason for the Planning Commission to take action at this stage until the prior petition has been acted on by the City Council? Mr. Andrew: The Planning Commission will not take action until the Planning rector-has -taken-A-he-mat-ter-_r at-te_r u wi th--the.:Lavl, Department. Mr. Baum: We would like some results one way or the other before we have to fight about another issue. May we be informed of the next meeting when this issue will be taken up. Mr. Andrew: We will inform three people in that regard. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #9-186-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1983 on Petition 83-9-2-34 by John Dinan requesting waiver use approval to construct general office buildings on the east side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 83-9-2-34 until the legality concerning the property can be resolved. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. A motion was made by Mrs. Scurto to approve Petition 83-9-8-24 with the condition that provisions for a drive-thru garbage container be made. There was no second to this motion and Mr. Andrew declared the motion fails. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #9-187-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to. Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-9-8-24 by William Roskelly requesting approval to construct a drive-thru convenience window on an exist- ing Burger King Restaurant located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt Road in Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-9-8-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Landscape Plan for Burger King Store #331 , dated 9/12/83, prepared by Basney & Smith, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevation shown on Plan prepared by Burger King Corporation which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that all landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan 1 2_ shall be installed on the site prior to opening the convenience window for service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk NAYS: Kluver, Andrew ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion=duly,.ma.de.bY Mr.::Kluver.and seconded by-Mrs_...t4.ai_ ow, i .wa . RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated August 31 , 1983 from Orin J. Mazzoni , Jr. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that a one year extension be granted on Petition 81-7-8-23 by GM Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section8 subject to the conditions as were attached to the original approving Resolution #8-143-81 , adopted by the Planning Commission on August 4, 1981 . A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski NAYS: Morrow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated August 31 , 1983 from Orin J. Mazzoni , Jr. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for a one year extension on Petition 81-7-8-23 by GM Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, sub- mitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial build- ing on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 be denied. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails and that Petition 81 -7-8-23 is tabled until the Planning Commission Study Meeting to be conducted on September 27, 1983. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted; i t was #9-188-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan: submitted inconnection with Petition 83-5-2-19 by Metrovision of Livonia requesting waiver use approval to con- struct an office building for cable TV services on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Lyndon Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21 , subject to the following conditions : (1) that the Landscape Plan for Metrovision dated 9/20/83, prepared by John Grissim & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that all plant. materials shown_ on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy including the sprinkler system and thereafter permanently: maintained in a healthy condition; (3) that there shall be a solid, masonry screen wall provided where the subject property adjoins Tax Parcel H, which property is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Coopersmith; and (4) that where the existing cherry tree is shown to be saved near the west property line, the exposed roots of the subject tree shall be covered by appropriate soil mix and protected by rock wall as shown on the approved Landscape Plan within thirty (:30). days from the date of this approval . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #9-189-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 8/11/83 from David J. Bloom- ingburg, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 81-7-2-15 to operate an auto bump and paint shop within an existing building located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Melvin and ,Louise in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 be approved subject to the following conditions : (1) that the Revised Site Plan for Dave's Custom Car Care, prepared by David J. Bloomingburg, dated 9/20/83, which is hereby approved _ shall be adhered to; and (2) that the petitioner redo the front landscaping on the site so as to be more in keeping with the originally approved plan and that all landscaping shall be installed and completed by Novem- ber 1 , 1983. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs . Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #9-190-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the t `¢ Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 83-7-8-21 by J. D. Dinan requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a pro- posal to construct a general office building on the south side of Professional Center Drive between Laurel Park Drive and Newburgh Road in Section 18, subject to the following conditions : (1) that the Landscape Plansubmitted by J. D. Dinan for the Laurel Park Office Building, dated 9/20/83, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (.2-) that all landscaping shown on the_a_pproved plan_ shat l be staTTed on the -site prior to b TTding occupancy and there= _ after maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that there shall be provided a double row of pine trees alternately spaced at 15' on center adjacent to Laurel Park Drive South for the full distance of the property. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #9-191-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign Permit Applications #447 and #448 to erect one ground sign and one wall sign on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Camden Avenue in Section 36, subject to the following condition: (1) that Sign Permit Applications #447 and #448, prepared by The Sign Place, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #9-192-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign Permit Application #252 by Beacon Sign Company requesting to erect a sign on an existing pylon located on the K-Mart Shopping Center site on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Camden Avenue in Section 36, subject to the following condition: (1) that Sign Permit Application #252 prepared by Beacon Sign Company which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Martin Ferris, 29408 Lori , was present and objected to the approval of the site plan in connection with Petition 83-6-2-22 by Mohamed Sayed for an SDD License on the basis that it will create traffic in the area and that there are already many estab- lishments in the area having such licenses. Mr. R. Oswald was present and stated that it was indicated there would be a 6' wall but the plan shows a 5' wall . Is John Carney, representing the petitioner, was present and stated that Mr. Ewald is correct and that he has no objection to a 6' wall . Mr. Andrew asked Mr. Carney what would be the hours of operation for the store and Mr. Carney replied probably 10:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski , it was #9-193-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 83-6-2-22 by Mohamed Sayed requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within a party store proposed to be con- struc don.th westWe iAd lebe.t-rt 7.13.04bQtwgen.-schoolcraft and Bentley in Section 32 be approved-subjecf to the following conditions : (1) that the Site Plan dated 9/7/83„ prepared by Erwin Hartge, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscape Plan dated 9/7/83, prepared by Erwin Hartge, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and further that the landscaping shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (3) that the building elevations shown on the approved Site Plan which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that any signs proposed to be erected on the building or freestanding shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to issuance of a sign erection permit; and (5) that the masonry screen wall as shown on the west property line shall be no less than six feet (6') in height from the finished grade line. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk NAYS: Scurto, Andrew ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #9-194-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-4-1-12 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Greenland and Puritan 1 Avenues in Section 14 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby remove Petition 83-4-1-12 from the table and recommends to the City Council that it be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject zoning is in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission. ya3/ (2) The proposed change of zoning and uses that would thereby be permitted are consistent with and in harmony with the emerging land uses and development patterns occurring on this section of Middlebelt Road. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policies for land use as the P.S. zoning would provide for a good buffer and transitional area separating the established residential neighborhood to the west from the adverse affects of the heavily travelled mile road. 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 461st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 1983 was adjourned at 11 : 15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION J. - .h J. ilk,7 e'cretary Cat,/ 4L;j1 // - ATTEST: Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman ac