Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-06-13 10684 MINUTES OF THE 580th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA `rrr On Tuesday, June 13, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 580th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Donald Vyhnalek, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. , with approximately 65 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Jack Engebretson William LaPine Raymond W. Tent R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski James C. McCann Brenda Lee Fandrei Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Vyhnalek 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 Planning 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 the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been `r► furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 89-4-1-12 by Ralph and Suzanne Schweikhart and John and Dolores Lytle requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 from R-4B to P.S. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the proposal. Ralph Schweikhart, 17800 Newburgh Road, Petitioner: Jack and Dolores Lytle and my wife Suzanne Schweikhart are here with me. The main reason we have asked for this petition is because the residential property we have been in for many, many years is not conducive to residential living any more. With the other construction in our area it has made the property more suitable for an office sector or something of that nature. The building directly behind us, which was a school, is not any more. The church has enlarged plus the construction across the street in Laurel Park has just changed the values so that we cannot raise a family. What I would like to do is turn the microphone over to the gentleman from Shaw Electric who will explain what we plan on putting in there if it is rezoned. 10685 Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you lived on that property? Mr. Schweikhart: I built that home in 1957. I have lived back there on the farm property since 1952. 'goy Mr. Vyhnalek: Both of you? Mr. Lytle also? Mr. Schweikhart: Yes sir. I just noticed again today that there is going to be a widening of the road again in front of us which will add to the traffic. Mr. Vyhnalek: For a deceleration lane? Mr. Schweikhart: That will be widening the road to add another left turn lane into the church area. Mr. Morrow: Should we go to Mr. Shaw did you say? I would appreciate it if he would limit his input, because it is a question of zoning, and only give us an insight as to what will be developed there but we don't want to get too deeply into site plan details because it is a question of zoning as opposed to site plan. Dick Barker, Shaw Construction, 13980 Farmington: We are the prospective purchasers of the property along with Mr. Joe Epps from J. E. Epps Company. Mr. Vyhnalek: What type of company does he have sir? Mr. Epps: Certified Public Accountant, 38777 Six Mile Road. Mr. Vyhnalek: We want to keep this brief but we want to know what you are thinking __ of doing with this property if we did give you the P.S. zoning classification. Mr. Barker: Should the zoning be changed, our intent is to construct a two-story brick office building between 12,000 and 18,000 square feet and Mr. Epps would be the primary occupant and owner of the building. Mr. Tent: You intend to go ahead with the project when the zoning is changed? Is this speculative or is it a firm offer on your part to develop the property? Mr. Barker: It is a firm offer on our part to develop the property. Father Joe Ferrence: I am the pastor at St. Colette's Church right next door to Ralph and we have been buddies for 19 years. I want to go on record as saying we do not object to the rezoning to P.S. If it was commercial, we would certainly voice our opinions a little more loudly but we would not mind a one-story building and with the consideration that they put in a sufficient greenbelt between the proposed area and the church because we have graciously done so for our neighbors at considerable cost and we want to go on record that this be a consideration of any building in there that would be proposed. Mrs. Fandrei: You refer to a one-story building. Did I hear at our prehearing `, review that this might be a two-story building? 10686 Father Ferrence: they said two story. I would prefer one story. Around the City I don't see too many two-story buildings. Mrs. Fandrei: But you do understand that they are proposing a two-story building? Mr. Morrow: I would like to make a comment. When I first saw this petition I was opposed to it; however, I guess that is why we have study sessions and public hearings and the Schweikharts reminded us that the public land up there is a little bit deceiving because the use has been given up by the school system and now we have a quasi educational commercial venture in there, if not something of that nature, so to try to keep residential in that area is tough and I can fully support this P.S. request. Mr. Tent: While I recognize the fact we are only talking zoning and not site plan, one thing does interest me and it is a concern now. I would like to direct a question to Mr. Barker. Your proposal would be a two-story building. Now Father Joe from St. Colettes indicated their preference for a one-story building. If we said during site plan review that a one-story building was required, would you still entertain developing this property? Mr. Barker: Yes we would still give it serious consideration. Mr. Tent: Now that we have a prospective user, I think it could be used efficiently but if we did grant the zoning and then you backed out because it would have to be a one-story building, that is a concern. Mrs. Fandrei: I do have some concerns about this. If you look at our map almost one-half of this building is facing residential or the condominiums across the street. The building that is now the school, the old Dickinson Junior High School, has been converted to office uses. As this northwest area is being developed, which it is the fastest growing area in the City, there may be a need in the near future for that to revert back to a junior high school. The construction across the street is not going to continue much longer. We have a huge complex of condominiums and homes being built on that R-4 and R-7 area right now in preliminary plat approval stage. I cannot feel good in supporting offices in this area, which is basically from here north residential. I just want our petitioners to know why I cannot support this petition. Mr. Kluver: I have a question to the Planning Director. Regarding the lease that the school administration has executed with Dickinson School, do we have any general information regarding that lease? Is that a five year lease or a three year lease? Mr. Nagy: For the information of the other members of the Planning Commission Mr. Kluver did call my office and asked me to examine the status of the lease arrangement that RETS has with respect to the Dickinson School and they are on a year to year lease and negotiating for a long term lease right now and the Assistant Superintendent of Property, Art Howell, indicates that there are no plans in the near future to open Emily Dickinson Junior High School for school purposes. They will continue to lease the building out for non school purposes. 10687 Mr. Kluver: So basically we are talking a year to year lease. The other significant factor regarding the church, St. Colettes. The church property is zoned residential and the characteristics that exist, we are looking at a zoning issue that is going to impact that road. What has happened, as we are all aware of, considerable attention has been focused on that northwest corner. In that northwest corner we have had the blessing of residential zoning and there is obviously a residential character that is established on that street. This type of zoning, to me, represents spot zoning. It is spot zoning because it is residential to the east and public land and residential to the north and south. The impact of a zoning change in this area at this time can set the precedent for that entire area. Not this year but 5 to 10 years in the future. I have a difficult time looking at that type of a zoning issue and certainly, at this time, would not support it. Mr. Barker: I would like to make one comment. We have a long history in Livonia. We have been here since 1952 in the same location. We have 350,000 square feet of office space in Livonia and I welcome any of the members of the board to look at the condition of our existing projects. Mr. Kluver: I don't think it is a case of your projects. Your projects are outstanding. The ones that you have built in the City of Livonia at Farmington and Schoolcraft and the balance of your project on the Schoolcraft Service Drive. There is no question about that. Those areas are research and engineering and office zoning. I, as one commissioner, do not see that as a P.S. area at this time. To me that represents a long term residential, potentially a planned unit development, or even an extension of the condominium development. `ormy There is no guarantee that the continuing usage of the junior high is going to be on that basis. The land is too valuable to be leased out on that basis. Mr. Barker: I might point out that it is just slightly over an acre of property and it is locked by the school property and the church property. Mr. Kluver: I appreciate that and I have great sympathy for the residents. John Lytle: I have been living in that area 38 years. I am a retired police officer from the City of Livonia and I know some of the problems that you run into in zoning and whatever. At the present time my wife and I financially and physically can no longer maintain our property and I have a physical condition that doesn't let me do much. In the past few years I have done a fair amount of vegetable gardening between the homes. It has gotten to the point where I started to do it this year and the body will not take it. My wife's physical condition has deteriorated in the past year and she is going to have to retire on social security with no retirement pension and she has been working for the last ten years in order for us to make ends meet. We can no longer afford to live here as much as I would like to but I will tell you there are a lot of problems connected with that school back there. I think most of you have been made aware of them at one time or another. We can't even let our grandkids go out in back and play especially during school week. '44111. We cannot handle the parking lot noises, the street noises, the 10688 tires squealing on the road. We are afraid to let the grandkids play out in the front yard. I just want to give you my input as to what it is like to live there and I would like to see anybody else try to cope with it there. 'r► Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. Kluver is absolutely correct in his assessment of how this proposal is a matter of spot zoning, which we have been consistently concerned with. However, I think if you look at the surrounding uses, in this particular case, that the spot zoning is of less concern and I would urge approval. Mr. Morrow: Just to reinforce what Jack has said here and I don't find a lot of fault with what Herm said, but given the public lands now in the quasi private use, P.S. is a zoning that can live somewhat in harmony with residential uses, that is one of the reasons I said earlier I support this petition. Mr. Engebretson: I want to add that my support is based on P.S. zoning and if the petitioner comes back for commercial, he is going to run into a lot of opposition and I want you to know that in advance. Mr. Kluver: This is P.S. zoning correct? This is a C.P.A. firm? Mr. Vyhnalek: Correct. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was '4111. #6-121-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-12 by Ralph and Suzanne Schweikhart and John and Dolores Lytle requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 from R-4B to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-12 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is in keeping with the developing character of the area. 2) That the subject property is no longer conducive to single family residential use. 3) That the proposed change of zoning 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: Kluver, Fandrei ABSENT: None 10689 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-4-1-13 by JRJ Group for St. Mary's Antiochian Church requesting to rezone property 'r► located east of Merriman Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 from PL to R-3. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Meryl Strange, 9612 Sarasota, Redford Twp. : I am with the Board of Directors of St. Mary's Antiochian Church located at 18100 Merriman Road. I request this petition to rezone the property and I am not familiar with all the designations but I did attend your study meeting regarding the use of the property to the rear that was bought from the Livonia School district next to Bryant Junion High. It is our intent to have that property rezoned so we can use it as a parking lot for an expansion of our church and new hall as will be seen with item number 18 on your agenda, a waiver use to add a cultural center to our property on Merriman Road. Mr. LaPine: How long have you owned this parcel? Mr. Strange: Approximately since 1972. We bought the property from a doctor that owned it and then through the proper procedure, through the Planning Commission and the Livonia Council we got permission to use the property and build our church there and the cornerstone says 1975. That is when we actually built the church. Mr. LaPine: How long ago did you buy the parcel from the school? Mr. Strange: At least 7 years ago. Mr. LaPine: During that period of time did you know you had to have it rezoned or did you assume when you bought it, it automatically became the designation you wanted? Mr. Strange: We thought we were going to use it for parking and that was the reason they sold it to us and we assumed it was properly zoned for parking. Mr. LaPine: I have no objection, it just makes sense it should come out of the PL classification. I just was curious how long you had owned it. Mr. Morrow: My question might be more appropriate for item 18 but it says to add a meeting hall to the church, item 18 says an activities hall and now I have heard a cultural center. Which is it? Mr. Strange: It is an activities center for our church and our members to participate in activities that are church related. �,,,, Mr. Morrow: Thank you for the record. 10690 Mr. Vyhnalek: During our study session the neighbor to the north was there and have we got that straightened out about the parking and screening of the parking? Mr. Strange: Immediatedly after the study session, the pastor of the church and the owners of the adjacent property went out to the site. My 'rr understanding is that the architect has submitted a revised plan to the Planning Commission and at the conclusion of the discussion that evening, which lasted about 2 hours, there was a more friendly and harmonious relationship between us and the residents in the area. It is my understanding that what was discussed at your study session is what is on the plans and has been completed. Mr. Vyhnalek: Thank you. We will take the rest up on item 18. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-122-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-13 by JRJ Group for St. Mary's Antiochian Church requesting to rezone property located east of Merriman Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 from PL to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-13 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject property is no longer in public ownership. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the entire site ''r.- owned by the church to be similarly zoned. 3) That churches are normally found in residential zoning districts. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for use of the property for church related purposes. 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-4-1-14 by Boris Stoyanovich for Stoyan's Brothers Inc. requesting to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to C-2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. r,,`, Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Stoyanovich, you want to expand your business? 10691 Boris Stoyanovich, 36071 Plymouth Road: Yes sir. Mr. Vyhnalek: What business are you in there? Mr. Stoyanovich: A restaurant, bar, nightclub, and we are wanting to expand about 40 `` feet to the back and later on maybe a small banquet hall. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you been there? Mr. Stoyanovich: Since 1980. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to expand 40 feet? Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes sir. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, from his building now to RUF is how many feet? Mr. Nagy: Approximately 70 feet. Mr. Vyhnalek: So he needs this for parking? Mr. Nagy: A portion of the property is needed for parking to support his present building expansion not his future plans. For the 40 foot addition to his restaurant he would need to use a portion of the RUF zoned area to support his expanded off-street parking requirement. Mr. Morrow: Is C-2 zoning required for his expansion other than parking? Mr. Nagy: Only for parking. The building expansion would occur within the site area already zoned C-2. Mr. Engebretson: Is the area that is directly behind the restaurant building presently unpaved? Is it a possibility that area could be used to satisfy your parking needs for the planned expansion. Mr. Stoyanovich: It's possible. Mr. Engebretson: Doesn't it make sense to look at using the space that adjoins the building rather than using 70 feet or 200 feet away from the building to build a parking lot? Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe there is blacktop behind his building. Mr. Stoyanovich: Yes there is. On the east side it is all blacktop. Mr. Engebretson: I think the space directly behind the restaurant building is not paved. Is that correct? Mr. Stoyanovich: It is not paved. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is where the 40 foot building expansion is going. Mr. Engebretson: That is a lot more than 40 feet. I am trying to understand why you would go so far away from the building to park cars when you apparently have space right adjacent to the building. I guess the answer is that is where you plan to put the 40 feet. How many square feet would this expansion comprise? 10692 Mr. Stoyanovich: 40 x 80 feet so 3200 square feet. Mr. Kluver: That was my question. Obviously your expansion could be contained within the existing C-2. My question is why do you want C-2? Why don't you ask for parking? Mr. Stoyanovich: We are looking in the future and maybe later on we are planning on expanding an additional 40 feet or 60 feet. Mr. Kluver: Is that your intent? That is why you want the C-2? Mr. Stoyanovich: C-2 is next door. The car wash is C-2. The stores next door to me and behind me. I guess that is the reason I want to go to C-2. This could help us in the future. Mr. Kluver: You would want the C-2 so eventually you could expand your business even further? Mr. Stoyanovich: That is right sir. Mr. Tent: If we were so inclined just to rezone it to parking, would that be acceptable to you at this time. Would you go ahead with your project and then come back at a later date if you are going to propose a meeting hall or something of that type? I would feel more comfortable with parking for the way you are intending to use the property as opposed to going to the C-2. Mr. Stoyanovich: I don't understand why the property next door to me is C-2 and the buildings behind me. 'tar Mr. Tent: That is the zoning they have now and what you are asking for is a parking use which would fall in the category of the parking zoning. So I, as one commissioner, would go along with that as far as parking. Mr. Stoyanovich: That is fine. Don Duff, 35936 Leon: I live right directly behind this. There is nothing between our house and the back of his restaurant and it is quite often an eyesore back there. Garbage trucks coming at three o'clock in the morning instead of when they are supposed to come. There have been people dumping refrigerators and washing machines. We call him up and he is not too swift about removing them. When we bought our home there Elmira was supposed to be cut through. You are looking at 600 feet from Plymouth Road to my property line. I see absolutely no reason for anything coming back C-2 that far. The car wash is another subject that is coming up later. It is time you people started listening to the residents of this City instead of just letting all this slide through. Now as far as the restaurant goes, we have cars that whistle back through there now, cars that are parking out in the field. I just don't see any necessity for that plus the fact he should be made to put some type of buffer between my backyard and my neighbor's backyard with the noise and everything else going on over there. Mr. Vyhnalek: If the zoning is changed, he will have to put a wall up. 10693 Mr. Duff: There is a wall up but you let him fill the lot in so the effective height of the wall is three feet. That property was all filled in when they dug the expressway and we called the City out and were told he could fill but "not too high". Called them out again "it's too high". Well they made them take the dirt out. This fiasco has been 'r, going on for years between the homeowners on Leon and the people who are supposed to be representing our best interest and I have to tell you we have not been represented properly. I could go on and on. I have a business in Livonia and my business is where a business should be. It is on Industrial Road. He can't run a restaurant on Industrial Road but he doesn't need 600 feet from Plymouth Road. Nick Vesche, 35948 Leon: I would like to object to this rezoning for the same reasons Don had. Not only that, if it would be rezoned to parking, I think a buffer should be put in there. There is nothing in there now. Like he was saying, they had refrigerators out there and we called the City and he didn't move them. We had to call three or four times before they got moved. We really have no cooperation at all. It is an eyesore and at least in R-1 we do have a buffer. It is a dump. I object to it for that reason. Bill McIntyre, 35996 Leon: I came to the original meeting for Stoyan's. There used to be a guy named Cunningham that built it. That is when we started the spot zoning in here. They were the first one. We had gone through all these meetings and we got into this spot zoning. I am glad you finally realize it. That is what you have done in this whole complex. I would like to see RUF back to R-1 where the original road was planned to go through. Linda Kovich, 35852 Leon: I do not live behind Stoyan's at all. The noise that ``,, comes from that restaurant is ridiculous. At night you have people screaming. You have cars peeling tires. It is very filthy back there. I would much rather see the trees and everything else back there so the little critters can have a place to live other than the cars back there and loitering and everything else. Guy Smith, 35924 Leon: I live directly behind the proposed area. I would like to say right now it is a big problem. Last year my home was broken into. They pulled into his parking lot and busted in the back of my door and looted my house. If you move that back it will be just that much worse. I have lived there 35 years. We have been before these commissions time and time again. Elmira was supposed to go through. I know people say who promised you that. That was another zoning board and they say we don't care, it wasn't us, it was somebody else. We have been pushed around and walked over so many times that we are getting fed up with it. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, can you give us some background as to what happened to Elmira? Is it true a road was supposed to go through there at one time? Mr. Nagy: I really don't know but I do remember when Arthur was extended to complete that subdivision area and the way the street to the north is situated it is physically possible. There was enough depth there to provide for the expansion but at the time when the other subdivision was developed, the City made the decision not to extend 10694 the road over because it would only promote more traffic in that area from Levan Road from the traffic discharging from the motor car company. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy what his feelings are on what the "flur probability would be of developing the R-1 parcel and all or part of that RUF parcel as residential. Could that be done? Mr. Nagy: The R-1 parcel is very probable. The property has recently been sold and we do have in our office a preliminary layout for that R-1. Those in the audience will be apprised of the fact there will be a public hearing for preliminary plat for that scheduled for the 27th of June when you will see the layout for the R-1 area. That is a separate piece of property under separate ownership from this one. It is theoretically possible to extend that subdivision into the RUF area but you have a separate property owner who would have to be willing to sell his property. I think it is possible but affected property owners have to cooperate and want it to happen. Mr. McCann: There was a note that the petitioner was considering only going back 50 feet or 70 feet south instead of the whole distance. Was a letter given to the department asking for that request? Mr. Nagy: Based upon our prehearing review, we did contact the agent for the petitioner who did prepare the site plan, Mr. Gallagher, and advised him that we thought the better rationale was to only extend the commercial to the depth of the commercial zoning that adjoins the property on the west and from there go with a parking zone from dash line south to insure the residential area there would be no commercial buildings built in that area. Mr. Gallagher indicated \r that seemed to be a reasonable compromise and would advise his client of that but we have not received any official word back. Mr. McCann: If we just went back and left the RUF and went down 70 feet, would that be sufficient? Mr. Nagy: Yes it would be. Mr. McCann: Then we would allow a continuous property line south of that. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, the R-1 zoning that is being proposed for that development, if some deal were made to pick up the additional RUF, would that be packaged together as one? Mr. Nagy: It is possible. RUF requires a substantially larger lot size than R-1. You are talking a half acre versus 7,200 square foot lot so you would not get the comparable lot sizes but if the two property owners were to get together the RUF area could be rezoned R-1 and the proposed road extended to provide for one uniform residential development for the area. Mr. Tent: The other property owner is Mr. Stoyanovich. It would be up to him to negotiate with the balance of the package and if I understand correctly what Mr. McCann said, then if we just use the 70 foot just above it that would straighten out that line and it could be used as a parking area. ` 10695 Mr. Nagy: It could be a parking area. Mr. Tent: Mr. Stoyanovich, you have heard what the neighbors have to say about your housekeeping and the noise and all, are you prepared to be a good neighbor and straighten out these things? Mr. Stoyanovich: I am trying to be a good neighbor. If you stop by my place today, it has never been so clean. About two months ago somebody threw a washer and dryer there and I can't help it. Somebody called the restaurant. Next day they called a city inspector. They sent me a letter and the next day that washer and dryer were gone. Let them stop by and check it out for themselves. We are changing the restaurant and it is so modern now. Mr. McCann: If we granted the C-2 back to that R-1 line to the west of you, would that be sufficient for what you are planning to do today? Mr. Stoyanovich: I think so. Mr. McCann: Would you consider working out a deal with the property owner that owns that R-1 and possibly joining the rear portion of your property into residential? Selling off your property to him so he can continue his R-1 residential through the RUF that you have there? Mr. Stoyanovich: I would be willing to negotiate with him. Mr. McCann: That would create a buffer between you and the subdivision. It would put more homes between you and the subdivision and the people buying the new homes would know what they were getting into. You would have the 70 foot that you would need to do your expansion °+r, presently and you would also be able to sell off a nice piece of property hopefully for some profits to build your expansion. Mr. Stoyanovich: It could be worked out. Mr. Morrow: I want the petitioner to go away with my view. You had mentioned earlier a banquet type hall. I don't think this body would ever go along with encouraging something any closer to residential and I think it is important that you get a sense of how this body feels. We are a little antsy about extending the parking a little further but C-2 for a banquet hall would just be unconscionable in my view and I think I speak for the majority of this boardon that point. Mr. Vyhnalek: It has been recommended that 70 feet for C-2 and leave the remaining RUF. That is how we stand now. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-123-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-14 by Boris Stoyanovich for Stoyan's Brothers Inc. requesting to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32 from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition ''— 89-4-1-14 until June 20, 1989 in order to develop accord with the 10696 petitioner and the residents to meet the proper type of development in the area and encompass the R-1 and give them sufficient area to develop commercial. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: flow AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine, Vyhnalek ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-15 by Veterans of Foreign Wars requesting to rezone property located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from R-9II to P. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. George Bisel, 36039 Six Mile Road; I am here to represent the petitioner as Commander of VFW Post 3941. We came before this group on a previous occasion about three years ago. We had a general acceptance from the Commission. We had a rather strong statement on our behalf, particularly by Mrs. Hildebrandt at that time on the commission. She pointed out the fact that it is a landlocked parcel. We have no way `�. we can use it with the present zoning. There was a gentleman here from the adjoining apartments who had some objection and we met with him and he indicated an interest in purchasing it so with that interest we withdraw it and tabled it. He subsequently lost interest. It was just a delaying tactic. We have need for it for parking. We have a good deal of parking for our patrons but we need to expand our parking facilities and this is a logical place to put it. Mr. Morow: Mr. Bisel, is that map accurate from a standpoint that your property is surrounded by parking? Is that parking for apartments? Mr. Bisel: Yes there is parking for the apartments. Mr. Morrow: So the uses around you are all parking? Mr. Bisel: They have a swimming pool directly south of us. The only people who get any use of the property right now are the apartment dwellers. We are paying the taxes and maintaining the property. They use it as a short cut and I am sure if we develop something in there, we will have to do it as funds become available. We need to get the zoning so it will be clear when we get the funds we need to do it. Mr. LaPine: Has that parcel always been part of the VFW overall parcel? I am curious. I can't understand why that whole parcel wasn't R-7. 10697 Mr. Bisel: This area (he pointed it out on map) was the Armenian Home. They intended to develop apartments for the aged and when we acquired it I believe, this was before I became a member, my understanding is the entire parcel was R-92. Everything along Seven Mile is zoned C-2. We had a little section behind Burger King which we sold to them and they are using it for parking and that was also a part of the property we acquired from them. Mr. LaPine: If we give you parking in that area, how do you control that only your members park there? Mr. Bisel: We have a wall across the back of our lot. I would presume that we would develop some kind of a wall or some kind of shrubbery or something around it. Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe a wall would be required. Mr. Bisel: I am in favor of greenery. I would prefer to put in some flowering shrubbery around it. Mr. LaPine: The owners of the R-7 property have never shown any interest lately about purchasing that property to make that a continuation of the R-7? Mr. Bisel: I think the gentleman that contacted us had a dream he could erect some six to nine story apartments and that didn't develop so he lost interest and my understanding is it has since changed hands. Mrs. Sobolewski: You do not plan on expanding your hall at all? Mr. Bisel: We have recently nearly completed our fox hole. That is a small �. room we have in the basement and that is used for our traveling pool league. It is for members and if we start to have that open on a regular basis it will require additional parking. We are not really settled on what our plans are going to be. There has been some effort to develop it for sale, the entire parcel, but I don't think the membership will approve of that. We would like to retain it and I think probably we will be adding to our parking area to the west of our building so some of our bingo players that insist on parking along the west side of building will leave the way clear for fire trucks to get through. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to add to the building. Mr. Bisel: No. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Bisel, does the VFW Post own the property immediately north of the parcel in question? Mr. Bisel: Yes, everything from the Burger King east to fish place is property of VFW. Mr. Engebretson: Wouldn't it be more logical to have that parking lot constructed on that property? I am talking about the grass area. Mr. Bakewell: The majority of the parking is to the east of the building and there is some on the west side. But from here (he pointed this out — on map) over to Burger King is grass. 10698 Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Engebretson wanted to know if you are ever going to develop that grass area into parking? Mr. Bisel: Probably part of it. `,r, Mr. Engebretson: If you are planning to use that area for parking then it would seem to me that it would make sense to use it first and hold the area in question in reserve because the fact of the matter is there are some apartment buildings fairly close to that property and I presume social functions go very late at night and the party continuing in the parking lot. As we have heard earlier tonight those kinds of things happen and I am not opposed to extending the parking back there but I think it makes sense to do it in stages where you utilize what is the least offensive first and keep that in reserve for your future needs. Mr. Bisel: It doesn't allow us to do anything but parking with this valuable piece of property. It is something that possibly we could get a buyer for in the future and we would still be retaining the parking area. We just signed a pretty sizable mortgage agreement and we have to keep operating. I don't think we are offensive neighbors. I had some business at the hall last Saturday night and I was there until 3:30 a.m. and I was the only one in the place and the whole neighborhood was dark except for a lot of people hotrodding up and down Seven Mile Road, but when I went out in the pitch black and went in my car at 3:30 a.m. there was still light and noises in the apartment building so they are a lot nosier than we are. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-1-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #6-124-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-15 by Veterans of Foreign Wars requesting to rezone property located south of Seven Mile Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from R-9II to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-1-15 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning represents a minor extension of a non-residential zoning district into a residential area. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for additional off-street parking to serve the adjacent commercial use. 3) That the proposed change of zoning 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. `. 10699 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Kluver, LaPine Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-16 by Ashley Construction Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-4C. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating the City of Livonia owns the North 43 feet of the area being considered for rezoning. Ernie Bourassa, 17570 Ellen Drive and Michael Priest, 14655 Riverside, Petitioners: Mr. Vyhnalek: What are you planning on doing? Building a small subdivision? Mr. Bourassa: Yes. We own property to the south of the petitioned property also. Mr. Priest: We purchased the property immediatedly south of the petitioned property last year and we had it rezoned to the same classification last year. Mr. Vyhnalek: R-4C, which is 90 foot by 130 foot. Mr. Priest: Right. This piece is contiguous to it and we will put the whole thing together. Mr. Vyhnalek: About how many homes with the two parcels? Mr. Priest: Probably 22. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-125-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-16 by Ashley Construction Inc. requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-4C, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-1-16 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends low density residential land use for the subject area. 10700 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the existing zoning of adjacent property. 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-17 by Linda LaMaumauiex requesting to rezone property located south of Grantland Avenue between Arcola Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from R-1 to P. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Linda LaMaumauiex, 12275 Inkster: We have a business called Cliff Green Sales. We have been a family owned and operated business since 1953. What we would like to do on this rezoning is to put our parking there. The way it is designed, and we have the design okayed, everything is as it should be. We would like to have an entry and exit on Grantland and possibly if we could get a sign to say "No Left Turn" from the '44111w driveway so everyone would be turning right, which would put them going eastbound on Grantland and hitting the light at Grantland and Inkster therefore avoiding any traffic going through the neighborhood. We think that would be beneficial. We, of course, plan to landscape it nicely. We would have the parking lot open only during our hours and months of business, which Monday through Saturday is 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. , and Sunday 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. After the 4th of July we are closed on Mondays. Our business operates April through September. We have thought of suggesting that we could put some sort of chain across so the neighbors would not have to worry about people parking or drinking or whatever people do in vacant parking lots. Also, at the east side of the parking lot we would be happy to put up a privacy fence and also landscaping in such a manner that it would be pleasant to look at. There is not, in my opinion, a lot of other usage for the area. To the west is the VFW, to the north is Wayne County Road Commission. It is not a desirable place to build a home. We are glad to cooperate in any way but it is necessary for us to have the parking lot to continue operating. Mr. LaPine: John, do they now have a valid non-conforming use there? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. `. 10701 Mr. LaPine: It is my understanding thereason you have to move your parking is that Inkster Road is being widened there so you are losing a certain portion of your property where your parking is. Ms. LaMaumauiex: That I believe is part of it. I don't know a lot about it. I think a lot of the width is coming from the Redford side. However, a greenbelt is going in so where our present parking is there will be grass to the sidewalk and we would have no parking. Mr. LaPine: When the widening is completed and the parking, if it is approved and moved, now you store things out in front of your house. Will any of that be moved to the rear? Will that go on this parking property at all? Ms. LaMaumauiex: No. Our sales area will remain where it is. Mr. LaPine: Do you construct any of this material you sell there at this location? Ms. LaMaumauiex: We do some assembly. We do not manufacture anything. Mr. LaPine: Have you ever looked into the possibility of moving to another location? I used to live in that area and I believe your business has expanded. You were small and now you have grown to quite a good sized business and I would think it might be the right time to look around for a new location to operate your business. You could still have your home there. I do have some problems. I think that you need the parking. I have been there and sometimes the parking has been a problem especially when you have to back out onto Inkster Road. It can be very dangerous and I am wondering if you have ever `t► thought of that possibility. Maybe finding a larger parcel where you could operate and maybe build a building where you could put some of the stuff on the inside. Ms. LaMaumauiex: I suppose anyone in business has always looked at the option of expanding but we don't care to get any bigger. We are happy the way it is. We don't want to have branches or be throughout the United States. We are just happy running the type of operation that we have. Mr. Stupar, 12319 Arcola: That is on the west side approximately in the middle of the block. I have been there 18 years. I am a family man and raising a family and there is more than what meets the eye here. She says she wants to enter on Grantland. At the end of Grantland that area there has been widened. It was widened for the purpose of plant traffic coming out of there. It is a bottleneck and when she puts her parking in there, when that plant lets out, it is going to be a bottleneck. The lot she is talking about is a nice lot. It is kept up fine. She doesn't have to make it any better. Another thing is if she turns that into parking, it is going to lower the property value of our homes there. She has other areas for parking and maybe she could work something out plus she owns other lots there too and where she is going to put that parking she has inventory right now, you couldn't fit another thing in there. That inventory has got to go some place. I think there is more than Vrr 10702 meets the eye because eventually she is going to want exits on Arcola because with the GM traffic coming out of there, it is just not going to work. I don't know why we the residential area people have to suffer because something has been taken away from her for the City. It is going to end up being a difficult situation. Gerald Quin, 12320 Arcola: We are opposed to the parking lot. That area now is used for storage. It is supposed to be residential. They have dog houses stored there. They have camper tops in there. They also have a garage they use for assembling and I guess this can't be closed down because of the grandfather law. I am just opposed to it being a parking lot. James Flick, 12268 Arcola: I am against the parking lot. As they mentioned earlier they want to put up a "No Left Turn" sign. Well we have signs that say "No Right Turn" coming out of Inland and everybody ignores them anyways. On Arcola now we have truck deliveries in the summertime with huge trailers that drop off picnic tables which may remain there for weeks at a time and I think it is a complete eyesore. Sandy Quin: I have collected a few signatures from the neighbors on Arcola. (She presented the petition to the Commission). The petition states they are against the rezoning. Ray Owen, 12377 Arcola: We are about 3 lots away from the proposed lot. I have two small children that ride their bikes and play in the street, etc. There are some days that I wonder if we have more traffic on Arcola than on Inkster Road. I think one of the problems is the traffic out of the Inland plant. The sign is there but the people ignore it. I think the creation of a parking lot on the corner of our residential street will add to the traffic flow which concerns me. Another concern that has been mentionedis the storage of picnic tables, etc. A trailer is parked thereduring the winter for months and I think it just adds to a situation that is going to become an eyesore. Christine Ellen, 12377 Arcola: I have lived there for 11 years. I am opposed to this petition. Notwithstanding my two small children, we put up with sufficient traffic from the Inland plant. We put up with trucks loading and unloading. Leon Stumpf, 12420 Arcola: I feel the parking lot would be beneficial. It would keep the cars from parking in front of my home and keep the cars off the street. I also think that Fisher Body is more of a traffic hazard than this business here could be and I am for the parking lot there. Ms. LaMaumauiex: I would like to comment. The trailer that is spoken about being parked on Arcola we haven't owned for at least one to two years. We no longer have it. As far as the camper top. We do have a pickup truck that has a camper top and sometimes we take the camper top off and put it on the ground. I could put it someplace else I guess. I don't know of any trailers that stay for weeks at a time. Sometimes it takes a little while to get unloaded but the trucks that come in are vendors that come in and they don't want to leave 10703 their trucks for weeks at a time. I may have misunderstood what my neighbors said but this is my rebuttal. Right now we do have lots and lots of tables and lots and lots of everything because this is our peak season and if I don't have two loads of picnic tables a week at least then my lot would be empty and if my lot was empty `r. then I wouldn't be making a living. I really do want to cooperate. Mr. Morrow: Your parking lot is not intended to have an exit onto Arcola is it? Ms. LaMaumauiex: No sir it is not. I have no desire for there to be traffic back there. I can appreciate what the neighbors are saying. I have no desire to do that. That's why we designed it the way we did. I can't be a policeman out there and give tickets or whatever you do for an illegal turn but I think that a sign saying you can only turn right would be good and I think it is feasible. Why would you want to turn left? Why would you want to go through the neighborhood to come up to Inkster or Plymouth where there is no light and then have to fight the traffic. The feasible way to exit would be to leave and turn eastward on Grantland until you come up to the traffic light and can turn whichever way you want at the light. Mr. Morrow: You are not anticipating adding to any traffic you are just accomodating your customers. It is a lot safer than what we have on Inkster Road. Mrs. Sobolewski: Linda, how many cars do you think you will be parking on the lot? How many parking spaces are you looking to build? Ms. LaMaumauiex: We have ten proposed parking spots. I don't think we need any more than ten. Nftv Mrs. Sobolewski: You are planning on leaving a greenbelt, perhaps some kind of plantings between you and your neighbors? Ms. LaMaumauiex: Yes. We certainly want to landscape it nicely. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-1-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #6-126-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-17 by Linda LaMaumauiex requesting to rezone property located south of Grantland Avenue between Arcola Avenue and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 89-5-1-17 until the study meeting of June 20, 1989 so that we can have an opportunity to have a better understanding of what the petitioner is planning to do. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: McCann ABSENT: None 10704 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-18 by Leonard and Vicki Turowski requesting to rezone property located on rr.. the east side of Doris, north of Five Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from P.S. to R-1. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are going from P.S. to R-1 to build one home? Leonard Turowski, 35462 Gardner: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: All the rest of the homes on Doris are R-1? Mr. Turowski: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #6-127-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-1-18 by Leonard and Vicki Turowski requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Doris, north of Five Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from P.S. to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-1-18 be approved as amended for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the zoning classification on adjacent residential property. 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will have no detrimental effect on the adjacent Funeral Home property. 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: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution *r.. adopted. 10705 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-1-19 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located west of Inkster Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF, R1-A, and R-3A to R2-A. ftr Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to change the RUF, R1-A, and R-3A to R2-A so you can build homes? Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech-Daly Road: Yes. I selected, certainly one of my options could have been 60 foot lots, but I chose to use 70 foot lots attempting to get sites that would allow the preparation of homes with attached garages. Hopefully these homes would be in the area of around $100,000, which I think the City is in dire need of. Mr. Vyhnalek: This is landfill area? Mr. Roskelly: Certain portions of it is the landfill area known as Como Lake. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have done the proper testing to find out if homes can be built on that site? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. I believe in the past there has either been rumors or petitions that this land be used for apartments, church complexes, senior citizens and that sort of thing. I have heard other people `r say it might be rezoned to commercial. I believe my use would be very compatible to the area and certainly I hope this commission would agree. Mr. Tent: You are the owner of the property is that correct? Mr. Roskelly: That is correct. Mr. Tent: You would be the developer of this project? Mr. Roskelly: Correct. Mr. Tent: It was mentioned that this was landfill area and you are perfectly willing to back it up. We won't have any erosion there. We won't have any collapsing basements there? Mr. Roskelly: Certainly one of the chores in the process of the past year and a half in purchasing this land was to make a very thorough examination of the soil, being aware that it was a former lake. Along with that there is a large storm sewer that will be proposed under the road on the plat. I have dealt through engineering on this and I am sure your Engineering Department will agree that whatever has to be done will be done. Mr. Tent: The sewers will traverse along the road? 10706 Mr. Roskelly: It will be under the proposed road. Star Ard, 14451 Inkster Road: I am the first place south of that. I wonder where the street is going to be. That is all wild through there. We have all kinds of critters and I don't want that disturbed. Where is the road going to be? Mr. Vyhnalek: That is site plan. This is just trying to get the correct zoning. Ms. Ard: But you are the guys who started it. You rezoned it. Mr. Vyhnalek: I am sure if you ask Mr. Roskelly he probably has a sketch that he will be glad to show you. Mr. Roskelly showed the sketch to the neighbors. Joe Willim, 27800 Barkley: My only concern is the drainage problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: That will be taken care of by our City Engineer to see that is done properly or else he cannot build. Mr. Willim: I am not opposed to it at all. Terry Mascaro, 28140 Lyndon: I have no problem with residential housing. We moved to Livonia for that reason. We wanted to see more residential. My concern is this area that runs through there. I have lived there for three years and you cannot walk in that area when it rains. My concern is how do you develop through there? Will those storm drains be able to handle it? '%141• Mr. Vyhnalek: I am sure our City Engineer will see it is handled. Mr. Roskelly: The large box sewer under the proposed road is 16 foot by 12 foot and we are certainly not in the need of any sewer capacity in the form of storm water. Our design is such that your Engineering Department mandates that all the water we will shed will be shed on our property. Bill Queen, 27954 Lyndon: I have the corner lot. Our kids ice skate in the winter time out there because the water just stays. How much easement is there between the houses? Mr. Vyhnalek: That is going to be on site plan sir. Mr. Nagy: There is an easement behind your home. Mr. Roskelly: To relate to your quiestion there is an existing easement. There will be no building on that. Steve Thomas, 28131 Oakley: I can look out my window and see primarily a great majority of the property. I am very much in favor of what the petitioner is going for today. The only question I have is once this zoning is approved, what are the chances of something changing later on such as the property not being able to be built on. Mr. Vyhnalek: If it can't be built on for an R-2A, it will probably lay vacant. 10707 Mr. Morrow: Basically you will have a public hearing on this. If this prevails, he will come back. You will see all the residential lots and the streets. We will have a public hearing on how it is platted. You will see where the lots are, the size of the lots. So you will get more input as it moves along to the approval stages. Nor Mr. Thomas: That sounds great. Walter Stark, 27424 Oakley: I just wanted a clarification from Mr. Morrow. You said if this petition is okay then they will get into the sizes of the lots, 70 vs 80? Mr. Morrow: Minimum will be 70 foot wide. Mr. Stark: My only objection would be that he is taking the lower one. Mr. Morrow: A good share of it abuts the R-1 classification and he kind of took the middle of the road with R-2 versus R-1 and R-3. Mr. Roskelly: Presently the land across the street and contiguous to his land is R-1, which at this moment, without rezoning, I could built on 60 foot lots. I am really increasing the size of the lots. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-128-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-19 by William L. Roskelly requesting to rezone property located west of Inkster Road between Lyndon Avenue and Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF, R1-A, and R-3A to R2-A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-19 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed changes of zoning are consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. 2) That the proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for single family residential development similar to what is existing in the 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-4-2-27 by J. P. Ryan requesting waiver use approval to operate a trucking \r. 10708 facility with outdoor storage of vehicles on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Schoolcraft Road and the C&O Railroad in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter from the Fire Department indicating their office has reviewed the plan and has no objections to its development. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Ryan do you own the business to the north or south of the petitioned property? Michael Ryan, 15095 Fairfield: My father owns the business to the south since 1973. Mr. Vyhnalek: You have stored vehicles on that lot since 1973 and you have expanded to the north. You have bought this land and cleaned it up? Mr. Ryan: That is correct. In November of 1987 we purchased the land just north of us to expand our facility. Mr. Vyhnalek: What are you storing on that property right now? Mr. Ryan: Semi-trailers. Forty to forty-five foot semi-trailers. Mr. Vyhnalek: Some tractors? Mr. Ryan: The tractors are stored on the land south. Mr. Vyhnalek: At our prehearing review we wanted some hard surface for the customer parking in front. Mr. Ryan: In speaking with Mr. Shane we had resubmitted a site plan. At this point we haven't decided whether it will be asphalt or cement but it will take care of the customer and employee parking area. Mr. Shane: He did submit the site plan as indicated and he will be paving approximately 8,000 feet of land area. He has indicated on the site plan locations of cars and a substantially wider driveway. Mr. Vyhnalek: What about the shrubbery? Mr. Shane: There is a substantial landscape area already in front of the property. The rest of the property is used for storage. Mr. Vyhnalek: What did our engineers indicate about gravel parking lot? Mr. Shane: When they say hard surface, it means dust free surface, so it can be gravel, asphalt, concrete or anything like that wherein the dust is taken care of. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are satisfied? `4111, Mr. Shane: Yes. 10709 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-2-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously `.• approved, it was #6-129-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-4-2-27 by J. P. Ryan requesting waiver use approval to operate a trucking facility with outdoor storage of vehicles on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Schoolcraft Road and the C&O Railroad in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-2-27 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Exhibit "A" dated 6-12-89, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 2) That there shall be no outdoor storage of wrecked vehicles, engine parts or other such equipment. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.03 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the 1rr 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. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-4-2-31 by M. Louis Sabatini requesting waiver use approval to sell previously owned classic automobiles within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Fire Marshal's office stating their office has no objection to this development. We also have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau submitting the following comments: 1. The boundaries of the parking lot should be curbed to prevent encroachment on adjoining parcels or greenbelt areas. Parking blocks would be suitable. 2. I am apprehensive that the planter units between the handicapped parking spaces next to the 10710 building may create a hazardous situation if the driver misjudges or forgets the location of the planters. 3. Install a post or posts in the sidewalk next to the west side of the drive to prevent driving on the walk. 4. Provide a "proper" drive approach between the sidewalk and roadway. It should be 25 feet wide with a 25 foot *. radii. A chord line rather than an arc is preferred. This will necessitate additional greenbelt on the east side of the drive. We also have in our file a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal and lastly we have a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The fence is missing at the north property line. The fence should be installed or the Planning Commission may wish to consider landscaping for this area. 2. The fence is missing from the west property line and must be reinstalled. Mr. Vyhnalek: What do you plan to do with this building? Louis Sabatini, 19433 Ingram: We are going to have antique and classic automobiles all for sale inside the building. There will be no cars outside. I have spoken to Mr. MacDonald and some other people in his office about the fence and we hope it will be up within three to four weeks. Mr. Kluver: Are you going to operate this business yourself? Mr. Sabatini: Yes. Mr. Kluver: Will there be any type of repair facility or any type of repair work on these vehicles? ti.. Mr. Sabatini: No we won't own any of the vehicles. They will be on consignment only. Mr. Kluver: What are your hours of operation? Mr. Sabatini: Probably, we haven't really set them yet, ten in the morning until six or seven in the evening. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Sabatini, is this similar to the business on Eight Mile between Beech Daly and Inkster? Mr. Sabatini: It will be similar to that only they own their cars and this will be consignment only. Mrs. Fandrei: Were you planning on replacing the two dead trees in your back area? Mr. Sabatini: Yes. We spoke to Mr. MacDonald and he said that some of the shrubbery was dead and it was just put in last year so they are still guaranteed so the landscaper is coming out to replace them. Mrs. Fandrei: You have already made arrangements? Mr. Sabatini: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. �.,, Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-2-31 closed. 10711 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #6-130-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, `s._ 1989 on Petition 89-4-2-31 by M. Louis Sabatini requesting waiver use approval to sell previously owned classic automobiles within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-2-31 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for the subject site under Petition 87-9-2-42 including the construction of the fence required along the north and west property lines and the following additional conditions: 1) That the Floor Plan dated 4-17-89 prepared by William Barbow which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the maximum number of cars parked or displayed within the building at any one time shall not exceed 30. 3) That there shall be no outside parking, display or storage of cars on the subject site other than those belonging to customers and employees. 4) That the fence be erected as required and the dead trees be replaced. for the following reasons: �. 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-131-89 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 requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 89-4-2-31 by M. Louis Sabatini requesting waiver use approval to sell previously owned classic automobiles within an existing building located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Nor. Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. 10712 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-2-32 `. by Sam Salem requesting waiver use approval to utilize a S.D.M. License in conjunction with a proposed party store to be located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Morlock Street and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have in our file a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. Deficient parking. 2. New permits will be required to relocate the ground sign. 3. Conditions of ZBA Grant #8701-05 for the addition required that an underground sprinkling system be installed and that the rental or parking of trailers on this property be eliminated. Neither of these conditions have been complied with. Currently the front yard is being used for trailer storage and Morlock R.O.W. is being used for parking and/or storing trailers. In light of other parking deficiencies in the area, this use would not be advisable on the property. We have also received a letter from Mrs. DiPaolo of 20361 Middlebelt, stating her objection to this petition. Also in our file is a letter from the Superintendent of Clarenceville School District stating they believe it is in the best interest and welfare of our youth for the city council to deny approval of a liquor license for this location. Lastly we have a petition signed by 63 rte,, residents indicating their opposition to this petition. Daniel Zolkower, 26001 Telegraph, Attorney representing petitioner: The petitioner is Mr. Sam Salem and we will be glad to answer any questions you have. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Salem, are you in this business any place else? Mr. Salem: No. I was in business a couple of years ago for about 16 to 17 years. I did own two party stores. Mr. Vyhnalek: You realize you are deficient in parking? Mr. Salem: Yes, there is parking for 16 cars. There is some parking on the side. Mr. Vyhnalek: Not according to Mr. MacDonald. Mr. LaPine: You intend to put a business here but at this time you don't own the property, you are just going to lease it. Is that correct? Mr. Salem: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Have you put any down payment or given any money to the owner of the property? '40111' Mr. Salem: No. 10713 Mr. LaPine: So if you are denied here tonight, you are not out any monetary costs? Mr. Salem: No. 40. Mr. Zolkower: What we have is option to lease subject to the beer and wine license. Mr. Morrow: You have heard a litany of difficulties with the site as far as deficiencies, things that they are doing that they shouldn't be, but rather than beat that to death, I would like to make a statement addressing just the parking deficiencies. If a could pick an area in the City that has problems with parking currently, with all the successful business in the area, a new business that is roughly 16 more deficient just could not possibly be approved in my estimation. On that basis alone, you are trying to put in a business that will not be supported by the site, in other words an overdevelopment of the site? Mr. Salem: Should there be more parking than that 16 car parking. Mr. Morrow: The ordinance would require 35. Mr. Zolkower: The owner of the premises occupies the adjacent business, which is a Rent-All location and he built this store alongside his occupied store and they would share the parking area and those are the only two businesses on that particular lot. Being deficient 16 spaces would amplify an already bad situation. We have looked at the site to the south and they are dying for parking and the neighbors are suffering. Nifty Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe the Rams Horn uses that parking lot too. Mr. Morrow: Being deficient 16 spaces amplifies an already bad situation. It has got to be an overdevelopment of the site Mr. Salem: I have a business open for two years on Seven Mile Road and I don't have 16 parking spaces. I only have 4 parking spaces and I was there for 15 years. Mr. Tent: Mr. Salem, you said you own two other party stores. The one on Seven Mile Road is that in Detroit? Mr. Salem: Yes. Both stores were in Detroit. Mr. Tent: Well these are the requirements we have here in Livonia for parking and as Mr. Morrow has stated there is a gross deficiency but the thing that concerns me is that you will be sharing the parking with the Rent-All property next door. They have problems themselves. They have overstorage. There are trucks, trailers on it. Were they going to relinquish their parking? Mr. Zolker: It would be a condition of our lease that we would have that parking area. Mr. Tent: Then they would be in violation. They would be parking their 10714 trailers probably out in the street in front of some of the neighbors. That piece of property is so overly used now that I find a really serious problem with the parking. Nil, Mr. Engebretson: I guess we need to curtail the debate on the issue of the parking. The fact of the matter is the City has an ordinance and this particular site is incapable of supporting the number of spaces that the ordinance requires for you and the adjoining business. In addition to that, there are other businesses in the area that rely on using those parking spaces so the point is even though you feel there are enough spaces there to handle you needs, the people in the Rent-All are not in a position to give up spaces in favor of your needs so I think we need to shut off the debate on this particular point. The site just doesn't have the capacity to support the parking requirements for just the two facilities without even commenting on the other businesses in the area that depend and rely on those sites. Mr. McCann: Just a comment to add to what Mr. Engebretson was saying. I think the parking problem, if you could miraculously come up with another 20 spots, I think there is still a feeling, as the letter from the audience stated, we are well supplied right now in the City of Livonia by small markets and stores, liquor and beer stores, and I think considering the location being close to the school, I think we would have a problem with the type of business you plan to put in there, with the selling of alcohol in that area, as well. Mr. Salem: We only have beer and wine, not liquor. Sandra DeWater, 20335 Fremont: I read in the Observer one third of all the dangerous interestions are on Middlebelt. We don't need any other cars flowing in and out of traffic on Middlebelt. The convalescent home has a beautiful grassy knoll that these kids can Twinkie and Pepsi themselves to death on. This is the last step of these people's lives and they don't need this added burden. Also I would like to know where he plans to put a dumpster, that they can have the garbage men wake us up at three o'clock in the morning. I would like him to answer that. They have one exit and one entrance. One is off Middlebelt and one is off Morlock. We have gone through this, which you are all familiar with, with the traffic on Morlock from the Rams Horn. Now where are their trucks going to come in and out? I don't understand why we have to put up with semi-trailers coming on our block and making a zig-zag turn so they can get into these places where they unload. We went through Rams Horn and that has not stopped. Also, the kids come from school every day and the kids can buy themselves a pop and a Twinkie on the pop bottles we pick up from our yard. Catherine Sullivan, One of the Directors of North Central Civic Association: I am standing behind the residents in this area. We have enough party stores around Eight Mile Road and Farmington Road. We don't need any more for our children to get high on. Gail Silvernail: I live right behind United Rent-All. I think you guys have already made up your minds on how you are going to go but I would like to say first of all, that piece of property they are talking about, 10715 we have about a five foot easement between my backyard fence and United Rent-All building. I catch a lot of people at bar closing hours that rush from Rams Horn using that for a toilet facility. I do collect bottles. My husband and I have to keep that area clean. I would like to say I think it would be causing more of a problem by putting a party store in there. I would like to know about a sprinkling system. There is just a little area of grass. There is no use for a sprinkling system. Mr. Nagy: A condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals Grant #8701 for an addition to the building, apparently there was a second addition to the rental store, at that time they were required to have an underground sprinkling system installed and the rental or parking of trailers on the property be eliminated. Neither of those conditions have been complied with. Mr. Silvernail: He does have some trailers that he pushes in at night occasionally and then they put them out during the day so they can get in and out of the building. Also, I would like to say that when this building was added onto, our neighborhood was lied to. He told us that building was added onto to add to his storage for his business. As soon as the building was finished, up went the "For Rent" sign. We have complied with him and his first addition. He wanted to add on. No problem. We did not fight him. Now he wanted to add on again, we said no problems they are good neighbors. He said it was only going to be for storage. We said fine but it was no sooner painted than the "For Rent" signs went up. Mary Danko: I live on Morlock on the east side across from the nursing home. I just want to go on record saying I am opposed to the liquor license slimy too because I have had one parked car hit out in front of my home by high school girls that had been drinking. I am just opposed to it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-2-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #6-132-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-2-32 by Sam Salem requesting waiver use approval to utilize a S.D.M. License in conjunction with a proposed party store to be located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Morlock Street and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-2-32 be denied for the following reasons: 1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with the off-street parking standards set forth in Section 18.38 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 3) That the subject site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. Now. 10716 4) That 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 oversaturate an area with similar type uses which is being proposed. New 5) That the location and size of the proposed use, and its nature and intensity, 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. 6) That 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 89-5-2-33 by A.R.K. Heavy Equipment Repair Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a heavy truck and trailer repair facility within an existing building located on the east side of Belden Court north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating - their office has no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in our file from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: Zoning Grant #8411-191, which applies to all buildings on this street, provides that there shall be no outside storage of any kind at any time. Due to the small size of the building, narrow yards, limited amount of parking and the fact that this particular property abuts residential, this use would not be advisable. Lastly, we have received a petition signed by 17 area residents stating their objection to this petition. The petitioner was not present. Paul Desrosiers, 34940 Beacon: I am here to reiterate what the petition says. I can see there is a potential problem down the road with the outside storage. I went to their old facility on Capitol and found very dirty conditions. I talked to the man who was cleaning it up and he found 20 to 25 barrels of oil stored behind the place which they had to pump out before they could remove them. I have a picture of that. I also went to their new facility on Hix Road in Westland and it is a new building and they already have 13 barrels of oil in and around the dumpster. At their old facility the sewers look like there was oil dumped down there. We feel there could be a noise problem. It is heavy equipment repair. That could be all hours of the night. We feel there is too great of a potential of abuse down the road. fir.. Joe Vanzo, 12066 Boston Post: I concur wholeheartedly with what Mr. Desrosiers has to say. I don't have anything to add to it other than to repeat I am 10717 very much concerned with the oil because we do have some basements in our subdivision and should there be any backup into the basements, the people will be in a mess. `, Josephine Smith, 34401 Capitol: We don't want it. Lina LaBelle, 34450 Beacon: I am opposed to this. Guy Chopp, 12017 Brewster: I am opposed to it. Nancy Chopp, 12017 Brewster: I am opposed to it. Diane Wilson, 12036 Brewster: I am also opposed to it. Gary Chopp, 12017 Brewster: I am opposed to it. Mr. Tent: I would like to direct this comment to Mr. Nagy. Paul Desrosiers made some serious implications there as to the conditions that exist on the other property. I would like Inspection to get involved with this and see what is happening. If he is dumping oil and he is using that as a dump area, I am certainly opposed to this and I would like to see some action here by the City. I think we should check into that. Mr. Desrosier showed some pictures to the Commissioners. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Nagy, during the prehearing review when the petitioner presented, did he identify the type of repair he was going to do? Mr. Nagy: He was not in attendance at our prehearing session. `fir► Mr. Kluver: When we get into heavy truck and trailer repair we are looking at possible replacement of engines, trans-axles, transmissions. We are looking at some very, very heavy work. We have a situation here where we have an operation that has a great deal of highly contaminant type of material that you are dealing with. Obviously it becomes a very complex type of situation that should not be taken lightly. The statement of heavy trucks and trailer repair covers a large, large number of items that has a rather heavy effect on the ecology. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-2-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously approved, it was #6-133-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-2-33 by A.R.K. Heavy Equipment Repair Inc. requesting waiver use approval to operate a heavy truck and trailer repair facility within an existing building located on the east side of Belden Court north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-2-33 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the *4111. surrounding uses in the area; 10718 2) That subject site does not have the capacity to accomodate the proposed use. 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. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-2-34 by William Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to construct a self-serve car wash facility to the rear of an existing automatic car wash site located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections from an engineering standpoint. The letter from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Police, Traffic Bureau, states this proposal has been reviewed by them and is acceptable as submitted. We also have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The protective wall has been constructed on the rear (south) lot line but is still required for the approximately 240' of west lot line abutting RUF. Mr. Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly: I think all the Commissioners, after the study meeting, have the corrected drawings that correct the situation where *la, we have added a curb around the proposed new driveway as well as on the western line of the existing driveway that goes into the automatic car wash. Mr. Vyhnalek: Why don't you explain what is going to go back there. Mr. Roskelly: What is best known as a quarter car wash, which allows an individual to pull into one of five bays and operate your own soap and water and wash your own car. The other item that was requested was that we increase the radius of the entrance into the bays which we did. We added five feet to the asphalt, which in turn leaves 50 feet of green area to the existing six foot masonry wall at the rear of the property. We have indicated on the plans that soffit lights will be placed along the entrance of the five bays which would not illuminate in any way the adjoining land. I feel that the zoning right now is proper, C-2. I believe we have complied with all the minimum setbacks, sideyards, etc and I would ask for your approval. Mrs. Fandrei: What are your hours of operation? We discussed 7:30 as a closing time. Is the petitioner willing to close that wash at 7:30? Mr. Roskelly: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: The other thing was the lighting intruding on the residents and I drove by that car wash and I have to say I was not only impressed with the lighting and how it did shine down still illuminating the `"ftly parking area and not the residential area, so I am satisfied it 10719 isn't going to intrude on the neighbors but I also want to comment on the condition of the car wash. The car wash was one of the nicest buildings, let alone car washes, that I have seen. The landscaping, the building, the whole property. I have to say I was impressed. Mr. Vyhnalek: Your hours of operation are what? Mr. Peak, 36001 Plymouth Road: 7:30 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. Seven days a week. Sunday we do close at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Roskelly: I think one of the problems that I personally have that was brought up by a couple of members of this Planning Commission was the fact that as soon as you have open bays where people can wander in, unfortunately we get involved with the loud radios, drinking beer and what not. I have informed Mr. Peak if they were in tandem with his automatic car wash, there will always be attendants present to see that this does not take place. Don Duff, Leon Avenue: This is an example of what happens when you let C-2 go right to the back of our houses. One nice thing about the noise the car wash makes is if you are deaf, you don't have to listen to it. But unfortunately I'm not deaf and neither are most of my neighbors. This man came up here three years ago and assured us that car wash would not bother anyone. Let him sit out there on Sunday when you are trying to have a picnic in your backyard and listen to it. It is noisy. Now he wants to put a hand wash and kids are going to be there drinking and playing their radios. If the police can't stop it in the parks, what makes him think the attendants are going to be able to stop it. I am opposed to it. Now Linda Kovich, 35852 Leon: I am not a prude. I have two boys of my own. One will be 21 and one is 14. They do play the radio loud. I have the option to say shut it down or turn it off. I can't do that with this car wash in my backyard. The police aren't going to come out to my house all the time. I would like to know if the commissioners would like one of these coin operated car washes in your backyard? Right now we have this automatic car wash. We have the humming from the machines there now. We do have the loud radios, maybe when the manager is not there. We have maybe two to three cars that peel their tires back there. This happens all the time. You are more than welcome to come to my house and listen to it. If Mr. Roskelly was so willing and wants to build a lot of homes over on Inkster Road then why, if Stoyans only goes up to the C-2 zone on the west and they sell to residential, why doesn't Mr. Roskelly sell this part of the property and have the homes all the way through? Vance Serkel, 35876 Leon: I live directly behind this Peak Car Wash. I am definitely opposed to any coin operated wash for the simple reason there is one down the road about a half a mile. I don't think we can take two of them. Another thing, once that car wash is closed, there is many a night we have a drag strip out there. Another thing, when they proposed this car wash, they gave us plans telling us what they were going to do. They were going to put in shrubbery and what did they do, they put a six foot wall up. As far as I am concerned these people can't be trusted. I am opposed to it. r► 10720 Bill McIntyre, 35996 Leon: I listened to Mr. Roskelly last time. He had no plans. He referred me to a car wash he put up on Seven Mile Road. I think it was called Peak at that time too. For your information Brenda, they are both pretty much the same but they have no coin operated law wash. I went through all the coin operated premises in Livonia today. They are messy. The one on Plymouth Road has graffiti on the back wall and everything and I don't think that is the type of thing I want to look at. He can say he has attendants. I have taken my car through his car wash. He can't have more than two attendants at the most. Guy Smith, 35924 Leon: I agree with everyone and I object. Lynn Slavowski, 35852 Leon: I wish to say Mr. Roskelly promised, to our satisfaction, to replace our shrubs. We had the sewer in our backyard. They dug out our shrubs. They have never replaced them. We are still waiting for them. When I call up he is not in. His son is not in. He is in a meeting. We want to go on record that we do oppose this. Mr. Slavowski: I want to go on record that we are opposed to this car wash. Cindy Lewalski, 35864 Leon: I am also opposed to the car wash. Mrs. Luden: Mr. Roskelly said if we let him put the car wash in there, he would landscape the back end but there is nothing there. He said all beautiful shrubbery and he put up a wall. The weeds are so bad. He cannot be trusted. The car wash is beautiful. I hope you understand how I feel about what he is proposing. It is a noisy place and I do not want a coin operated car wash right against our back fence. Nickie Vesche, 35948 Leon: I strongly object to what is going up. I would like to know if they plan on having security after 7:30. Who is going to stop people and kids from being in there after 7:30? Mr. Vyhnalek: They said they would chain it off. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, this concerns me because we have approved a lot of petitions here on conditions that certain things be adhered to. What happened here? Why wasn't the petitioner cited for not conforming to our ordinance and to our resolution. Mr. Nagy: You heard the report I read from the Inspection Department. We specifically, by letter, asked them to review the premises and give us a zoning inspection review. They wrote back and said the only problem was the lack of a wall on the west side of the property. We did ask for a report Mr. Tent. Mr. Tent: What I am saying, Mr. Nagy, is if this petition wasn't before us today, that landscaping wouldn't be there ever, would it? Mr. Nagy: I think the point is whether they complied with the plan or not and the Inspection Department has reviewed the plan and they have said with the exception of the wall there were no other deficiencies noted. There is a separate department that is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the ordinances. We did ask for them to inspect the premises. 10721 Mr. Tent: We asked for the inspection. I am saying what about these other site plans that we are approving and we put a condition in that they have to comply with the landscape plans, etc. Do we ever go out there to see if they have complied. Does somebody in the City do that to make `w sure that everything that we have indicated in our resolution has been adhered to? If so, then we have done our job. I am saying that someone here in the City, some department, should follow up to make sure all these things are being done. This is what shocks me here at this particular time. Mr. LaPine: John, we have an approved landscape plan. How did they get an occupancy permit when all the improvements that were supposed to be done, apparently were not done? Mr. Nagy: They don't until there is compliance as determined by Ordinance Enforcement. Mr. LaPine: They must. They are in there and they don't have any shrubbery in. Mr. Nagy: I am not in a position to say whether they have or have not complied with the ordinance. The department that is charged with making that interpretation is the Ordinance Enforcement Division of the City of Livonia, not the Planning Department. There is a separate division that is charged with enforcing all the ordinances of the City of Livonia. Those ordinances also include the zoning ordinance. When the Planning Commission or the Council approves a site plan or landscape plan, it is the Ordinance Enforcement Division that is charged with seeing that those plans are adhered to. Pursuant to your policy when we have these waiver uses, we ask for a site review, `r• a report back from the Inspection Department. This site was inspected. They have full access to all the plans. They have issued the occupancy permit. They wrote back to us and said that with the exception of the wall, they are complying. Now it may be debatable. We hear tonight that perhaps they haven't but I am in no position to tell you whether they have or haven't. I tried to give you the report you requested. The information I have back is they have complied. Now if they haven't, we will ask them to go out and reinspect the property. Mr. LaPine: Does the Inspection Department have a copy of the site plan approval? Mr. Nagy: Absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Let's find out. If they are not doing their job, then get on their rear ends. If we have to, we will go to the Mayor and find out what is going on. If it is their job to enforce what we say and if they are not doing their job, then someone should be brought to task. It isn't fair for us to sit here and approve site plans and ask for things to be done that are not done. Somebody should find out why it is not being done. Mr. Nagy: I happen to agree with you. Mr. Roskelly: Possibly to shed some light on Mr. LaPine's comment. Your ordinance mandates a six foot masonry wall be placed on every parcel of land where a commercial zoning district abuts to a residential. This was shown on the plan as mandated by your ordinance. At that time we had 10722 the option to go to the Board of Appeals to get a waiver of the masonry wall in lieu of adequate shrubbery, berms, etc. We did report to the Board of Appeals. We were asked to place, I believe it was three rows of pine trees staggered. We were asked to build a fir0, berm along with several other plantings, which was to be for a two year period again to be examined. At that time, and they did approve that plan, but we still had the option to build the masonry wall. We chose to build the masonry wall simply for several reasons. The number of trees and the berm they were requesting and the additional shrubs were far in excess of what the masonry wall would cost and at the same time two years down the line we would be back on square one and we could be mandated to replace the wall at that time. Mr. LaPine: What is the width of the property, Mr. Roskelly? Mr. Roskelly: One hundred fifty feet. Mr. LaPine: The masonry wall cost you approximately $30.00 a foot right? You are telling me you were going to put in $30,000 worth of shrubbery in there? Mr. Roskelly: I don't know if you have the plan that was mandated by the Board of Appeals. Mr. LaPine: The only plan I have is the one approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Roskelly: I think the plan approved by the Planning Commission was the one with the masonry wall. 4r. Mr. Kluver: What we are looking at here is an overdevelopment of the site. Even though you are within the zoning characteristics, you are still doing a waiver use. There is an impact from that type of facility being that close to a residential development. There are things that don't show. They are intangibles but they are an integral part of that particular development and that should be considered. There are a lot of open issues that I feel are being overlooked. Mr. Duff: I would like to know how someone can come up and promise something after we go to two or three meetings on it and iron it all out because he is going to do this, and then he turns around and takes another option that none of us were aware of by building a wall instead of doing the job like he had promised. I don't know how he gets away with it. Mr. LaPine, I would like to congratulate you. You are one of the few guys that has ever been here that has showed any guts on this board. Mrs. Fandrei: As impressed as I have been with Mr. Peak's building and the immediate landscaping right around the building, after hearing the input from the neighbors, I cannot, in good conscience, approve the waiver for this. As Mr. Kluver indicated, I feel it might be an overuse of the property and I wouldn't want that in my backyard. I couldn't do that to these ten people that have come up and I could not support that. 10723 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-2-34 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously 'r.. approved, it was #6-134-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-2-34 by William Roskelly requesting waiver use approval to construct a self-serve car wash facility to the rear of an existing automatic car wash site located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Yale Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-2-34 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use does not comply with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3) That the proposed is not 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. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 'tour Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda was Petition 89-5-2-35 by John D. Dinan requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for general office purposes on property located on the west side of Merriman Road between Schoolcraft Road and Scone Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this proposal. We have also received a letter from the Traffic Bureau of the Department of Public Safety stating the following recommendations are submitted: 1. Provide a six-foot sidewalk along the Merriman right-of-way. 2. Install a curb along the south lot line unless an agreement to share parking with the adjacent business/land owner is filed. 3. If a share agreement is made, then provide a curb for the first ten feet west of Merriman frontage. 4. Both drives to have a 25 foot radius on both sides. A chord line is preferred. We have also received a letter from the Division of Fire, Department of Public Safety, stating their office has no objection to its construction. Lastly, we have a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The west edge of the building encroaches onto the P zoned property. The building will 10724 have to be downsized to eliminate the encroachment or a portion of the P zoned property will have to be rezoned to P.S. 2. The ground sign shown on the site plan is proposed at less than the minimum required setback and will require a variance from the Zoning Board of v.. Appeals. The building plan has been revised to avoid the conflict with the parking zoned portion of the property. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is the petitioner here tonight? Mr. Nagy: No. The petitioner called our office and he indicated he had a conflict with another appointment. Mr. Vyhnalek: We did study this at the study session. Do the commissioners have any general statements they would like to make? Mr. Tent: This one notation about the six foot sidewalk. How do we feel about that? The petitioner isn't here to indicate if he would conform with that. This is one of the recommendations made by Lt. Thorne. Mr. Nagy: You can make that a condition of approval that a six foot sidewalk be installed. Mr. Tent: And also the curb that you are talking about? Mr. Nagy: You can make make it a condition that they comply with reports from various City departments. Mr. Vyhnalek: There is nothing here concerning the trash dumpster. Mr. Shane: As indicated in our notes, the site plan has been revised and it has Now now eliminated the trash dumpster. Mr. Vyhnalek: So it is now an internal trash compactor? Mr. Shane: Correct. It has also been revised to take care of some other minor problems we indicated. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-2-35 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-135-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-2-35 by John D. Dinan requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for general office purposes on property located on the west side of Merriman Road between Schoolcraft Road and Scone Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-2-35 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the revised Site Plan marked sheet A-1 dated 6-1-88 prepared by Architectural Resources, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. `, 2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked sheet A-2 and A-3 dated 6-1-89 prepared by Architectural Resources, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 10725 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 healthy condition. 4) That all the recommendations made by City departments be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use us 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. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 89-5-2-36 by McDonald's Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru window on property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the 4r. Northeast 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objection to its development contingent upon an approved city hydrant within 350 feet of the building. We also have received a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1. The plan does not indicate a protective wall at the rear of the property where it abuts property zoned R-7. 2. The site is less than the required 200' from residential property. 3. The drive thru window lane is required to be 12' wide. Proposed are 10' - deficient 2' . 4. Sixty degree parking spaces are required to be 22.5 long. Proposed are 20' . These spaces are required to be 10' wide. Proposed are 9' . 5. A detailed sign package must be submitted for review. Lastly, we have a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they recommend the following: 1. Dedicate the portion of the property that projects into the Ann Arbor Road right-of-way. It will require the light standard and exit sign to be relocated a few feet. 2. Provide a commercial standard sidewalk along the Ann Arbor Road frontage. 3. The parking space widths be widened to ten feet. They are shown as nine feet. This will reduce by seven the number of parking spaces. With respect to those last two reports, the site plan has been corrected. *ftr 10726 Alan Helmkamp, 16832 Newburgh: This is our fourth time in front of you so I will be brief. The only thing new is the landscape plan. We are showing approximately 52 trees for the site, and 140 shrubs. The one thing I wanted to mention on the landscaping is that it impinges upon the 7 foot right of way, which we have indicated early on we are going to dedicate, so we may have to broach the subject of maybe having to push everything back to accomodate that dedication of that 7 foot. Mr. Vyhnalek: No problem Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: No problem. Mr. Vyhnalek: It looks like you have complied with all of our requests. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-2-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #6-136-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 13, 1989 on Petition 89-5-2-36 by McDonald's Corporation requesting waiver use approval to construct a sit-down restaurant with a drive-thru window on property located on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-2-36 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked sheet SP-1 dated 6-9-89, as revised, `rte. prepared by McDonald's Corporation which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. 2) That the Building Elevation Plans marked A-4 and A-5 dated 9-6-88 prepared by McDonald's Corporation, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 3) That the Landscape Plan marked sheet SP-5 dated 6-9-89 prepared by McDonald's Corporation, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 10727 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. \r. Mrs. Fandrei left the meeting at this time. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #6-137-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-9 by Angelo D'Orazio requesting to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 from RUFC to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-9 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the subject land area proposed to be rezoned is adjacent to a major office development and Greenmead. 2) That the subject land area proposed to be rezoned is isolated from most single family development in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with good planning principles which favor higher density development adjacent to major non-residential developments. 4) That the proposed change of zoning provides for more of a variety of housing units to serve the area. slow 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, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSENT: Fandrei Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-138-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1989 on Petition 89-4-1-10 by Antell Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of Schoolcraft Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from P.S. to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-10 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are typical in a location with good access to and from a freeway. 10728 2) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning is in an area which is not adjacent to any residential uses. 4) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a mix of uses in the area to serve persons traveling to and thru the City. 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, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek NAYS: LaPine, Fandrei ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #6-139-89 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 requesting the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 89-4-1-10 by Antell Partnership requesting to rezone property located north of Schoolcraft Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from P.S. to C-2. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-140-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1989 on Petition 89-3-2-23 by JRJ Group, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an activities hall addition to St. Mary's Antiochian Orthodox Church located on the east side of Merriman Road between Six and Seven Mile Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-3-2-23 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked sheet SP1 dated 6-7-89, as revised, prepared by JRJ Group, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 10729 2) That the Landscape Plan marked sheet L-1 dated 6-7-89, as revised, prepared by JRJ Group, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked sheet A-2 dated 3-15-89 prepared by JRJ Group, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 4.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was Noir #6-141-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 578th Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 9, 1989 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fandrei, McCann ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-142-89 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 579th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on May 23, 1989 are approved. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was `. #6-143-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-8-21 by Ramco-Gershenson, Inc. for 10730 approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing commercial building (Livonia Towne Square) located on the south side of Seven Mile just west of Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That Site Plan #65700.0489 Sheet 1 dated 5-4-89 prepared by MM/A Associates, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Building Plan #65700.0489 Sheet 2 dated 5-4-89 prepared by MM/A Associates, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Kluver, Tent ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-144-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located on the west side of %OW Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 and Part VII, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of the subject property from Recreation/Open Space to Office; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 580th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on June 13, 1989 was adjourned at 11:12 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JA es C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: ' • Dtnald Vyhna k, Chairman No.. jg