Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-06-27 10731 MINUTES OF THE 581st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 27, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 581st 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 7:30 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek William LaPine* James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski Raymond W. Tent Jack Engebretson Brenda Lee Fandrei Members absent: Herman Kluver Messrs. John J. Nagy, 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 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 89-6-2-38 by Antell Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a motel (Comfort Inn) on property located north of Schoolcraft Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. 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 Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire, stating their office has no objection to its development. We also have received a letter from the Traffic Bureau offering the following comments: 1. Parking is adequate. 2. The drive entrances from Buckingham should be 25 feet wide. 3. No exterior lighting is shown. Several standards should be provided to light the parking lot and drives. They must be placed so that the trees will not cover the lighting. 4. Street lights should be placed on Buckingham. 5. Television monitoring of the parking lot is encouraged. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, after the prehearing review you are in receipt of the floor plans, building elevations, site layout and landscaping? Via. 10732 Mr. Nagy: Yes, and we have display copies here if you wish to review them. Tom Guastello, 38200 South Gratiot, Mt. Clemens, the petitioner, was present. `r.. Mrs. Sobolewski: I wanted Tom to give us a showing of his elevation of the building. Mr. Guastello made a presentation of the elevation plans. Mr. Tent: Mr. Chairman what I would like to have Mr. Guastello do is go through his presentation here on what he is proposing for the area. This will be viewed on television and there will be a lot of interested people. We have had the privy of a study meeting to review some of the plans but at this time I would like him to start from the beginning and show what is being proposed for the area. Mr. Vyhnalek: We had one public hearing, it was on the rezoning, and we went into that pretty much in detail but I have no objection. *7:40 - Mr. LaPine entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Guastello: I am very proud of our project. I originally landed in Livonia when we were doing Chi Chi's. We did that project and as a result we became advised of the availability of the property that was the Wilson property. We bought that property. The next thing that went in there was the Olive Garden. Since that time we have done four office buildings. We have enjoyed, with the two restaurants, a very good success. We think the proximity of this project is very important because it is located by two very outstanding halls in this area, Roma Hall and the new Laurel Park Hall. We like our location on Schoolcraft Road because that gives us accessibility to a number of things. We are thrilled at the prospect of having the industrial base between Schoolcraft and Plymouth because what we are proposing is to place in there a Comfort Inn, having a primary appeal to a corporate traveler and we think that traveler would be one that would come into the City of Livonia based on the location and the proximity to other things. Then the question is what do you do on weekends, and we think with the type hall bookings that can be generated there, there is no reason, if we do a good job, that we wouldn't be able to get those bookings. We are operating currently in Utica and have provided this Commission with letters from the Mayor and Police Chief of Utica and we are very pleased with that property. This would be a similar property only it would have a couple of unique improvements. We would have a work-out room and an expanded lobby and a continental breakfast. We don't have a cafeteria. We don't have a bar. We don't have large meeting rooms. The largest meeting you could have is about sixteen people. It is a nice operation. I have samples of some of the color treatments. We try to be very color coordinated in all of the properties. What we try not to do is to go into things that are intensive with labor and management, like the coffee shops, the bars, etc. With Chi Chi's, the Olive Garden and Bob Evans, we don't think restaurants are a problem. There is one other thing that was at the suggestion of Mr. McCann and that was to move the building over a slight bit and that gives us room to breathe plus we have the benefit of the double greenbelting. The height of the project is not much greater than the office buildings and I believe less than the medical center that is there. We would like to be a part of the sow community. I think it is a good project for a good area. 10733 Mr. Tent: I want to thank Mr. Guastello for using the suggestions and opinions of the Planning Commission. You have come up with a better plan and if the landscaping is going to be taken care of, I feel you have done a nice job. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Guastello, a couple of things. The police report has indicated monitors in the parking lot. Have you given any consideration to that? Mr. Guastello: I think it is an excellent idea. We haven't done it at the other property but we would certainly be willing to do it at this property. I saw a sale this weekend plus we would probably team it up with a VCR. You can get a slow-playing VCR that will give you about a 12 to 24 hour retention. Mr. Morrow: I think the fact that you are going that way, I am pleased to hear, because one of the concerns with the rezoning was what potential problems could occur and this would give your management a better handle on things. Secondly, I think there was talk about a basement in this facility for mechanical equipment. Mr. Guastello: One of the things that we think will work out well with the basement is we do have ten to twelve cleaning ladies, at any one time, and by putting a basement in that allows our cleaning and maintenance functions to be away from the general line of the guests. By having it downstairs it minimizes a lot of the guest contact that would occur. Mr. LaPine: Will the basement be the full length and width of the motel? `'` Mr. Guastello: About two-thirds. Mr. LaPine: You have no plans in the future of putting a bar down in the basement or banquet room or restaurant? Mr. Guastello: Mr. LaPine, I have been in the food business for almost twenty years and I can guarantee you that I have no plans to put in a bar. Mr. LaPine: It always worries me when you have a big basement. It always gives you ideas. One other thing, I think we asked you to bring the type of material that will be on the exterior of the building. Did you bring anything? Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. LaPine, he has already presented that. If you would like him to go over it. Mr. LaPine: As long as everyone is satisfied, I have no objection. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Guastello, I am not sure what kind of a structure the Comfort Inn Company is. Would you be a franchisee of Comfort Inn? Is that how it works? I know you own this property. Mr. Guastello: We are the fastest growing chain in the United States. The 500th Comfort Inn was recently opened in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The chain is less than five years old. We have done it primarily with a franchise fir 10734 base where they get people who are willing to go out and make the necessary commitments and then if they do it and enjoy success, they say let me find a second one, etc. That is how it works. It is part of Manor Care, which three-fourths of the company or more is devoted to hospitalization and senior citizen care. I think it is a very exciting concept because we have a lot of leeway yet we continue to improve. Mr. Engebretson: Do you have a requirement to achieve a particular standard of how you operate the business? The reason I am asking is I have had occasion to stay at Comfort Inns in other places of the country and it is my opinion that it is a first class operation and I wondered if you owned them all or if it is a franchise type organization. Do you operate by a particular set of standards that is dictated by the franchisor? Mr. Guastello: We looked at a number of them and when we first started with Comfort Inn, some three years ago, there were others that seemed to be more exciting and popular but the one thing we liked about Comfort Inn is 90% of the properties are brand new. When we sat down with the management of the company, they continually stressed their commitment towards excellence and when they come in to do an inspection, you may think you are ready but they are tough and we want it that way. Mr. Engebretson: I would also like to ask you if you would consider the City's recommendations as Mr. Nagy outlined earlier? If this petition were to be approved, would you consider accepting them as conditions of the approval? Mr. Guastello: The one, I understood, was the driveway widening to 25 feet. We `"' would have no problem with that. The other was the television and we think that was an excellent idea and we certainly would be willing to do that. There was a third one I don't remember. Mr. Nagy: The street lights being placed on Buckingham? Mr. Guastello: We would like to review the entire lighting situation with the department and satisfy the department. We have other ways of doing lighting that would give every bit the light that the street lights would do. One of the reasons for doing that is we have a way of illuminating the building that gives a good deal of reflective light in the area but if street lighting were to be necessary, we will do that, too. Mr. Engebretson: You will recall that there was considerable concern by the neighboring residents over the lighting of the office buildings adjacent to this building and we don't want to inflict any more difficulties on them. Mr. Guastello: We will be very sensitive to the lighting and make sure it is the type that everyone can live with. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman, procedurally since the underlying rezoning petition has not been approved by the Council, I believe there is a public 10735 hearing set for July 10, from a procedural point of view, are we correct to act on this waiver use with the zoning not having yet been dealt with by the Council? Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe this will be subject to. Is that correct Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: It should be made subject to the rezoning. Lori Enloe, 29117 Perth: I live directly behind the three office buldings. I would like to know how high this motel is going to be. Mr. Vyhnalek: Thirty-five feet maximum. Mrs. Enloe: Is that three stories? Mr. Vyhnalek: That is correct. Mrs. Enloe: So they would be able to look over the building into all of our homes? Mr. Vyhnalek: One hundred yards away. That would be pretty difficult. Mrs. Enloe: Do you think these homes will have the same value as homes directly across the street from us? Mr. Vyhnalek: That is not our job. You have to see the City Assessor and ask him. We would have no idea. With the buildings there, there are not that many houses for sale in the area are there? Mrs. Enloe: Not yet. There have been three or four up for sale recently. We ''— have had some problems with the wall that was built separating our property. Ever since those walls have been up we have been having a drainage problem and I am not referring to the bad weather we have had recently. I have called the Planning Department and they transferred me to the Engineering Department but we haven't seen anyone as yet. Also we have a cable that is strung through the whole block. We can't seem to get anyone to bury that cable. Mr. Vyhnalek: That cable was erected since these buildings have been up? Mrs. Enloe: This is Metro Vision cable. It was dug up to put in the wall. Mr. Nagy: We will refer her concerns to Metro Vision and have them bury the cable. Ron Batog, 29125 Perth: I live directly behind one of the office buildings. The parking lot is facing directly into the motel. I have no more privacy. I have put in a stockade fence. The wall is six feet but my house is up higher. To me that wall is too short. When you go to my family room you can see the office windows and between that building right behind me and the building on the right there is the parking lot for the motel and I am going to see the corner of that motel and it is going to be three stories so they can see my bedrooms. We have no privacy. I can see a one-story motel and maybe a two-story motel but not three stories. I am scared to see who is going to be in that motel. That is the only thing that concerns me is the wall is not high enough and a three-story motel is too high in that area. 10736 Mrs. Fandrei: The three story height is going to be dictated by the rezoning, which is going before City Council. If you have concerns, I would suggest you express them to the Council because that is where the height is determined. '4411" Mr. Batog: Come back to the Council meeting on July 10th? Okay. Mr. LaPine: John, wasn't at one time all this property zoned for R-7? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: If it would have been developed in the R-7, which is apartments, it would have been a lot higher than a three-story motel and you would have had people looking down in your backyard in that zoning too. In the opinion of the Planning Commission and the City Council, R-7 wasn't good zoning in that location so they changed it to this zoning. I honestly believe, and we all travel, when I go to a motel at night I am not looking at what I can view out the window. I go in there to sleep. I think you are being overly concerned about people staying at a motel who are going to be looking at your backyard. I am not saying that is not going to happen. I am saying the average traveler, and Comfort Inn patrons are basically business people, they are going to do whatever paper work they have to get done and get a good nights sleep and be out of there in the morning. Mrs. Sobolewski: Could we have John Nagy get in touch with the Engineering Department about the drainage problems? Mr. Nagy: I will ask Engineering to check into that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-2-38 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #6-145-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 27, 1989 on Petition 89-6-2-38 by Antell Partnership requesting waiver use approval to construct a motel (Comfort Inn) on property located north of Schoolcraft Road and east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-6-2-38 be approved subject to the rezoning of the property being approved by the City Council to the C-2 zoning classification and also subject to the following conditions: 1) That site plan dated June 27, 1989 as prepared by Capital Ventures be adhered to. 2) That landscape plan dated June 27, 1989 as prepared by Capital Ventures shall be adhered to and all landscaping as shown thereon shall be installed before the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained. 3) That building elevation plan dated June 27, 1989 prepared by Wakely Associates shall be adhered to; 10737 4) That the recommendations of the Traffic Bureau be taken into consideration and implemented where appropriate. for the following reasons: '11" 1) The petition complies with all applicable requirements of Zoning Ordinance 543 that relate to the proposed use. 2) The site has the capacity to support the proposed use. 3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses of the area. 4) The proposed use is customarily associated with office parks with access to interstate freeway locations. 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 89-4-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to add a requirement for a sign to be erected on proposed property to be rezoned. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy anything new? Mr. Nagy: We did, pursuant to the discussion at the prehearing review, add some additional language to the proposed amendment, a copy of which is in your notebook. It deals with the area where there might be a very minor zoning change or zoning change on a local street, where a 4'x8' sign may not be appropriate. We added language that dictates at the Planning Director's discretion a 4'x4' sign may be erected whereas if the property is adjacent to a major thoroughfare there will always be a 4'x8' sign. Mr. Morrow: You might explain to the audience what we are doing here tonight with this proposed amendment. Mr. Vyhnalek: What we are going to do is any property that is going to be rezoned, we are now going to have a sign on the property telling the residents what the zoning is and what it is proposed to be changed to and that will be at least 30 days before the public hearing. Other communities have this. Farmington has this and it is very successful. I think a couple of Council persons were pushing for this also. Mr. LaPine: I have one question. John, on this proposed sign, will there be anything on there to the effect that a public hearing will be held on the rezoning? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that will be part of it. 'to. Mrs. Fandrei: John, would it be possible to insert a word or two specifically referring to residential. A 4'x 4' is the size sign required in a residential area? 10738 Mr. McCann: My only problem with that suggestion is that the way it is proposed we are leaving it to the discretion of the Planning Director and then people would get the assumption because they are in a residential area, although they may be near a major thoroughfare, if they are trying to change it from residential to another zoning, the Planning Director may determine if it would best be served by a 4 x 8 and I think we should have it in the Planning Director's hands. He can decide if a special need requires a smaller sign. If it is residential, I am sure that is not a problem. I think in cases where you are changing the zoning, especially in residential, you may want the notice to be 4'x8' . There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-4-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was ##6-146-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 27, 1989 on Petition 89-4-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to add a requirement for a sign to be erected on proposed property to be rezoned, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-6-4 be approved, as revised, for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide for additional public notification of a pending proposed change of zoning. 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 89-5-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 22.13 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to add language with respect to an exception to barrier free rules. Mr. Nagy: There have been no changes since your study meeting. Everything remains the same. What this really is is that the posting of the Final Order for a barrier free variance shall be placed in a conspicious place. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-5-6-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #6-147-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public hearing having been held on June 27, 1989 on Petition 89-5-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 22.13 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to add language with respect to an exception to barrier free rules, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-5-6-6 be approved for the following reasons: 10739 1) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will provide the City's building inspectors with a much better method of monitoring compliance with the State Barrier Free regulations. 2) That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will make the `' language in the Zoning Ordinance consistent with State regulations dealing with barrier free facilities. 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 89-6-7-2 by the City Planning Commission 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 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. Mr. Vyhnalek: We are changing the zoning on the property at Eight Mile and Newburgh where the new post office is going to go. That is right across from the golf course. It is three and one half acres. We will have a U. S. Post Office in the northwest quadrant of the City at a future date. The Council has recommended that we change the master plan. Mr. LaPine: John, does the City sell this to the U. S. government or do they lease it to them? Mr. Nagy: They sell it to them. Mr. LaPine: Does the federal government build a building or do they have an outside builder build it and then they lease it from them? Mr. Nagy: I don't know the details. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, on this particular petition, this is a zoning change. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: It is not a zoning change. The petition is an amendment to the Master Plan as the plan. It no longer will be shown as a recreational site on the plan. Mr. Tent: Now a formal proposal will have to come before us? Mr. Nagy: They will have to come back and bring in site plans. This is just to remove an encumbrance on the sale of the land so we can have clear title. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 89-6-7-2 closed. 10740 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted, it was #6-148-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on June 27, 1989 for the purpose of amending the Master School and Park Plan and the Future Land use Plan, the Master School and Park Plan is hereby amended by deleting property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Pembroke Avenue and Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 for the following reasons: 1) That the subject property is no longer in public ownership. 2) That the deletion of the subject property will not effect the continued use and enjoyment of the Greenmead property. and to amend the Future Land Use Plan by changing the designation of the subject property from Recreation/Open Space to Office for the following reasons: 1) That the City has determined that a more proper use for the subject property is for office purposes. 2) That the proposed amendment reflects the City's development policy for the subject area. AND having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia and as part of the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Levan Court Subdivision proposed to be located south of Plymouth Road and East of Levan Road 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 received a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating they would encourage that the driveways for Lot 3 and 4 be required to use VanCourt and not Levan Road. We have also received a letter from the Parks and Recreation Department stating their department does not have a problem with the plot as presented and lastly we have a letter in our file from the Division of Fire stating their office has no objection to its development contingent upon the installation of an ,` approved water supply and fire hydrants on site. 10741 Bill Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly: In our discussion at the study meeting I believe Mr. Stoyan, who has item number 7 on the agenda tonight, has revised his rezoning request to allow the southerly 180 feet to be an R-1 zoning. As I expressed Mr. Peak, which this Planning Commission denied his petition for a car wash, has also agreed to have his rear `'► 180 feet rezoned R-1. To the east of that is land owned by Mr. Cochran and through Mr. Peak I learned that he is genuinely interested in possibly allowing some of his land to be rezoned to R-1 so the street can continue all the way through. Mr. Vyhnalek: If that would occur Mr. Roskelly, then the road would go all the way through to what street? Mr. Roskelly: Elmira. I think it should be noted that my petitioner, Mr. Schwartz, is somewhat concerned with the fact that this is presently zoned R-1 and certainly with our original plat it should have been permitted complying with all your ordinances and requirements. I would hope that this Planning Commission would recommend the approval of this layout due to the fact that as we go down to the engineering in the final plat we would certainly have the other parcels in line so as to determine where and if we will be placing a cul-de-sac on some property to the east or if we are successful with Mr. Cochran to go all the way to Elmira. Mr. LaPine: At this point right now we can pretty much be assured that the two parcels behind the car wash and the other parcel by the restaurant will be able to be brought into your plans so we have a continuation. Cochrans' property is still up in the air? Mr. Roskelly: Mr. Cochran, through Mr. Peak, has indicated that he was genuinely interested because up to this date he had no takers for C-2, so he said he would entertain that situation. I have Mr. Peak's proxy to say yes absolutely we can go through his property. Mr. Stoyan is here and can speak for himself later. Mr. LaPine: If that comes about, will the improvements and sewers and everything else be put in at the same time? Mr. Roskelly: I suspect it could be in tandem but Mr. Schwartz does not want to wait another year to begin his improvements but certainly our design will accomodate the fact that they can go through as far as Elmira if in fact that does come about. Mr. LaPine: I, as one commissioner, want to thank you for working on this because I think you helped us to alleviate a problem the neighbors had back there. Mr. Roskelly: I certainly agree with you and some of the Council people share that sentiment. Mr. Morrow: I would just concur with Mr. LaPine. We don't want to work a hardship on your client because we are certainly moving in the right direction that I think was part of the planning when we made that R-1 part of that commercial to the north so certainly we would want to move forward with this plat. 10742 Mrs. Sobolewski: I want to ask John, the reports that we got from the various departments, did they refer to the new revised plan we have without the cul-de-sac? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Irene Deman: I live on Levan right where Leon dead ends. This proposed plat would be to my left. I would be able to see it out of my kitchen window. Are these lots going to be kept the same width as the lots that will be abutting them? Mr. Vyhnalek: If they are R-1. Mr. Nagy: The petitioner has attempted to show the abutting lot lines. For the most part they are the same or larger. Ms. Deman: So they are approximately 60 feet in width. What price range homes is he planning on building? Are they going to be brick, one story, ranch style? Mr. Roskelly: I notice Mr. Schwartz is here. He will be the builder and possibly he can address that. Robert Schwartz, 25882 Orchard Lake, Farmington Hills: As I mentioned at the preliminary meeting, we will be building all brick ranches with attached garages and full basements, approximately 1400 square feet. The price range we project is $110,000 to $120,000. Ms. Deman: That sounds good. I was a little worried about what they would be building there. I have lived there 20 years and I like my area. I ``► have two other things that relate to the mini mall. Coming south on Levan, the right hand lane is supposed to be for either turn right or come straight through. The two middle lanes are left turn lanes onto Plymouth Road. Five times out of ten, the middle lane people do not make left hand turns. They come straight across and go into the party store. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is part of Wayne County. Mr. Nagy would you ask Inspection to look into that? Mr. Nagy: Yes, I will. Ms. Deman: There is talk, I don't know if it is true or not, that the owner of the mall has had chances to rent out some of the stores but he does not because he is using it as a tax write off. If it is true, how can someone do that? The businesses that are in there would like other businesses. Mr. Vyhnalek: I don't think we can answer that. Bill McIntyre, 35996 Leon: I want to ask a question of Mr. Schwartz. Are you the one who built the houses west of Hix? Mr. Schwartz: Yes. Mr. McIntyre: I looked at those houses. I would like to ask a couple of things. I \r. have a sewer in my backyard. The first one just collapsed. I just hope that somebody is going to take care of my sewer in the back. 10743 Mr. Schwartz: I will. Mr. McIntyre: Ever since the beginning when we started out Mr. Roskelly here was representing Peak, the car wash, then Stoyans and now Schwartz. I don't understand why all of a sudden they are here at one time. Mr. McCann: I think what you are saying is exactly what the board has been commending Mr. Roskelly for. We had a problem. He represented someone. The board let him and his client know that what he wanted to do was just not proper planning and we had a suggerstion for that property. He worked with all the different clients to come up with this proposal that the City Planning Commission put to him. He has done a very commendable job. Mr. McIntyre: First of all we find out there is a subdivision going in and a week before we found out these two things are coming in for rezoning. I think somebody knows something. I think everything should be brought up at one time and cover the whole issue. Mr. McCann: We have attempted to do that. Mr. Morrow: I think the reason is Mr. Roskelly is a respected engineer and land developer and that is why he was involved and he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and M r. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat for Levan Court Subdivision closed. �► On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #6-149-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 27, 1989 on the Preliminary Plat for Levan Court Subdivision proposed to be located south of Plymouth Road and east of Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Preliminary Plat for Levan Court Subdivision be approved including the waiving of the requirement for open space as set forth in Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed preliminary plat complies with all applicable standards and requirements covering the subdivision of land in the City of Livonia. 2) That the preliminary plat provides a means whereby the subject land area can be effectively utilized. 3) That the preliminary plat provides for a continuation or expansion of the proposed subdivision in that area to better serve the neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the 10744 Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #6-150-89 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 4, 1989 on Petition 89-1-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 10.03 and 11.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish regulations regarding restaurants and other types of eating establishments, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-1-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That there is a need to provide specific definitions for various types of eating establishments. 2) That the proposed amendment will provide for more flexibility in the location of various types of eating establishments. 3) That the proposed amendment will maintain necessary control over the location and nature of the various types of eating establishments in `.► the hands of 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. 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 #6-151-89 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 recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-4-1-14 be approved as amended for the following reasons: 1) The petition represents only a minor expansion of the C-2 zoning district. 2) The termination of the C-2 district will be more uniform for the overall district 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. 10745 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously Slaw approved, it was #6-152-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #395-89, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Six Mile Road and Pickford Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to R-6; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously approved, it was #6-153-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 89-6-8-24 by William L. Roskelly for approval of all plans required by Section 14.06 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a professional office building located on the south side of Schoolcraft just east of Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 subject to *411► the following conditions: 1) That Site Plan 89.6.11 dated 6/23/89 prepared by Basney and Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Landscape Plan 89.6.11 prepared by Basney and Smith, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That Building Plan 89.6.11 prepared by Camborne Construction Engineering, Inc. , is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4) That this approval is subject to the petitioner obtaining a variance for a landscape deficiency from the Zoning Board of Appeals. 5) Such building shall have indoor compaction. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously approved, it was #6-154-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 89-3-8-12 by Frank DiMattia for the construction of an addition to an existing retail sale building located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Inkster and Rougeway in 101.. Section 13 subject to the following conditions: 10746 1) That Landscape Plan 8901, Sheet l.A, dated 5/27/89 prepared by Franco DiMattia Architect is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; `r. 2) That the approved landscaping be installed on site prior to occupancy of the addition and therafter maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 581st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on June 27, 1989 was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION •James C. McCann, Secretary ATTEST: D. ald Vyhnalyf, Chairman jg '11r 'Now