Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1988-09-20 10310 MINUTES OF THE 565th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS *„ HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 20, 1988, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 565th 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 7:02 p.m. , with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek James C. McCann R. Lee Morrow William LaPine Sue Sobolewski Raymond W. Tent Brenda Lee Fandrei Herman Kluver Members absent: Jack Engebretson 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 Commission holds the only public hearing on a Nimy preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 88-7-1-21 by G. Franklin Laucomer for Escar Bachman and B. J. Wright requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from M-1 to C-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to have a petition to rezone property for what use? Franklin Laucomer, 26400 Van Born Road, Dearborn Heights: We want to rezone to commercial, make it a part of a small shopping center we have in mind for the site. It is now zoned industrial. Mr. Vyhnalek: Could you be more specific on what kind of shopping center, a strip center? 10311 Mr. Laucomer: No not a strip center. We have one building, a florist similar to Franks Nursery. We have flowers and crafts and outdoor sales of various types of plants in the summertime. The proposed building would be strip store but there would be a second building on site. It would be rented to various tenants, small stores, retail stores. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this a joint venture with Village Green? Mr. Laucomer: Yes, it is owned by Village Green. Mr. Vyhnalek: Then they are just expanding. Mr. Laucomer: Correct. We built from present building to Shadyside. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Nagy, is Lot 13, 14, 15 and 16 is that all C-2? Mr. Nagy: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Everything is C-2 from Farmington Road all the way to Shadyside except this one parcel. What is Lot 18 zoned? Mr. Nagy: C-2. Mr. LaPine: Who owns that parcel. If that would develop into shopping how would they have access into Lot 18? Mr. Nagy: Lot 18 is zoned C-2 and is owned also by petitioners. Later on in your agenda tonight item 2 is the site area for the outdoor sales. Mr. LaPine: Then the purpose is to move the outdoor sales back on Lot 18 and they will renovate old building into shopping center. What happens to vacant land? Will that all be parking? Mr. Nagy: Parking, with the exception of Lot 18 which will be outdoor sales. Mr. LaPine: They would be required at that time to pave all of 13, 14, 15 and 16 right? Mr. Nagy: To provide for their off-street parking. Mr. LaPine: Lot 18, they would not have to do anything there? Mr. Nagy: They would use significant portion of 18 for outdoor sales but there would also be some parking there too. Mr. Kluver: The current industrial use of Index-O-Matic there. Is that a current operation that is presently functioning? Mr. Laucomer: They are renting month to month. Their lease ran out and I don't believe they intend to continue operations there. Mr. Kluver: You are the owner of that property? Mr. Laucomer: I am appearing for the owner. 10312 Mr. Kluver: Does the lessor of Index-O-Matic presently own that property? Mr. Laucomer: No they are renting month to month. Mr. Kluver: Who is owner of industrial property? Mr. Laucomer: Escar Bachman and B. J. Wright. Mr. Kluver: If they are renting on month to month basis, in the event that industrial operation were to fail, would you be able to lease that building out as industrial use? Mr. Laucomer: We would remodel front and interior. Mr. Kluver: If that building were to remain as is, could you lease it out for industrial use? Mr. Laucomer: No, we have no intent, we want it for retail stores. Mr. Kluver: In the event it remains zoned M-1, in your opinion can you or do you feel you could lease that as industrial use in that building? Mr. Laucomner: I would say it would be questionable. It is the only industrial in that block. Mr. Tent: Question to Mr. Nagy. This concerns the zoning ordinance. Under this petition the way the petition reads there seems to be several deficiencies. Is that correct? If this were approved, he would have to go to Zoning Board to have some variances changed or this has to be tied in with the other petition. Mr. Nagy: To answer your question, it is yes to both questions. Because the building is not situated 60 feet from right-of-way, it is a non-complying building. If they were to occupy for commercial purposes they would have to have approval from Zoning Board of Appeals to occupy a non-complying building or change the use of a non-complying building. In addition to that, the site area that is presently zoned M-1, that would be zoned C-2, that would not be sufficient in area to meet off street parking requirements. The plan is to incorporate the existing M-1 area with the balance of the property that your petitioner owns so as to enlarge the site area to meet off-street parking requirements. Mr. Tent: If M-1 property, as Mr. Kluver indicated, could he still rent it out or would that be a violation? Mr. Nagy: To the extent that the new user or renter could comply with the off-street parking requirements, the answer would be yes. The M-1 zoning permits manufacturing, some valid use for the property, the only question is whether or not the new user could meet the off-street parking requirements. If they had a number of employees, it might be deficient. Mr. Tent: Are there any building violations against this property now? 10313 Mr. Nagy: I do not have that information to answer that question. Mr. Morrow: You indicated you are representing owners. Are you one of the owners? Mr. Laucomer: I am just representing owners. Mr. Morrow: Do you have any idea when property was acquired? Mr. Laucomer: About three years ago. Mr. Morrow: The reason I asked, what concerns the city the site has certainly been slow in developing. Of course, normally it is a monetary type of thing. It would appear that perhaps some of the problems in developing that site was because of the acquiring of this property. Mr. Laucomer: I am not familiar with the monetary transactions. Mr. Morrow: I made my own suppositions, whether it's true or not I'm not sure. We have been trying to bring that site along and we try to be sympathetic if one of the reasons was a lack of money. Mr. Laucomer: When we got approval of present zoning we originally had plans for second building and I did not handle that but I believe the second building wasn't denied but it was postponed and the plan that was approved had undeveloped property along the east property line and when they were able to acquire the industrial building, it seemed like a good business move to have that take the place of the building they proposed to build. Mr. Morrow: I don't find fault with it being a good business move, I'm just saying I think the current site suffered. Mr. Laucomer: I see your point. If they have money to buy property why don't they develop site. Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, I want to clarify one question. He asked if there were violations on the property. Were you answering for the M-1 only. Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Since these two are related, are there violations known on the current property? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Fandrei: Could you go into those please. Mr. Nagy: With regard to balance of property, the commercially zoned portion of area, what is still lacking is the protective wall; only 1/2 of off-street parking has been installed; temporary greenhouse has not been removed as required; they are in violation of weeds ordinance; there is an unlicensed Ford pick-up truck on property; there is also construction equipment stored on property and there are pallets and landscape supplies at southeast corner of property in violation of ordinance. 10314 Mrs. Fandrei: When we are speaking of the open air exhibit and you are referring to temporary greenhouse, then we are talking about two different things. The temporary greenhouse is not permitted right? Mr. Nagy: Yes. '" Mrs. Fandrei: The open air exhibit is strictly open air without cover? Mr. Nagy: Their site plan that they submitted in connection with the petition, what they propose is to relocate the use not the structure. The structure they intend to construct for outdoor sales will be a canopy type of structure, open on four sides with simply a roof over it. Not a temporary one. It will be a permanent one. Mr. McCann: Last week at the study meeting the Planning Commission addressed two issues, one being that the Planning Commission wanted to see something in the way of the parking lot in front area. Did you do any work with regard to redesigning that? Mr. Laucomer: I had a meeting today with Planning Department and I mentioned the landscape area which we have, that would be the 10 foot greenbelt on Eight Mile Road side, what we call a garden, that would be landscaped and I agreed that we could add additional landscape area to make the landscape area equal 15% of total site. I am now working on plan to show that landscaping. Mr. McCann: You don't have anything for us this evening? Mr. Laucomer: I don't have one with me. I will have one in a few days. Mr. McCann: There was the other question whether you would have verification of the mortgage commitment so if we approve the change of plan, they would have sufficient funds to go ahead with this. Mr. Laucomer: I didn't realize that the landscaping of the property would affect the rezoning. Mr. LaPine: The dotted line, is that where the proposed wall would have to go. Mr. Nagy: No, it just shows easement line went through there. Mr. LaPine: Where is the wall required along heavy black line? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. LaPine: When he originally got the okay to build building, he was required to put wall up at that time and after four years he hasn't done anything on wall, how does he get away with this. Mr. Nagy: During that four year period he did try on two occasions to get variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals and they were denied and now City has issued a violation to him and he has a day in court to show Judge why he has not been able to construct the wall. 10315 Mr. LaPine: One more question and this pertains to the next petition. The temporary shelter that Brenda brought up is out there now, is that going to be demolished when he moves to the back portion? rr.. Mr. Nagy: That is my understanding. Mr. Laucomer: I might explain possibly part of the reason the wall wasn't built at that time, when we got the permit we were notified that we could not get a permit for outdoor sales based on plans we presented. We were told it had to be steel. Mr. Bachman did not want to build in steel. He thought it was incompatible with outdoor sales greenhouse effect and in speaking to building department asked whether we could use anything else. They suggested possibly a slow-burning, which is heavy steel, and I immediatedly prepared plans for that type of structure, applied for building permit and in checking code it was a little unusual. The next thing that came up was we couldn't build approximately 15,000 square feet. We couldn't build more than 5,000 square feet of that type of structure. We could put a roof over east 5,000 and over west 5,000 and leave center 5,000 open. On this basis we were given approval by the building department but at that time I believe our variance had expired and we were not aware of that but we were aware we had not done all the things we were supposed to do. In the meantime Mr. Bachman has put in underground drainage and sidewalk on Eight Mile and some landscaping. The point I am making is he was doing the work towards completion of the approved plan. He also paid 50% of cost of labor to contractor from Brighton who specializes in that type of building. Mr. LaPine: I know you represent the petitioner but what are you? Are you the architect? r.. Mr. Laucomer: I am the engineer but I also do architectural work. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to be the architect and engineer on this project? Mr. Laucomer: I was architect on existing building but I haven't been retained on new building. Mr. Tent: You say you represented the owners of the property the last two years? If the owners were really sincere with this petition, if they intend to do something to foster our faith in them, then why has it taken them so long to clean up the area. It looks terrible. I, as one commissioner, would certainly be hesitant to accept your word when you say you are going to do all these things. It looks terrible. Was there any particular reason for them not going ahead with their project? Mr. Laucomer: What I was mentioning are things that Mr. Bachman has done not what he plans to do. He tells me he plans to comply. Mr. Tent: His past performance doesn't indicate what he will do in the future. Mr. Vhynalek: I don't think he can answer for Bachman and Wright. Mr. Tent: Then they should be here. 10316 Robert Wyman, 20321 Shadyside: I live two doors down from property. I am opposed until they do a few things like they said they were going to do. Come to find out at meeting the other night that the guy next door to me sold the back of his property so they could get out of putting up a wall here. I am opposed to any of that until they do some of the things that City wants. First they have violation of weeds. The way '410" they cut weeds down is with a bulldozer. They are not doing anything just riding around. James Muir, 20200 Shadyside: I live second to last house on that block. I am President of North Central Civic Association. We, that is the Executive Board, have discussed this item and find over the past that this particular tenant of this particular residence is not what we consider a good neighbor. We don't really want to cooperate with him. We have tried getting walls, we have tried getting it cleaned up and it is the same issue, stated differently. I have a new proposal. I think they have gone through seven lawyers in the last seven years. I think I heard new facts as to why there wasn't any money to do the original plan. I find no credibility in anything they tell me. I hope you see it the same way. Catherine Sullivan, 20285 Milburn: I am quite a ways from this piece of property. I am one of the directors of the North Central Civic Association and have been for last thirty years. We are quite fed up with hearing the same old story. I don't have the money or I had a heart attack or some other excuse. Why isn't wall up? It is in litigation or I don't have the money. It is about time the city started listening to the people in area of Eight Mile Road and started doing the right thing for the people. We have been fighting since 1955 and we would like to see some action by the City on why the wall hasn't been put up. Where is she getting the money for the property if she can't put up a wall. Noir Mrs. Fandrei: Isn't it the City that is taking her to court? Mrs. Sullivan: How long has it taken the City? We would like to see this more along Eight Mile. Mr. LaPine: Me and Mrs. Sullivan have seen each other many times over the years. At this point we are only talking about rezoning. Are you people opposed to M-1? Mr. Muir: I know what I am dealing with, with M-1. I can't tell you what I see going on with proposed C-2. We are looking at a very unknown situation. Mr. LaPine: I'll tell you where I am coming from. In M-1 they are allowed outside storage. If we rezone to C-2 then everything from Shadyside going west is all M-1 zoning. That doesn't mean I will never allow them to do anything in that property until I have some real stipulations down in writing but I think from my point of view it makes good sense to eliminate the one parcel from M-1 to C-2 and then at least all of the property is the same zoning. I hate to see M-1 eliminated because we need M-1 but in this case I am leaning that way. 10317 Mr. Muir: I sit here with a large set of feelings. One side says I am not nuts about M-1. The other side says I have no reason to trust this petitioner. I heard strip stores. We might even wind up with some kind of cat food store. I don't know what to expect. I can't condition it. Mr. McCann: One more question. Basically what I hear tonight is an objection to what they were to do it is not an objection to see that it is done. The audience would like some kind of patrol to see it is done right and according to the book. Is that basically what you're here to say? Florence Sarkission, 20418 Shadyside: I live directly across the street from property. They say they only had it three years but it has always been a mess. The parking lot is always a mess. We had to call police I don't know how many times to chase people out of there. We finally got rid of them and finally they forced them to fix that building up. The building next door to me I guess it is light manufacturing, their lot is a mess. My husband passed away. Up until that time he cleaned it up. Since my husband passed away 3 1/2 years ago, that parking lot is never clean. I had my property sold. They refused to allow the deal to go through. All they wanted to do was put a garage in there. We don't want all that traffic. We have also just paid to have road hard topped. Mrs. Fandrei: Do you realize building that is presently there is not going to be enlarged. It is going to be the same size. It is going to face west not Shadyside. Mrs. Sarkission: I didn't realize that. Mrs. Fandrei: It would be an improvement on present appearance of building. It is `'r" our objection to get this whole thing cleaned up also. Howard Keith, 32488 Norfolk: I am objecting to the changing of it. Now it is M-1 but what are their future plans? If they own Lot 18 and back part of 19, will they be trying to buy up and move back? What are their future plans? What are they going to do with building? What would they do with old building? The City finally got them to tear the old florist shop down. How long did it take? It was an eyesore. I would just like you people to consider what they plan in the future. Sharon Keith, 32488 Norfolk: I just have a question. If Village Green would buy the property next to my brother, if the wall was to be up here and Village Green bought part of this property, will they move that wall back here on Bob's property or will they have to buy this easement? Mr. Nagy: Wall requirements are a function of zoning lines not ownership. The zoning district requires there be a screen wall where commercial zoning or office zoning or manufacturing zoning abuts residential regardless of who owns the property. The wall is standard pursuant to zoning district and goes on zoning line. Even though they may have bought 19A still the wall is required where it adjoins residential. The only rezoning we have is what is before us tonight. 10318 Mrs. Keith: So they will have a wall up there? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Morrow: One of the comments I want to make, we are trying to balance these two petitions together. Getting back to the zoning, I go along with Mr. LaPine, we are trying to get this project cleaned up and I am a part of this problem because I supported the petition when they came forward and they told us a lot of things they would develop. They haven't done it. I am not sure that I would give them C-2. That is fairly intensive commercial. I might want to explore C-1. I wanted to get that as part of the record. I don't think I can make a decision on this property tonight. Mr. LaPine: Lot 18 has that been C-2 for a long period of time ? Mr. Nagy: Yes it has. Mr. LaPine: I thought maybe it was just rezoned. It seems like we made a boo-boo but it has been there for a long time. Gentleman in audience: On Lot 18 there was a house at one time. There was a wall. It was tore down and rezoned C-2. Mr. LaPine: Approximately when. Gentleman in audience: Ten to eighteen years ago. Mr. Muir: I understand the council resolution on industrial corridor with respect to wall. Why doesn't that same line carry through with respect to continuity of that whole belt. I am just looking at that saying why are we doing this. I want wall because I want buffer and `'or I will keep coming back to you. I am asking about lack of continuity. Why are we looking at this as a special case? Gentleman in audience: I think about four years ago Village Green came to Council and they asked to rezone that because they owned the property and nobody really objected because they owned it and I thought they would put up a wall then. Now they own property further back in. I feel in a few years they will come in and try to have that rezoned. Mr. Tent: I can appreciate the concerns of the residents. I want to compliment Mrs. Sullivan she has done a terrific job of keeping everyone on their toes. I am really concerned about this area. I am concerned about the strip commercial centers that are coming into the city. We have too many. Our studies have shown that. I have to agree with Mr. Morrow maybe a C-1 would be more appropriate. There is one thing I am concerned with where all the stake lines have been changed. I can see your concern the way they are violating those cut lines. This would be a concern of mine. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-1-21 closed. 10319 On a motion made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 on Petition 88-7-1-21 by G. Franklin Laucomer for Escar Bachman and B. J. Wright requesting to rezone property located on the south side r.. of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from M-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-7-1-21 to October 11, 1988 at which meeting the original site plan should be present and be indicated by field check the difference on that site plan as it was approved vs what we are looking at today and at that study we should have an opportunity to review the site as proposed to a C-2 at present and also to a C-1 and also that Bachman and Wright be present at that study meeting. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-36 by G. Franklin Laucomer requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing outdoor sales area on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mrs. Sobolewski: Was there any change? We are talking about same type of building, same type of things they were going to do before. Is anything different? Mr. Laucomer: It would be the same size of building, no wall, canopy type of roof. Gentleman in audience: Without the wall I am opposed. With the wall it is okay. "ftly Robert Nash, 20245 Shadyside: Do any of these site plans, are there any exits or entrances on Shadyside? There should be no traffic on Shadyside? Mr. Vyhnalek: That is my understanding. We can make sure if this passes that no traffic can go on Shadyside. Mr. Nash: That would be my one request. I would like to also add my voice I have zero confidence in the petitioner doing anything he says he will do especially renovate that building. That just won't happen. Mrs. Sobolewski: Mr. Laucomer, that Lot 19 right behind the proposed outdoor sales has your petitioner purchased that property? Mr. Laucomer: Mr. Bachman owns it. Mrs. Sobolewski: Has he sold any of that property? Mr Laucomer: No. Michael Petteys, 20411 Shadyside: I own Lot 19B. Granted Butcher Block does pay for the easement and taxes but service was maintained by owner of Lot 19. It was stated in my contract. As far as that petition goes to L.. 10320 move sales back to Lot 18, as of a year and a half ago, he thought he had permission of City so he did hire a contractor. He did pay for timber and at that time I left my present nursery to open that up and that is when we found out we could not get it at present time. One of the other things that was mentioned was that we increase the size of the greenhouse. There have been no extensions of greenhouse. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you work for Mr. Bachman? Mr. Petteys: Yes I work for him now. Mr. Morrow: While we are on the subject of the back parcel, I am opposed to any further intrusion of any other commercial parking into residential area. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-36 closed. On a motion made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-36 by G. Franklin Laucomer requesting waiver use approval to relocate an existing outdoor sales area on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Shadyside Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-7-1-21 to October 11, 1988 at which meeting the original site plan should be present and be indicated by field check the difference on that site plan as it was approved vs what we are looking at today and also that Bachman and Wright be present at that study meeting. rr. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-1-22 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Grantland and Plymouth Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department setting forth the legal description to be utilized in connection with this petition. We also have a Landowner's Petition in our file signed by six persons stating the petition was to inform the necessary city officials of their opposition to the rezoning of properties located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Grantland and Plymouth Roads in the southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-2. Mr. Morrow: Was there a reason they opposed? Mr. Nagy: I read the petition verbatim. Mr. Morrow: There was no reason they opposed? Mr. Nagy: Correct. 10321 Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Nagy, do you know the dimensions of this property? Mr. Nagy: 1100 x 370. Mr. LaPine: How many lots could be developed on that size parcel? New Mr. Nagy: About 37 or 38 lots. Mr. LaPine: I am curious as to why homeowners are opposed. Mr. Vyhnalek: Maybe one of those six persons who signed the petition is here tonight. Mr. Nagy: I'm sure they can voice their own opinion. When gentleman delivered it to our office he indicated he felt the City should uphold the Future Land Use Plan. That was only comment made by the individual who turned in petition. Dick Persichetti, Lots 505 and 506 on Newburgh Road: Originally that whole area was supposed to go industrial. A lot has happened since that time. You have a new residential section on Newburgh. I guess the south side of that ten acres that you now want to rezone has been very quiet for the past 15 to 17 years thinking the Master Plan would be followed somewhere along the line. I know we have a new Planning Commission. I personally owned that property for eighteen years and I guess I am looking at what Master Plan called for. I am the one that initiated this homeowners' petition because I wanted to see how the people felt on Plymouth Road, on Newburgh Road, across Newburgh Road. I know how they feel on Grantland and I sympathize with them but it is time for us to be heard on south side. At least 95% of the people I talked to believe that the whole section, including the ten r.. acres the city owns, would be an ideal industrial, commercial, some type of park. You're talking 48 acres of land and not the best residential land in Livonia. You have Newburgh Road, which is a main road. You have Plymouth Road which I understand is going to be made wider. I don't know what we are talking about residential here. If you lock that ten acres in residential, that locks the rest of us in. At least the people I talked to that own this property on the south side will probably be heard from in the very near future. I think we will get together and tell the city what we would like to have done with this. I think now the people are ready to get together that own the 38 acres. Mr. Morrow: I just like to comment to this gentleman where we are coming from tonight. The Council passed a resolution for Planning Commission to explore what that ten acres could be used for. In initial study we thought maybe the best use of the property would be R-2 primarily because it is a very lovely site but I can assure you there is no plot afoot to demand that R-2. We are having this public hearing so people to south can have their ideas heard. That is why we are here. We haven't made up our mind. Mr. Persichetti: We have 48 acre parcel. I am sure Planning Commission could come up with a good plan to use that property other than residential plots. r.. 10322 Mr. Morrow: I have not made up my mind yet what I want to see that used for. We will use this input. Mr. Tent: Mr. Nagy, was this originally put on our Master Plan for industrial property? Mr. Nagy: Yes it was. Mr. Tent: What prompted the change to R-2? Mr. Nagy: During my time as Director of City Planning Department there has been at least three petitions for subject area to be rezoned. Many years ago there was a petition to try to rezone to manufacturing. That was defeated. There was another petition for residential multi-family and that was also defeated. We decided to take a fresh look at the Future Land Use plan. There has been some new residential developments so as a result of the new developments in area and the fact that the earlier manufacturing petition had been defeated we came to the conclusion that perhaps a housing plan would be in best use for area. The city got this ten acres through default of taxes. In an effort to try and dispose of that property, the city did not have a public purpose for ten acres of land, we wanted to put it on the market and dispose of it. All the bids for purchase of property varied because of various intent of purchasers to use for different purposes so City Council asked Planning Commission to look for a more appropriate zoning classification so everyone would be bidding with knowledge of what the future use of the property should be. Mr. Tent: Manufacturing could still not be ruled out? Mr. Nagy: Planning Commission looked at all the alternative uses and came to N•► the conclusion that an R-2 was the only appropriate land use and that is why we have initiated this at the request of City Council. Now we will hold public hearing trying to get input from neighborhood. Mr. Persichetti: The reason I think this was turned down for industrial was because people on Grantland were very vociferous. The people on south side were very quiet and now we are going to let you know what we feel about this property. Mary Hirschlieb, Lot 13: I believe the people that are wanting this commercial, they own the land but they don't live there. They have business interest at heart and they are representing people who have business interest at heart and as you well know through the years we have been very representative in that area. We have nice street and it is well kept up. I have a lifetime deed at home that states that is supposed to be residential, that whole area, for a lifetime. That street has been laid out many years ago. Across Plymouth Road you are putting in new home section which is beautiful so I am asking you in your sympathy and in your knowledge to take a good look at this on what you are doing to us. I am sure, if we have a choice, one family residential would be the best choice for us rather than have a factory behind us. Through the years we have had people get up and run, everytime they have one of these zoning meetings they put up for sale signs and move. I realize that this is a very serious section. 10323 We had older farming people in area and they have passed on and now this is open area so please come up with a good plan for us. Scott Heinzman, Lot 11: I plan on living there for at least ten to twenty years. We have a little boy. If the area in question has to be rezoned my preference would be 100 foot wide with approximately 160 foot lots similar to what we have there now. The smaller lots look funny and don't create the country feeling which is why we chose to live there. If it has to be rezoned, I would prefer R-5. Alan Mendelsson: The piece of property I own is 38038 Plymouth Road. My lot backs into ten acre parcel. Originally I bought that piece of land to develop. I thought it would be a good location for multiple housing for senior citizens. Subsequently I changed my mind. I also bid on ten acre parcel of land and subsequently I realized that is not the best use of land. I think the whole corner, Newburgh, Plymouth, the whole 48 acres, the best use would be industrial or light manufacturing. I don't think that is incompatible with the neighborhood on both sides of Grantland. I think the two pieces of property can co-exist with landscaping, berm and wall, we can maintain the lovely neighborhood along Grantland. I think if the ten acre piece is converted to R-2 zoning, I think it will block industrial development south of that and I think those pieces of property will deteriorate and I would recommend that whole area be rezoned light industrial manufacturing. Mr. Tent: Do you live in City of Livonia? Mr. Mendelsson: No I live in Southfield. 26206 West Twelve Mile. Mr. Tent: The twelve acres of land that you own, have you ever petitioned the city before for senior citizens complex? Mr. Mendelsson: No. Mr. Tent: How long have you owned that land? Mr. Mendelsson: A little over two years. Mr. Tent: What is your intention in developing it? Mr. Mendelsson: At the time I bought it I wanted to develop it as a senior citizens complex. Subsequently I have changed my mind. Mr. Tent: You own it outright or do you have option to buy? Mr. Mendelsson: I own it. Mr. Morrow: I drive around city quite a bit and I concur with this lady over here. I think the development south of Plymouth Road might be the best kept secret of Livonia. Something about Plymouth Road after you cross where it goes into Hines Park, traffic drops off considerably. I think, I have not made up my mind, at this late date I think I am leaning towards some sort of residential classification. 10324 Keith Miller, 37530 Grantland: We realize our lots are a lot smaller than the other homes along Grantland. We are attempting to keep our lots up to standards of other lots so whole street is one beautiful subdivision. I personally think we should leave that rural urban, keep it as is and possibly put in a sub like we have, same size lots __ instead of breaking it all up and putting in a bunch of sardine cans. Keep the lots larger. It is an area of Livonia that is beautiful. Traffic is really quite good. Personally I would just say keep it as it is or make it so lots have to be fairly large. As for putting industrial area down there, that would ruin whole area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Our minimum would be 70 x 120. Tom Greene, 37721 Grantland: Years ago my dad helped put this road through. These lots are all 100 foot lots. There has been a little problem with off street parking because of small lots. I would like to see it stay RUF due to fact these lots are all 100 feet and it would keep the neighborhood a lot nicer. I think we would welcome it very much. We would prefer 1/2 acre lots. B. S. Hindu: I have interest in Lot 520. The building department made me tear down house. My lot is only 51 feet wide by 800 feet long. If you rezone it as small residential R-2 then my lot is basically useless. On Plymouth Road I don't think it makes good sense that Livonia should be just residential homes because every business has residences and houses behind there. If you talk, more than 50-60% people will be opposing. Basically I think the City could put in some kind of buffer. Across from that land it is C-2. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you owned this land? `or Mr. Hindu: Not too long. I didn't buy it with the idea it would go industrial. I bought it for house. I do live in Livonia and I do have land on the other side of Plymouth Road and that land I owned for last 6 to 7 years. It is not that I am just trying to make some money. It doesn't make any sense from a planning point of view. It makes sense from compassionate point of view. Mrs. Hirschlieb: I just want to say take a ride down Grantland. We have been there 40 years. Take a ride over Industrial Park. Take a good look and see what you see. It gets pretty crummy. Mr. Morrow: In the Grantland corridor, are those lots in the RUF classification? What are the lot sizes there? Mr. Nagy: RUF - 1/2 acre. 100 x 300. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-1-22 closed. On a motion made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 10325 20, 1988 on Petition 88-8-1-22 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Grantland and Plymouth Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-8-1-22 to October 11, 1988. 441. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-34 by Mariott Corporation requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class B Hotel License within a hotel presently under construction on the east side of Laurel Park Drive, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. Richard Burger, Attorney representing Marriott Corporation: There are two items before you. A request you recommend approval to City Council (1) for a Class B Use and (2) for a waiver of a 1,000 foot spacing requirement between liquor license uses. Mr. Vyhnalek: We do not have the power on the 1,000 foot. The Council only has the power to rescind that. Mr. Burger: All I am asking for is a recommendation to Council. Mr. LaPine: We discussed this at study session and we all understand it is the nature of the beast. When you have hotel you need liquor license to be competitive. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-34 closed. On a motion made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #9-162-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-34 by Marriot Corporation requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class B Hotel License within a hotel presently under construction on the east side of Laurel Park Drive, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-34 be approved subject to the waiving of the 1000' separation requirement by the City Council, for the following reasons: 1) That, assuming the waiving of the 1000' separation requirement by the City Council, the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general 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. 10326 3) That the subject use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That the serving of alcoholic beverages is an integral part of the hotel's operation. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-35 by The Oil Dispatch, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a quick oil change facility on property located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating the proposed drive approach to Middlebelt Road should be reviewed by the Wayne County Office of Public Services. In addition, prohibition of certain turning movements to and from Middlebelt may be required by the above agency. They state they have no objections to the proposal. We also have a letter in our file from Mr. MacDonald of the Inspection Department stating the building setback from Schoolcraft is required to be a minimum of 60' ; proposed is 23'4" - deficient 36'8". A variance would be required from the Zoning board of Appeals. The landscape plan does not show underground sprinklers. A 24" wide salt barrier adjacent to the street curbs and a weed mat in the bark areas are strongly recommended to ensure proper maintenance of landscaping. The gate on the dumpster enclosure would interfere with the use of adjacent parking space and the 4'x6'x6' high ground sign could be approved if located at a 10' setback. We also have a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating the best arrangement for traffic would have the driveways enter/exit from Forest City Parking Lot and if that is not acceptable, the drive approaches should use a 25 feet radii and also they should install sidewalks along Schoolcraft and Middlebelt frontages. We also have in our file a letter from Wayne County Department of Public Services stating they would not permit a driveway located as proposed on the plan. the volumes of traffic handled by this intersection justify placing driveways as far away as possible from the intersection. Due to the limited frontage this office recommends that the existing property and driveway adjacent to the referenced site be utilized as an access point for the referenced site. They also say the proprietor should be advised that any work proposed within the Middlebelt Road right-of-way requires a permit from this office. Mr. Morrow: What is date of letter from Wayne County? Mr. Nagy: August 24, 1988. Alan Helmkamp, Attorney for Petitioner: Also present is Richard Zischke, the project architect. Given the lateness of the hour let me be brief and update you on some of the conditions that we discussed last week. 10327 First of all the curb cut issue and Wayne County's approval of same. Late this afternoon I called Mr. Harrison's office and over the telephone was read their letter dated September 16 which the woman said was mailed yesterday. The letter substantially says that Wayne County has reconsidered its position and its revised position is that 4► they will approve a curb cut and additional driveway for egress purposes only from the site so now the traffic flow will be ingress off of Schoolcraft egressing on to Middlebelt. Hopefully that will solve our problem. There was a question concerning signage. We have agreed to move it back ten feet. Our design is not set in stone. It would be brick base, some type of low internally lighted sign with any input from this commission. Finally, Mr. McDonald's letter referenced to by Mr. Nagy, I have given you a copy of my letter to Mr. MacDonald committing us in writing to incorporating his request for the site plan so that you can rely on it Mrs Fandrei: Mr. Helmkamp, what colors were you proposing for sign? Mr. Zischke: The sign for the Oil Dispatch is typical sign he has used at six previous stores. The colors on sign are yellow, white and black. The sign is low sign designed to sit on brick base. Mr. Vyhnalek: That wasn't on the plan so they have to come back anyways? Mr. Nagy: They only have to come back if you make it a requirement. Mr. Vyhnalek: We have to look at drawings. Mr. Morrow: Since site plan is integral part of this waiver, do we have it here tonight? \m" Gentlemen showed site plan to commissioners. Mr. Vyhnalek: The only thing it really lacks is something with respect to sprinkling system. Mr. Helmkamp: We have committed to sprinklers. Mr. Vyhnalek: There is something about trash containers taking up parking space. Mr. Helmkamp: We are in compliance with ordinance but again we can move that. Mr. Zischke: As ordinance reads now, we are following the ordinance as it relates to gas stations and the ordinance states that for a gas station use it is required two parking stalls for each service bay. We actually can fit four cars within the building at one time. However, through past experiences on stores of this nature, use for customer parking is almost non required. The majority of parking required is for employees. They stack up and wait. Stacking space is more important than parking space. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are there any Oil Dispatch Centers in Livonia? Mr. Zischke: No 10328 Mr. Tent: I have a concern with this petition, not that I am against that particular use in the city. I have been driving up and down Middlebelt looking at that piece of property. I don't see how we can put any more traffic on Middlebelt. I would feel more comfortable if this lot was the proper size. We have several deficiencies. The location bothers me. Going into the landscaping, I am not that ver interested in this particular point. To me this is not a good location. Mr. Helmkamp: Mr. Tent, by brief history we have come before this commission before at Five and Middlebelt. We tried to find a better location and we found this location. Secondly, again this operation will only involve 40-50 cars on a daily basis. Mr. Tent: If the vehicles were kept with the Forest City parking area for ingress and egress that would satisfy me. I did look at it with an open mind and I envisioned what would happen there with more traffic on Middlebelt. Mr. Kluver: How were you lead to this site? Mr. Helmkamp: I didn't mean to suggest that anyone in the city led us to this site. I meant to suggest that when we saw this as a possibility some of my preliminary inquiries were very favorable. Mr. Kluver: Were there some kind of comments between you and city officials? Mr. Helmkamp: There was a realtor mentioned it to me and usually when I have something like this I will take it informally to a number of people. Mr. Vyhnalek: Who owns this property. `ft' Mr. Helmkamp: It is an estate. The personal representatives lives out of town. Mr. LaPine: The problem we have here is unfortunately that parcel should have been part of the block bought by Forest City. Unfortunately that didn't happen. Now we are stuck here with a very thin small parcel of property. Eventually something has to go on that piece of property. In my opinion this is the best thing I think can go on it as Mr. Helmkamp has pointed out. These oil change businesses don't do a big business. Most of the business is probably on Saturday. The amount of traffic that is going to generate may be two or three cars coming off Schoolcraft and only one or two cars at a time exiting. Therefore you will not put any big strain on traffic on Middlebelt Road. There is probably more traffic coming out of the racetrack. You have to make up your mind something is going to go in there. Something is going to be built and I don't see any big objections. Mr. Vyhnalek: At exit is it a right turn only? Mr. Helmkamp: That would be dictated by signage and signage authority. Mrs. Fandrei: The southern portion of building is on property line of Forest City property? 10329 Mr. Helmkamp: It is on property line. Mrs. Fandrei: You are going to increase curb cut from 25 feet to approximately 48 feet from Schoolcraft? Mr. Helmkamp: It is a narrow driveway. Mr. Zischke: It is approximately 30 feet. It will be Wayne County statistics. Mr. Helmkamp: We did approach Forest City. Our preference was to use their curb cut and they denied us access. Mr. Kluver: Just a comment. Not being a traffic expert and having little background in that area, many of the things Mr. Vyhnalek said obviously I think would happen. I am not concerned about cars going in and number of cars coming out. My concern is once you get in there I think you will never get out. The other point more than one person will make a left hand turn to get in there. As far as people using that to take a shortcut when the operation is shut down, there is no question in my mind they will go through there. I think you have a major traffic problem here. Mr. Tent: Mr. LaPine, while you indicated the land will be used someday, somehow, somewhat. Why? There are pieces of property in the city that will never be developed. Must we fill up every parcel? I would like to keep that empty until something happens. Maybe the city will have to buy it at some point. I agree that is a very dangerous corner for that type of operation. Mr. Helmkamp: The police department did not oppose the project. They are the traffic experts. '`. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-35 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #9-163-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-35 by The Oil Dispatch, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a quick oil change facility on property located on the southwest corner of Middlebelt Road and Schoolcraft (I-96 Service Drive) in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-35 be denied for the following reasons: 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 11.09 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to side yard requirements. 3) That the subject site does not have the capacity to accomodate the proposed use. 10330 4) That the proposed use would not be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 5) 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 as is being proposed. 6) That the location and size of the proposed use, and 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-37 by Mel Borin requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion of an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 for general office purposes. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Mrs. Sobolewski: I can't recall how many tenants. Mr. Nagy: I think he had one tenant in mind. Mrs. Sobolewski: How many could it hold. Mr. Nagy: It is only one suite. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #9-164-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-37 by Mel Borin requesting waiver use approval to utilize a portion of an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Joy Road and Grandon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 for general office purposes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-37 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 10331 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accomodate 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 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-8-2-38 by Truman Strong requesting waiver use approval to utilize a recently constructed building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Grandon Avenue and Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 for general office purposes. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal. We also have a letter in our file from the Inspection Department stating no deficiencies or problems were found. Mr. Vyhnalek: You would like to have waiver use for general office. Do you have any tenants? Truman Strong, 26325 Inkster, Redford: Yes, I do have a potential tenant. He is a travel agent. I would like to have this general office use because I feel the amount of traffic would be less than a doctor's office. I don't feel that we would have the parking space for putting doctors in there. Ben Matusz, 29197 Grandon: I live immediatedly adjacent to this property. I really have no problem with the waiver. I have a problem with the building. He has been putting up this building for more than a year now. I wrote a letter to Council. Mr. Strong promissed to finish building six months ago. It is nowhere close. Mr. Strong: The problem we have is we did not have a tenant and I cannot finish the inside of building. You are not going to put in partitions and have someone change it all around. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the time schedule now if this goes through? Mr. Strong: They will do drywall starting tomorrow if this goes through. I promissed occupancy by October 1. We did run into one problem. The builder got sick and was sick for three months. 10332 Mr. Vyhnalek: Does that satisfy you sir? Mr. Matusz: If he doesn't have any tenant, that is really not my problem. All I wanted him to do was finish the outside of the building. Mr. Morrow: Will this waiver go to the Council? Mr. Nagy: Yes it will. Mr. Tent: Mr. Strong, you indicate you are going to have a travel agent as a tenant. Does Mr. Borin know about it. Mr. Borin isn't here today and he indicated he had a travel agent. Mr. Strong: I haven't met Mr. Borin. I have a signed contract with the travel agent. Mr. Morrow: Should this waiver prevail, I think we have taken a large step towards getting this project under way and bringing this to a resolution. If we can bring this to a resolve, it will eventually go away. Mr. Matusz: Can we get a commitment from Mr. Strong to finish the building? Mr. Morrow: He did start out with a spec building and it is tough to continue that building only to have someone come in and say tear out the walls, etc. Mr. Matusz: Put a lawn in. I don't care if he finishes it inside. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, how long does he have. Mr. Nagy: Once he pulls permit, he establishes a vested interest in a site Now plan. There is a time limitation with respect to the building permit administered by the building department. Our site plan approval is valid as long as he puts that first shovel in ground. Mr. Strong: It may make my neighbor a little happier to know I have plans in the process for soliciting bids for nursery sod from Harold Thomas Nursery. I expect those bids to be in this week. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are going to have it in before winter? Mr. Tent: You say you have signed contract with travel agent. I am sure they want to get in there as soon as possible. When did you tell them it would be available for occupancy? Mr. Strong: The signed contract has a clause that I must get this waiver and it is supposed to be ready for occupancy by October 1. Mr. Tent: That would be our date when the building would be done. You did indicate in your petition that by October 1 you would satisfy the requirements. Mr. Strong: We have to have Council approval but I feel if Planning Commission supports my waiver, I will take risk and go ahead. 10333 Mr. Matusz: I want the building finished. Put some landscaping in. Mr. Vyhnalek: He said he was going to do it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-8-2-38 closed. NIr On a motion duly made by Mrs. Fandrei, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #9-165-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-38 by Truman Strong requesting waiver use approval to utilize a recently constructed building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Grandon Avenue and Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 for general office purposes be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the 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 accomodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surounding uses in the area. and the following condition: 1) That the landscaping will be completed within the 1988 growing **Ar. season. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-7-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of a 20 foot wide public utility easement located on the south side of Industrial Road between Levan and Wayne Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed vacation, provided satisfactory arrangements are made for the relocation or protection of any existing Detroit Edison equipment. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-7-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was 10334 #9-166-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1988 on Petition 88-7-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of a 20 foot wide public utility easement located on the south side of Industrial Road between Levan and Wayne Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-7-3-3 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed vacating will not affect any existing public utilities. 2) That there is no longer any public purpose to be served by maintaining the area as a public easement. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Engebretson 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. McCann and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #9-167-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1988 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-4-1-8 by Marcello Scappaticci to rezone property located south of Ann Arbor Road between Patton Avenue and Knolson Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, as amended, from R-1 to P.S. be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible with the surrounding residential uses. 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a transition or buffer zone between residential uses and commercial uses in the area. 3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a mixed use development to serve the various needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. 4) That the proposed change of zoning represents a reasonable and logical zoning plan for the subject property which adheres to the principles of sound land use planning. 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. 10335 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: McCann, Sobolewski, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Kluver, Tent, Morrow ABSENT: Engebretson '4111. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #9-168-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 16, 1988 on Petition 88-8-2-32 by Ronald Sesvold c/o Ramco-Gershenson requesting waiver use approval to operate a video arcade within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-8-2-32 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 and Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accomodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use will provide for more of a variety of activities for the Livonia Mall Complex. and the following additional condition: 1) There be no more than 35 mechanical amusement devices located on New premises. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Sobolewski, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #9-169-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance ##543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the west side of Inkster, north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 from RUF to R-9. 10336 AND THAT, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.06 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. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, it was #9-170-88 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to vacate an existing easement located west of Laurel Park Drive, north of Six Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. AND THAT, notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED that, approval of Fairfield Apartments' request for outside dumpster to be located on site be tabled. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #9-171-88 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Revised Site and Landscape Plans submitted in connection with Petition 86-6-2-24 by Fr. Alex J. Brunett requesting waiver use approval to construct a church building on property located on the east side of Farmington Road north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Sobolewski ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #9-172-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 563rd Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 16, 1988 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, LaPine, Vyhnalek NAYS: None ABSTAIN: McCann, Sobolewski, Fandrei ABSENT: Engebretson 10337 Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was #9-173-88 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 564th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 30, 1988 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSTAIN: LaPine ABSENT: Engebretson Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #9-174-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 88-9-8-24 by Michael S. Downes on behalf of Steve Petix Clothier for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance 543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Antago and Rensellor Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 subject to the following conditions: 1) That Site Plan 8132, Sheet 1 dated 8/29/88 by Michael S. Downes and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Building Plan 8/32, Sheet 5 dated 8/29/88 by Michael S. Downes and Associates is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, Morrow, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Engebretson 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 adopted, it was #9-175-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-9-8-25 by Kamp-DiComo Associates for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance 543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan dated 9/7/88 prepared by Norman C. Kaipio is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 10338 2) That the Building Plans prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That a detailed Landscape Plan be submitted for Planning Commission approval within thirty (30) days. 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 #9-176-88 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 88-9-8-25 by Kamp-DiComo Associates for approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance 543 in connection with a proposal to construct an office building located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 565th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 20, 1988 was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION vow Sue Sobolewski, Acting Secretary ATTEST: Don:ld Vyhnalek,/ hairman jg