Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1989-01-31 10489 MINUTES OF THE 572nd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 31, 1989, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 572nd 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 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Donald Vyhnalek R. Lee Morrow Sue Sobolewski* Herman Kluver Raymond W. Tent James C. McCann Jack Engebretson William LaPine Brenda Lee Fandrei Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Vyhnalek informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do `` not become effective until seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been 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 88-12-1-37 by Milwaukee Investment Company 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 P.S. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. They further state the development of the site plan should take into account the existing traffic signal located at Curtis and Middlebelt Roads from a standpoint of drive approaches. Arthur Pollack, Vice President of Milwaukee Investment Company: With me is Mr. Robert Siroda, our architect who designed the project. We have here a rendering of what we would like to build and the plan is that we will use part of that building for our own offices since we have sold our building in downtown Detroit. The rest would be rented out. We feel this would be the best use for the property because of the fact that it is too close to Middlebelt with all the traffic for residential and we are not going to have any problems with the 10490 neighbors to the south of us. The zoning then continues to be pretty much P. S. and commercial services right to the north of the apartment building. Mr. Vyhnalek: Is this building for four tenants? Mr. Pollack: It is designed so it could be for four or one or two tenants depending on the tenancy and what might be required. Mr. Vyhnalek: This is for your office and the spec part for the other tenants? Mr. Pollack: Yes. Mr. Morrow: Does your investment company own this piece of property? Mr. Pollack: Yes, they have owned it for some time now. Mr. Morrow: It has kind of laid fallow in that area for how long? Mr. Pollack: About 10 to 12 years at least. We happen to be the same people who built the apartment project in there and shortly after the apartments were started we acquired this piece and it has been sitting there since. There used to be two houses on it at one time. Mr. Morrow: You had made the comment that it follows along with the zoning in the area but when I look around I see primarily residential all the way around you. Mr. Pollack: I was talking more or less on the east side of Middlebelt. True 4.115, there are the apartments but this is buffered from the apartments pretty well and then you follow along with the P.S. zoning, which is right north of the apartments. Mr. Tent: If this zoning was granted to you, would you build immediatedly? This is not a spec building? Mr. Pollack: Yes we would be building because we have some use for it, which is our own offices. Mr. Tent: How much would you use for your offices? Mr. Pollack: We would probably use about 3,000 square feet, which is what we have at our present office in downtown Detroit. Mr. Tent: What is the size of the building? Mr. Pollack: Approximately 11,000 square feet on two floors. Mr. Tent: One more question. The property up at Middlebelt and Six Mile Road, do you have an interest in that also? Mr. Pollack: No. Mr. Tent: At one time were you contemplating developing that area? 10491 Mr. Pollack: At one time that piece was being offered and we did make an offer on buying the corner of the cemetery but nothing ever happened to it. We never owned it. That was as far as it went. fir► Mr. Tent: When you developed the apartment site was this property part of your plans? Mr. Pollack: No. We didn't own it when we started to develop the apartment project. It so happens that all the property was owned by the same person, if I recall correctly his name was Mr. Bendelo. We bought it about two to three months before the first building was built and he moved into the first building. Unfortunately two months later he passed away. The whole project was well under construction before we bought that piece. Mr. Tent: My only concern is we have so much P.S. zoning in the City now that is going unattended and to add more to the package I am just a little concerned. Mr. Pollack: We were somewhat concerned too particularly that other P.S. seems to be somewhat vacant but we feel we would have no problem. Mr. LaPine: I just want to clarify something in my mind. When you developed the Woodridge Apartments, you didn't own this parcel. Mr. Pollack: Not when we started construction. Mr. LaPine: During this time of construction you purchased this parcel? '4111' Mr. Pollack: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: How many buildings were up at the time you purchased it? Mr. Pollack: They were pretty much all under construction. I don't recall how close to being completed. The first building was almost built. The one to the north was almost 100% done. Mr. LaPine: Did you ever think at that time of having that rezoned to make that part of the complete development? Mr. Pollack: No. One thing, the apartment project was an F.H.A. insured project and we would have had to start all over and it would have been another two years playing around with F.H.A. in order to add to it or to change that project. We always did feel it would be a good office site. Mr. LaPine: You may think so but having an office building out in front of those apartments when it looks like the whole parcel is part of the apartments, to me that isn't good zoning and it isn't good planning and the other thing is, as Mr. Tent has pointed out, there is enough P.S. in this town right now that is going unused. That places me in a dilemma as to whether or not I feel we should allow any more P.S.? Mr. Pollack: I can understand your thinking. One reason that the site looks like a part of the apartments is that the two houses that were there originally are no longer there. 10492 Robert O'Neil, 29446 Ravine: As of Sunday we had looked at the vacant office space on Middlebelt between Six Mile and Seven Mile. I think we have done our part for office buildings between Six Mile and Seven Mile. The Parkside Pavillion, 18292 - 18334 has 12 occupied, one of which is a 441m. rental office, and 10 vacant. 18618 Middlebelt, which is the next office building up from that, has 1 occupied and 4 vacant and just across the street, just south of Seven Mile on the west side of Middlebelt an older professional building has at least 1 vacant office suite in it. There is a sign outside. I don't know how many more there are. There is a fair amount of unused office space at the moment and two of those buildings have been up for sometime. They are not brand new. Mr. McCann: Did you go to the owners when you got these figures? Mr. O'Neil: No. I just walked around Saturday and Sunday. Mr. McCann: Who did you talk to to find this out? Mr. O'Neil: I didn't talk to anybody. I walked through and counted those that were vacant. Mr. McCann: I was just curious as to why there seems to be such a problem along there. You are not familiar as to why? Mr. O'Neil: No. They have been that way for sometime. The most recently constructed building is the one that has 4 out of 5 vacant. Mr. McCann: Do you know when that was constructed? Mr. O'Neil: About a year and a half ago. The professional building on the west side of Middlebelt south of Seven Mile is a very old building. That has at least one perhaps two vacancies. We also have a bunch of office buildings on the south side of Six Mile, east of Middlebelt. You have some vacancies there. Mr. McCann: I see that as a compelling reason. Besides that are there other reasons you don't want to see professional offices go in this area? Mr. O'Neil: It would be ugly. Secondly, that is the area where our children board the elementary school bus and the junior high school buses. Mr. McCann: On the east side? Mr. O'Neil: Both on the west side and the east side. It depends wnich school and what time of day it is. Mr. LaPine: Could you tell me where you live in relationship to the property? Mr. O'Neil: I live the third lot in on Ravine Drive. Mr. Engebretson: I would like to ask Mr. O'Neil a question. I appreciate having the benefit of your input relative to the current vacancy situation with all the commercial buildings in that area but I am wondering if you would share with us your thoughts as to what the significance of that is. 10493 Mr. O'Neil: I think we are overbuilt. We are overbuilt in terms of office space and mall space. There are empty shops in the mall immediately north of the fire station, Middlebelt Plaza. There are empty shops south of Six Mile, Terrence Corners. We have too many malls, too many apartments, too many office buildings. They simply are not filled. `. Mr. Engebretson: I understand your point and I guess I am trying to understand better your perception of what impact that has on either the community as a whole or your neighborhood in general or more particularly by the quality of life you have learned to enjoy. I don't mean to press the point but obviously you are very concerned about it. Mr. O'Neil: We moved here 25 years ago this August and at that time none of these things were built. As the commercial strip started moving down from Seven Mile and moving up from Five Mile it simply looks tacky. Paul Romps, 29700 Mark Lane: My concern is (1) we don't really have any multi-story buildings in that area on Middlebelt and I don't think from an aesthetic standpoint that this would fit in. The other thing I am concerned about Mark Lane ends in a cul-de-sac. The only way the residents of Mark Lane can get out on Middlebelt is through one of those streets. I don't know if you have had the problem of trying to get on a busy street at 8:00 in the morning. The other question I have, this is an 11,000 square foot building. How many people will be using that building during the course of a day. My concern is the increase in traffic volume and it's a hindrance to the old residents of that subdivision. I am approximately a block away but I don't want to be a captive in my own home. Jane Moran, 18234 Middlebelt: I would like to recommend that if this building was to come about, it should be a one-story building and also have a landscape buffer and have something in the driveway south because of the traffic as the man has said. I would like to know also the structure of building. Mr. Vyhnalek: That is really site plan. If the zoning was changed then we would go into that. There would be another hearing. Right now we are really concerned about zoning. Mrs. Moran: But the traffic is very, very bad in that section. Mike Butler, 29543 Mark Lane: When I first got notice of this particular proposed change I looked at the property and was really surprised that was considered a vacant piece of property. The way it is currently set up right now I had always thought that it was what the City required as a setback for the existing apartment building. The sidewalk along Middlebelt Road virtually bisects the property. There is a green berm which looks like it was built purposely as a part of the buffer between the existing apartment buildings and the street. I was surprised that someone is going to try and develop that. It seems like an awfully small piece of property. If you look at the P.S. north of the apartment building, that is not a very big project but it looks to me like it is going to be about six or seven times as big as this. I see that there is a proposed multi-story `"'' building. I don' t know how he is going to fit that on. It is 10494 a very small piece of property. I don't know where the parking is going to be for that. I just try to visualize any kind of development there. It just seems like it would stand out and not be appropriate there. I don't see how something like this would fit 'gar in. It does not seem appropriate considering the current uses of the surrounding property. I am also concerned about the traffic in the area. I have the same problem as the other people mentioned. I don't think the size of the property would support any kind of an office building. I wasn't surprised it was owned by the same owners as the apartment complex because it looked like a continuation of the existing apartments and I think any office development would be out of place considering the size of the lot. Mr. Tent: Just a comment to Mr. O'Neil, Mr. Romps and Mrs. Moran. Your comments are well taken because I totally agree with what you said. I live in this area also and I watched the development of this and the traffic is horrendous. This is an ugly building and as far as putting it into a strip lot like we have over there, there certainly isn't room there for it. I compliment Mr. O'Neil on his observation about the P.S. zoning here within the city. We have way too much P.S. and it is not occupied so I am totally against the development of this property. Mike Lewis, 29694 Ravine Drive: I want to bring the thing about the traffic up. Forget about the looks of the building, a three-story building in a normally one-story area creating more traffic. There is a police car that normally sits at least once a week on Curtis to watch traffic going through the traffic light that is set up over there. He gives out numerous tickets. There have been a few accidents. That is also the main route of children to walk to school, mine included. There is an elementary school down Curtis. There are school buses that stop and pick up children both places. I am just wondering if they put up a three-story building, where will the cars park? Where will the cars come into the parking lot and leave the parking lot? They have already added a left turn lane at Six Mile and Middlebelt because of the traffic. This will just create more traffic. I can negotiate traffic but what about my children going to school? Mr. Vyhnalek: The proposal is for a two-story building not a three-story building. Debbie Thomas, 29605 Mark Lane: Basically everyone has voiced my opinion. I just wanted to let you know I agree with everyone. I have children that do get on the bus at that location. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-1-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously adopted, it was #1-1-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1989 on Petition 88-12-1-37 by Milwaukee Investment Company 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 P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-12-1-37 be denied for the following reasons: 10495 1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan which designates the subject area for medium density residential land use. 2) The proposed change of zoning is an example of spot zoning which leads to a piece-meal approach to land use and zoning. 3) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that are unrelated to the surrounding uses of the area, which uses are all residential. 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 88-12-1-38 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Farmington and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R.E. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this rezoning proposal. We also have a letter in our file from the law firm of Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker stating they represent the George family who are the owners of the property located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Farmington. They further state they strongly object to the City of Livonia's petition and procedures to rezone this property without their consent. Their clients granted an option to Weatherford/Walker Development, Inc. who have filed a petition for rezoning and if the City's petition is successful, it would cause their clients major economic loss for which redress will be sought. Their letter further states their clients have been property owners in Livonia for a long period and paid taxes on the property for upwards of 25 years and they are appalled by the City of Livonia's action to pursue its own rezoning petition and they strongly object thereto. This letter is also signed by Lewis George, the owner of the petitioned property. Mr. Tent: This letter that we received objecting to the rezoning of the property from the Lewis George organization, are they the theater people? Mr. Nagy: They are not the theater people any longer. They at one time operated the theater and others as well. Now they just own this building and land. Mr. Tent: If they own that building, do they have any intention to renovate the building or are they going along with that great big commercial complex? Mr. Vyhnalek: I think it was clear from their letter that they were backing Weatherford-Walker. 10496 Jeff Wilshaw, 16319 Wayne Road: I talked to a couple of you gentleman after the last Planning Commission meeting and told you my intentions with the theater project. This kind of baffles me. We have an excellent theater. I have made numerous attempts with Mr. George, called him „u. and written a letter, about leasing the theater and I have not had a reply yet. I am a businessman. I have been operating my business for five years in Livonia. It is a commercial sound reinforcement disc jockey company. I just think it is kind of silly. We have an excellent chunk of land here in Livonia with an excellent theater and this can be a viable and extremely profitable operation if it is managed correctly. I think that is our biggest thing whether or not it is managed correctly. I think the last thing I have heard was a company like Pace membership was trying to build a warehouse and you voted it down. I don't know what is going on. Mr. Vyhnalek: You are saying you would like the building to stay? You would like to lease it out? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. I wrote a letter to Mr. George asking to lease it out. Mr. Vyhnalek: When did you write your letter to Mr. George? Mr. Wilshaw: December 28, 1988. Mr. Tent: Could we have a copy of your letter for our file. Letter was given to Mr. Nagy for the file. 8:03 - Mrs. Sobolewski entered the meeting at this time. Mr. Tent: I admire the fact that you want to keep the theater intact, which is something I would like to see in the City. Would that be live theater or a movie house? Mr. Wilshaw: Basically, exactly like the Omni Star Theater. I have nationally known acts coming in. I have been in touch with a couple of booking agents willing to book for me. I have written numerous letters to businessmen for help financially and I have gotten some replies back and some are still pending. I think I can do it. Mr. Tent: From a financial standpoint, would you say you are solvent enough to enter into this type of agreement. Mr. Wilshaw: My company itself is not solvent enough to operate the theater. My company is solvent enough to lease the theater though. Mr. Kluver: Obviously your interest and Mr. George's interest are not one and the same so that is an economic situation and that is something that you would have to make personal contact with him to determine if there is an interest on his part. As this Commission sits and looks at the viability of that site, that aspect does not have any impact on the zoning. I would think if he had a viable interest he would have answered your letter within hours and sat down and negotiated something that might have been viable between you and he. �.. Mr. LaPine: I would like to move that we table this item until such time as we dispose of the item that we have on the other rezoning of this parcel. 049; Mr. Kluver: Prior to taking action, I would suggest we close the public 1hearing on this item. Mr. Vyhnalek: I have a gentleman here who wants to speak. Stan Anderson, 28428 Elmira: I was wondering has the City considered the possibility of the viability of buying the theater and having a civic auditorium and using it as a place for high school graduation exercises and programs and as a home for the Livonia Symphony? Mr. Vyhnalek: It is my understanding they have approached the City on that but I believe it is in limbo right now. Maybe Mr. Nagy can enlighten us on that. Mr. Nagy: My knowledge is to the same extent yours is that the City has in an informal way, without going into exhaustive studies, determined that is not the appropriate activity for the City to enter into at this time. Mr. Anderson: So the City has considered it and has dismissed it? Mr. Nagy: That is correct, at least as far as the City Administration is concerned. Mr. Morrow: Just a comment. I can appreciate where the attorney for Mr. George is coming from because I am sure it could prove a financial hardship but it was his petition that caused this Commission to look at this property and perhaps place it in a use that might be more appropriate, certainly to eliminate C-2 along a very, very r.. commercial strip and return it to what I feel is the rightful zoning for it in something other than the commercial classification. We have already looked at the site. We know there are some wetlands on it. Perhaps the M-1 that the theater is on would be more appropriate than research and engineering. We put this on to study it. There is nothing etched in stone. I think we have the right to hold a public hearing to study whether or not another zoning classification is more appropriate for the times. Also, if you look across the street, if there is any commercial that needs help, it is the Shelden Center. I am still waiting for a developer to come in and give it the revitilization, the rebirth that they had down at the Wonderland Shopping Center. To say we need to continue commercial in that area, in fact increase it, to me it is not doing what is right. I just wanted to make those comments. Mr. Engebretson: I would just like to comment briefly on the point made in the letter that the City Planning Commission came forward with this petition quickly on the heels of the petitioner having submitted theirs and just for the record I think that it was a matter of public record that the City Planning Commission had every intention of entering into this zoning change and much to our surprise, within a matter of days this other petition came to City Hall. I think we were there first. Mr. McCann: I would like to move to close the public hearing. Nialy There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and r. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-1-38 closed. 10498 On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was ##1-2-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January '44by 31, 1989 on Petition 88-12-1-38 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Farmington and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 from C-2 and M-1 to R.E. , the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-12-1-38 to February 7, 1989. 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 88-12-2-51 by Eugene Pulice for waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. Mr. Vyhnalek: You want to use this for general office. Do you have a prospective customer? Eugene Pulice, 32175 Balmoral, Petitioner: Yes. Most of that building is already spoken for. Mr. LaPine: I would just like to say I haven't always been in favor of going from P.S. to general office but in this case we have eliminated a commercial building that was a bar. He has done an excellent job of adding on to the existing complex he has there. We have eliminated some parking along Mayfield. I think this is a good proposal and I am going to recommend that our fellow commissioners would support it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-2-51 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously approved, it was #1-3-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1989 on Petition 88-12-2-51 by Eugene Pulice for waiver use approval to utilize an existing building for general office purposes on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-12-2-51 be approved subject to adherence to the previously approved site plan for this project, 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 9.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543. 10499 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. 3) That the proposed use is much more compatible to the area than `" the use previously occupying a portion of the subject building 4) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the adjacent and surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-12-2-52 by David Ted Pettey for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction with a new billiard hall proposed to be located within an existing shopping center located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Grand River Avenue and Angling Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating they have no objections to this proposal and also you have received in your notebook background material from the petitioner on how he will conduct his business and why he feels he needs a liquor license. He further indicates that he intends to limit it to beer and wine only. Robert Ray, 22320 Prospect, Southfield: We would like to run this billiard hall approximately the same as the one on Schoolcraft at Inkster, who is probably the most successful billiard hall manager any place in the state of Michigan and he has very little trouble of any kind. He puts on a lot of tournaments. I don't know if you have all read the brochure that I put together for you. We will create somewhere around 16 new jobs for the area, which I think is helpful, and I am going by the amount of people that are working down in the establishment at Schoolcraft and Inkster. Mr. Vynnalek: Am I getting this straight? You asked for a Class C liquor license? Mr. Ray: Only for beer and wine because I don't want to be bothered with liquor. The tavern license is what makes a success of the new type of family billard parlor. He is doing a tremendous job. The ones in New York are doing tremendous jobs. The ones that I have been to all around the country are doing real well and they run a family type of billard parlor. There is one particular place in New York that is doing $25,000 a day on weekends. Now that is a 52 billiard table room. Mr. Vyhnalek: What would yours have? 10500 Mr. Ray: I think we have space in the first portion for 13 and then more room next door for 4. There are two adjoining buildings next to us that haven't been rented for a year that we have already been told that if we can make it go the way we think we can, we can get the other %wr two buildings. Mr. Vyhnalek: With this beer and wine, do you plan on having a bar? Mr. Ray: Just a snack bar. Mr. Vyhnalek: Can they go up to this bar and have drinks? Mr. Ray: They can have drinks at the bar but the main part of it would be a pitcher of beer in the area where they are playing. The one at Schoolcraft has, I believe, 5 or 6 stools. I am not even sure that we would have enough room for 5 or 6 but certainly no more than 5 or 6. They could use that for eating as well. We are only having 3 or 4 different sandwiches so it is not something where we would have to hire a chef. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you trying to say if you do not have a beer and wine license, the billiard hall would not be a success? Mr. Ray: It would not be successful I am sure. I have seen many, many billiard parlors in my life and none of them are doing as well as the ones that have the beer and wine licenses. Mrs. Fandrei: I would like to direct a question to Mr. Nagy. Do you know of any violations on the Schoolcraft and Inkster Road billiard hall? Nifty Mr. Nagy: I am not aware of any. Mr. Tent: Mr. Ray, the building that you are occupying, what was there before? Mr. Ray: I believe they called it the Bun Factory. They made bread and rolls. Mr. Tent: You say you would upgrade the area because the area there is kind of shabby in that shopping center. There is a lot that has to be done to it. There is a statement you made here in your brochure that you catered to people 18 years or older. Isn't the legal drinking age in Michigan 21? Mr. Ray: I am talking about as far as the pool is concerned. Mr. Tent: You have to be 21 to buy liquor in Michigan. You are saving that your average customer is between 17 and 45. You are saying that the younger age group could not partake in this. Mr. Ray: Any minors would have to be accompanied by their parents. Mr. Tent: They couldn't drink a beer? Mr. Ray: Definitely not. Whatever the law is as far as minors are concerned, that is what I would do. `. 10501 Mr. Tent: You indicated to one of the commissioners you definitely would have to have the beer and wine license to succeed but the indication is the majority of your customers are underage. Now Mr. Ray: Mostly it will be coke. That is all I drink. I go to the billiard hall on Schoolcraft. I like the place. He runs a good clean establishment. That is what we are going to try to do. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Nagy, in our notes the Class C liquor license, if he just wants beer and wine, there is nothing to stop him from having liquor? Mr. Ray: That is why I asked for a tavern license. Mr. Nagy: We don't have a classification for tavern license. If he volunteers to put that restriction on himself and limits himself, the license will still come out of our Class C liquor license quota. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Ray, has anyone shared with you that your request for this license is against the Ordinance 11.03(h) so that this Commission, at least in my mind, cannot grant you this license because you are within 1,000 feet of another establishment that has that license? Mr. Ray: No. I called the Liquor Commission in Lansing and they said there were 10 beer and wine licenses available in the City of Livonia. They call it a tavern license. That is what the Liquor Commission said in Lansing. Mr. Vhynalek: That is retail not for taverns. Now Mr. Morrow: The number, whether they are available or not, I want you to understand even if I were swayed by your viability concerns of your establishment, it is in conflict with our ordinance and one of the things that the Commission is responsible for is compliance with ordinances. In effect you are asking us to grant a use that is in conflict with an ordinance that we wrote so to my mind I could not support it because of the 1,000 foot restriction. The licensed establishment that is within 1,000 feet is El Nibble Nook. Mr. Ray: No one told me about the 1,000 feet. Mr. Kluver: I want to go back over comments that were made. The petitioner is requesting a Class C liquor license. That comes from the amount or quota that is left in the City. It is a Class C and has all the jurisdictions of a Class C liquor license. Secondly, the point that Mr. Morrow makes, it does violate the ordinance. It is a Class C liquor license! Mr. Ray: I would like to have it said as far as I am concerned when I called the people in Lansing, they called it a tavern license. They said there were 10 tavern licenses in Livonia and 70 liquor licenses in Livonia. Fifty-three had been used and 1 tavern license had been used. Mrs. Sobolewski: Do you own any other billiard parlors anywhere in the Detroit metropolitan area? 10502 Mr. Ray: No I don't. I have all the equipment for this one. We went to quite a bit of expense to go into this knowing it is a good solid business to go into. `r" Mrs. Sobolewski: Besides your billiard tables, is there anything else in there like video games. Mr. Ray: No I am not interested in video games. I would like that to be on the record. To me it is a distraction from the game of billiards. He has them on Schoolcraft and I am sure they make money but I am not interested in it. I am interested in running a good clean business that is all. Jeff Freeley, 20321 Gilman: My concern is the shopping center is very close to residential area plus as the commission knows we have been notified in the block of Seven Mile, Eight Mile, Inkster and Middlebelt of a clean up in our area and I think if the residents are cleaning up our area trying to make our area look a lot better than what it was maybe two or three years ago, I think it would be a disgrace to have some kind of a pool hall come into our area and more or less depreciate our property value and we do have a lot of kids in the area. Clarenceville High School is only a mile away from where this pool hall is supposed to be. I don't see how they could even suggest anything like this. You were saying it is 17 to 45. Is that where everyone in Clarenceville High School is going to end up at? I don't understand how they can do that. Kevin Emery, 20405 Deering: I feel that if we want to have that billiard hall put in there, as you know there is an MESC office there and we have ;4111.— enough problems and the Livonia Police will also tell you all about some of the bad things that go on in the parking lot as it is now. I think the billiard hall would add to that. They don't seem to attract the greatest in clientele from what I have seen in the past. I don't know how this is going to make a differnce. They want to model it after the one on Schoolcraft at Inkster and we don't want a pool hall like that particular pool hall by our homes. I have 5 kids. I don't want those kinds of people coming through my neighborhood. You asked us to clean up and we have done so and I hope the City stands behind us this time. Mark Jacobsen, 20407 Deering: My main objection is I am planning on raising a family. I just moved to Livonia about one and a half years ago. I have a child on the way. I don't feel that is the kind of thing I want around my neighborhood. I have heard about a lot of things that have happened around the Michigan Employment Security Commission every week in the parking lot. At least a couple of times a week we are awakened by the street sweeper that has to sweep up all the broken glass. I have never hung around a pool hall. I don't drink alcohol, which may or may not have any bearing on this. I just don't like the kind of people I have seen hanging around places like that. We also have a bar across Eight Mile in Farmington Hills, which many of the unemployed people can go to and stay away from our neighborhood and that is how I feel. Mr. Morrow: Assuming the MESC has a nuisance value has any of that spilled over into the neighborhood or is it pretty much confined to the shopping center? 10503 Mr. Jacobson: Well I am not there during the day because I have a job but I have heard people say that they have seen spillage coming through the fence and our local law enforcement agents have been after them. I do have a police scanner and I hear a lot of what goes on around the `. shopping center. I don' t think that area is moving in the direction I would like to see it move and if it continues to move in that direction I will have no recourse than to move. Mr. Tent: A question to Mr. Nagy. This bothers me. We always get a report from Engineering but we never get any report from the Police Department. Now why is this? Do we have to specifically ask them. Why don't we when these things come through, because Mrs. Fandrei asked questions about the Liquor Commission on our previous hearing. The police report is very germane because the young people in the neighborhood have indicated to us there is a problem and I am sure the Livonia police must be aware of that and they certainly should be able to submit a recommendation or report and I would like to have that pursued on each petition. Mr. Nagy: Our practice is to request reports from all City departments and we do that routinely by practice and those departments, most of them will respond. Some departments you have to follow up with special requests and another formal letter would probably have the same reaction. Mr. Tent: Could we have a representative from the Police Department at one of our study meetings and discuss this? Mr. Nagy: Certainly. Mr. Tent: This does concern me and my next question is back to the petitioner. A question was asked whether you had any interest in any pool hall in the City. Now we have a note here that the petitioner also owns the Cushion Cue N'Brew located on Inkster and Schoolcraft Roads. Is that your operation? Mr. Ray: No. Mr. Tent: I want to clear the record then because there is an indication here that you might own both. Mr. Ray: That is a misunderstanding. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-2-52 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was Y1-4-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1989 on Petition 88-12-2-52 by David Ted Pettey for waiver use approval to utilize a Class C liquor license in conjunction with a new billiard hall proposed to be located within an existing shopping center located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Grand River Avenue 10504 and Angling Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 88-12-2-52 for the following reasons: '411.— 1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that 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 proposed use is in violation of Section 11.03(h) which provides that such use shall not be located within one thousand (1000) feet of any other Clacc C licensed establishment as measured from the actual premises being used or proposed for such use of respective properties. 3) That the area within which the proposed use is located is currently well served with facilities which serve alcoholic beverages. 4) That the neighbors in the area are also objecting to this use in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-12-2-53 by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to utilize an Nor. SDD license in conjunction with a new Great Scott Supermarket to be located within the Northridge Commons Shopping Center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4. 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 Reggie Ray stating his opposition to this petition. As a resident in Livonia for 25 years he feels granting this SDD license would only create problems for our youth and alcoholics and would set a precedent for other supermarkets. We also have a letter from Jack E. Kirksey, 32710 Barkley, stating he is opposed to any changes the City would make that would allow liquor to be stocked on open shelves in retail outlets. He feels that if changes were made that would stock liquor on open shelves it would increase the opportunities for underaged individuals and individuals who were already intoxicated to be tempted to engage in the illegal act of shoplifting. Dan Sandberg, Corporate Counsel for Meadowdale Foods: We are very excited about this project in Livonia. This is approximately a 45,000 square foot facility, which is going to bring a lot of employment to the area. It is a beautiful state of the art supermarket, which offers several food and other service areas in the supermarket, which seems to be 10505 the trend for the future around the country offering one stop facilities for the consumer. As I said we are very excited about it. After I go through the legal technicalities, which we think we have met under the zoning ordinance, Mr. Lloyd Silberman, Vice ``. President of Administration and Treasurer will speak to some of the operational issues involved. With respect to Ordinance 11.03(r) we think we satisfy the ordinance, in fact we know we do. An SDM has already been granted by the Commission, which shows satisfaction of the specific requirements in the zoning ordinance. In addition, we feel we satisfy all of the other requirments of the ordinance itself and that the petition should be granted. Mr. Silberman: I would like to make five specific points tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. First of all market studies that we have and actual experience with consumers in other communities show that there is a definite demand for this type of product, this type of service offered in this type of environment so we are confident that there is the demand out there for this type of service. Second, we find that delivering this type of product and service in the type of environment that we provide, namely a well-lit high-traffic area offers some additional protection to the residents that they don't receive in other smaller stores or other types of environments. One example of this is shown with the automatic teller machines. We have automatic teller machines in every one of our stores. People appreciate the fact that in a well secured high-traffic area they are less exposed to crime. We also like to point out that our employees are well-trained, well-paid employees. We go through extensive education to make sure they understand what the regulations are for the sale of liquor and beer and wine. We have an outstanding record of compliance with the various regulations involved with the sale of liquor. We are proud of the track record we have as a corporate citizen in this City. Today we are the only locally owned and operated supermarket chain and we are very proud of that so overall we have a lot to lose by not complying with the wishes of a body such as yours and other state regulatory agencies so we put a lot of emphasis on doing whatever it takes to make sure we comply with those regulations. Mr. Kluver: As you went through these items you indicated the store is going to be 45,000 square feet, which puts you in the category of a super store. Mr. Silberman: I don't know the what the categorization is. Its 45,000 square feet. The selling space is approximately 38,000 square feet. Mr. Kluver: It is an extremely large, large facility because obviously the current supermarket doesn't meet those requirements. Mr. Silberman: I can tell you that mostly all of the supermarkets are this size or larger. Mr. Kluver: Previous supermarkets. The previous Great Scott. The point I would like to address is the fact that you are going to sell liquor within the facility from an open shelf. Basically, that is the way it would be sold is that correct? Take it off the open shelf? 10506 Mr. Silberman: At the present that is how it is going to be sold. Mr. Kluver: I have a bread aisle, I have an aisle of soda pop and then I have a liquor aisle. Is that correct? Mr. Silberman: Well it will probably be in an aisle. That is correct. Mr. Kluver: I want to establish that. Economically, in order for this store to survive within the commercial market, does it have to have liquor? Mr. Silberman: Well it is one of the elements. Mr. Kluver: If you did not have liquor, would this store not open? Mr. Silberman: Well no. Mr. Kluver: If you did not have liquor, would this store not make any money? Mr. Silberman: I can't tell you whether it is going to make money or not. It is one of the elements that goes into a supermarket. Mr. Kluver: If you did not have liquor, then you would say this store would be a marginal operation. Mr. Silberman: I don't know. When this store first opens it will be a marginal operation. Mr. Kluver: You are saying it would be marginal without liquor. Mr. Silberman: It is not a yes or no kind of answer. When this store opens we are putting almost 2.5 million dollars into this store. It is going to take a long time for this store to be more than a marginal operation and the fact that you deny a liquor license, makes it even less of a profitable operation. Mr. Kluver: That is the problem I have. One shelf of liquor making a success of a store that size. Mr. Silberman: That is your language Commissioner as far as the success. What I am saying it is one of the elements. When you take away the elements it makes it more and more difficult for a corporation to establish itself in a community and build what is commercially acceptable and what is a nice looking supermarket. Mr. Kluver: Your position is that this store will not be a success unless it has a liquor operation? Yes or no. Mr. Silberman: I am not going to go back and forth on this. What I am saying is it will be less successful. Mr. Kluver: I appreciate what you are saying but I think there is another issue beyond that and that is a moral issue and the moral issue of the amount of liquor that is dispensed whether it be Livonia, Plymouth, Northville, or any of those areas and I, as one Commissioner, have a great concern about that and as a citizen have a great concern about it and personally, as a citizen, I don't believe liquor belongs in a supermarket. 10507 Mr. Tent: Mr. Silberman, you stated five points that you should adhere to. None of those points address itself to liquor. You were saying you chose Livonia because it is a viable community and the people will shop here because it is a safe community. We are very happy that rn. you have chosen our City but the thing here is the open shelf of liquor. Would you entertain the thought of having the liquor behind the counter dispensed by a clerk like they are in a regular drug stores and liquor stores or the other one where you have a security guard walking up and down the aisles to maintain the security so nobody can shoplift the liquor. Mr. Silberman: If that is a major concern of this commission, we would be more than happy to take a look at having the liquor dispensed from behind the counter. It is, at this stage, difficult for me to say definitely that is how it will be done but we will be glad to look at that as a major concern. As far as a security guard in the store I don't think our current plans are to have one there. I don't think that, based upon our expectations, that we think it will be necessary. Mr. Tent: I mean the security should take place in the liquor aisle because that is where the shoplifting will take place. Mr. Silberman: As a matter of fact, shoplifting takes place in other areas of the store. Mr. Tent: We don't care about the other areas. We care about the liquor because the underaged will be exposed to it. Mr. LaPine: How many Great Scott stores do you have in the State of Michigan? `► Mr. Silverman: We currently have 24 and in approximately three weeks that will increase by two not counting the stores that we have contracted to purchase from A & P and Bormans. Mr. LaPine: Of the 24 stores you now have, how many have liquor? Mr. Silverman: I believe the number is five or six. Mr. LaPine: So you have been successful in the other nineteen stores? Mr. Silverman: All our stores have been successful. Mr. LaPine: I have a problem. I stated it when they first came before us that I am not in favor of liquor being sold out of supermarkets. I don't think that is the proper place. This area is well served by liquor stores. You have one in the shopping center just to your east. You have one at Seven Mile and Farmington Road. We don't want to be surrounded by liquor stores. I think you should look at your corporate policy. We are trying to teach kids not to have liquor. They are going into the shopping center with their parents, going up and down the aisles, seeing all this liquor and they see it being used on television, in the newspapers and on billboards and why should we expose people to that in the shopping center? Shopping center should be for buying groceries not to be selling liquor and I think it is a bad policy of your company to even think about selling v,.� liquor in a grocery store. 10508 Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Silberman, at our prehearing review it was told to us that not having this particular license, the hard liquor license, would not affect the success of this store. That was a specific statement that is confirmed by other commissioners. The statement was it would firr not affect the success of this store and I find it hard to believe that it would affect it. I have to say I am objecting very strongly to having hard liquor on an open shelf when I know this is a problem in your other stores, that beer and wine disappears and is a problem. I am more concerned about the hard liquor. I cannot approve this petition with it on an open shelf. Mr. Engebretson: I don't want to belabor the point but going back to Mr. Kluver's questions, I would like to phrase the question differently. It is my understanding based on comments that you made in response to Mr. Kluver's questions, this store will open with or without an SDD license? Mr. Silberman: That is correct and I do believe that was the question whether or not this store will or will not open if we get this liquor license and at all times we said this store will open. Mr. Morrow: I came here tonight feeling that this petitioner had gone out and purchased the SDD license and I do have to say that I have been impressed with the comments of my fellow commissioners and their concerns and so 1 am going to vote in favor of the denial. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-2-53 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously '411. adopted, it was #1-5-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1989 on Petition 88-12-2-53 by Meadowdale Foods, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD license in conjunction with a new Great Scott Supermarket to be located within the Northridge Commons Shopping Center on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 88-12-2-53 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 this area of the City is currently well served with facilities utilizing SDD licenses. 3) That the proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 4) That hard liquor stocked on the open shelves would increase the opportunity for underaged individuals to obtain the liquor and increase the potential for abuse of our liquor control laws. 10509 5) That the petitioner has clearly stated that the store will operate with or without an SDD license. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in low 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 88-10-3-10 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of right-of-way on Norfolk between Mayfield and Hubbard in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed vacation provided easements are reserved the full width of the existing right-of-way to protect their existing equipment. If the reservation of an easement is not desired, they request that the vacation of the subject right-of-way be postponed until they have had the opportunity to arrange for relocation expenses with the property owner. Mr. Vyhnalek: There was a citizen in the audience who had to leave. His name was Howard Keith and his wife Sharon. They were in support of this. They live at 32488 Norfolk. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-10-3-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #1-6-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1989 on Petition 88-10-3-10 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of right-of-way on Norfolk between Mayfield and Hubbard in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 88-10-3-10 be approved subject to the retention of a full width easement to protect public utilities, for the following reasons: 1) That the subject right-of-way is no longer needed for the continued use of Norfolk Avenue as a residential street nor is it needed for any other public purpose. 2) That the subject area to be vacated can be more advantageoulsy used for private purposes, including more efficient use of the adjacent land. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution "rn. adopted. 10510 Mr. McCann, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 88-11-3-12 by Michael Schwartz to vacate a part of the easement on Lot 7 of the Northfield Estates Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: The petitioner in his letter dated October 25, 1988 states he is requesting permission to construct a garage on a part of the easement on Lot #7, Northfield Estates Subdivision. There will be a ten foot encroachment. He states Detroit Edison will only need an eleven foot easement at this time. We also have a letter in our file from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to the vacating proposal. However, it should be verified with Detroit Edison that retainage of the east 11 feet of the original 21 foot wide easement area will provide sufficient clearance to maintain their facilities. We also have a letter in our file from Detroit Edison stating they have no objection to the proposed partial vacation provided a 11 foot easement is reserved on the east side of said Lot 7 to protect their existing equipment. They state if a reservation or an easement is not desired, they request that the partial vacation of the easement be postponed until the Detroit Edison Company has had the opportunity to arrange for relocation expenses with the property owner. Michael Kolodziejczak, 38476 Northfield: I plan on putting a garage on part of that easement and by not getting that easement approved, I will have to put the garage almost right on the back of the lot. Mr. Vyhnalek: You realize you can only obtain 10 feet of the 21 foot wide easement? Mr. Kolodziejczak: Right because that existing easement there is a driveway now to the back of the house. Mrs. Fandrei: Your home is one of the few that does not have a garage? Mr. Kolodziejczak: Right. Mrs. Fandrei: The other homes have attached garages? Mr. Kolodziejczak: Right. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-11-3-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #1-7-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 31, 1988 on Petition 88-11-3-12 by Michael Schwartz to vacate a part of the easement on Lot 7 of the Northfield Estates Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City council that Petition 88-11-3-12 be approved for the following reasons: 10511 1) That the subject portion of the easement to be vacated is no longer needed for any public purpose. 2) That no City department or public utility has objected to the %sr proposed vacating. 3) That the subject land area can be utilized more advantageously for private purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. 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 88-12-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located south of Seven Mile Road, east and west of Newburgh Road in Sections 7 and 8, rro,« low density residential to office and medium density residential. Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: This amendment has been initiated by the City Planning Commission to amend the Future Land Use Plan so as to bring it into compliance with recently sanctioned zoning changes on the subject area. The property is presently owned by Jack Shenkman. There was some litigation involved in that property. There was a zoning settlement obtained and what we are now trying to do is amend the plan to have the plan reflect the actual settlement in the zoning now currently established on the property. Dwight Duce, 37502 N. Laurel Park: I want to know what you are saying here. This orange part (pointed to map) is that going to be low density. Mr. Vyhnalek: That will be condos just like what you have. Mr. Duce: How far is that office area going to extend down. Mr. Vyhnalek: They have 17% out of the total 160 acres. Mr. Nagy: For lines of reference the condo area would begin at the north property line of the Woods Condominiums and would extend from there southward and abut the Greenfield Villa Condominiums and Aspen Place Condominiums. That would be the extent of it. Mr. Duce: That is what I was interested in. How far down is the office area. Mr. Nagy: The office area does not go down that far. It extends approximately 950 feet on the west side of Newburgh Road. Mr. Duce: I want to compliment you people on the nice job you have done for us. 'rr. 10512 Mr. Morrow: Mr. Duce, I think the important thing to mention in conjunction with this is that as a result of that settlement there was some commercial property at the corners of Seven Mile and Newburgh that were given up in favor of the office zoning. Mr. Duce: I understand that because it is a lot different than what he started out with. He said he wanted to make that area the downtown of Livonia. Mr. LaPine: I think that I would like to commend the Mayor for the job he did for settling this thing in a fine manner. We didn't get everything we wanted and Mr. Shenkman didn't get everything he wanted but I think it was a good compromise and I think we can live with it and it is going to be a good project when it is complete and I think the Mayor should be commended. Mr. Vyhnalek: Along with our City Attorney, Harry Tatigian. Mr. Kluver: Don't forget our professional staff. They were an integral part of that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 88-12-7-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Jack Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously adopted, it was #1-8-89 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 January 31, 1989 for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located south of Seven Mile Road, east and west of Newburgh Road in Sections 7 and 8, from low density residential to office and medium density residential for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed Master Plan amendments will reflect the consent judgment entered into on behalf of the City and the property owner. 2) That the proposed Master Plan amendments will keep the Plan current with City's land use development policies. 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 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. 'fir, 10513 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. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tent and unanimously adopted, 1ft, it was #1-9-89 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 88-10-1-31, as amended, by Allan N. Mendelssohn, M.D. to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Newburgh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUF to R-9 to March 7, 1989. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #1-10-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the request for extension of Petition 87-5-2-21 by Rapid Oil Change for waiver use approval to construct a fast oil change facility on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Bainbridge in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 for the following reasons: 1) 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) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a ,.4uw balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not oversaturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. 3) Two oil change facilities exist within one mile of the subject location, one located on the corner of Six Mile and Middlebelt Roads and the Shell Gas Station at the corner of Five Mile Road and Merriman Road. 4) The proposed use is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. 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 #1-11-89 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located west of Newburgh Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from industrial to medium density residential. 10514 AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-12-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held 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 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously adopted, it was #1--13-89 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 571st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 20, 1988 are approved. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #1-14-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 89-1-8-1 by Sears Roebuck and Company for approval of a Roof Mounted Satellite Disc Antenna on property located on 10515 • the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 be approved subject to the folowing condition: '41ftr 1) That the site plan and specifications submitted with Petition 89-1-8-1 by Sears Roebuck and Company, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Fandrei re Petition 89-1-8-3: This had gone before the Zoning Board of Appeals and I have their minutes and there are a number of references to the parking. They also express quite a concern about the parking in the front of the building and knowing this was coming before us they have left the decision up to us but Mr. Caramagno made a statement to the Zoning Board of Appeals that there would be no more than five parking spaces. Our revised plans show that none of them at that time were handicapped. I would like to see them all removed. I would concede the four to the west, two of them handicapped, until the side door is open. But I would like to see the two east parking spaces totally eliminated. They are not needed by Honey Baked Ham. Also, the Zoning Board of Appeals expressed quite a concern about the sign. They have decided that the sign be addressed when Honey Baked Ham is before them for a sign and then the total sign picture will be changed but I would like that noted in our minutes also, that both things should be addressed. Changing the parking spaces in front and the sign. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was �.. #1-15-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 89-1-8-3 by Bi-Con Construction for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to Showermans Party Store located on the northwest corner of Five Mile and Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15 subject to the following conditions: 1) That Site and Landscape Plan #471-87, Sheet 1, dated 1-27-89 prepared by Bi-Con Construction Company, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Building Plan #471-87, Sheet 3, dated 1-19-89 prepared by Bi-Con Construction Company, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the landscaping shown on the approved site plan shall be installed on site prior to occupancy of the new addition and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That the parking in front be addressed as temporary parking and be reviewed two years from the date of the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10516 On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #1-16-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition `. 89-1-8-4 by Livonia Masonic Temple requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing lodge located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Goff and Deering in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12 subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site and Landscape Plan dated 1-20-89 prepared by Harold Thomas Nursery, Inc. is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That Building Plans G-85038A, Sheets A-1 and A-2 prepared by Land S.E.A. Corp. are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3) That the approved landscaping be installed on site prior to occupancy of the addition and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. 4) That there be no outside storage of trash on the site. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mrs. Fandrei, it was #1-17-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revised Sign Application by James Blain for relocation of a Ground Sign for Cambridge West Office Center on property located at soft, 39209 Six Mile Road be approved subject to the following condition: 1) That the Sign Detail and Location Plan dated 1/10/89 by James Blain, Architect are approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, McCann, Morrow, Sobolewski, Engebretson, LaPine, Vyhnalek, Fandrei NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: None Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously approved, it was #1-18-89 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Revised Site Plan for Petition 88-9-2-43 by Hart and Leidel Investment requesting relocation of the drive-up auto teller on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Farmington and Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following condition: 10517 1) That the relocation of the drive-up auto teller facility as shown on a Revised Site Plan dated 1/10/89 by Leidel and Hart is hereby approved and shall be adhered to. Nr. Mr. Vyhnalek, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 572nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held on January 31, 1989 was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION James C. McCann, Secretary dii4di , ATTEST:Dald Vyhnale , Chairman jg `rr.