Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1980-08-19 7375 MINUTES OF THE 396th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA t On Tuesday, August 19, 1980, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 396th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:00 p.m. with approximately 50 persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Robert L. Morrow C. Russell Smith Joseph J . Falk Judith Scurto Carol Sue Sobolewski Jerome Zimmer Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: Herman Kluver Messrs. John J . Nagy, City Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present . Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if the petitions on tonight's agenda involve a question of rezoning or vacating, this body recommends to the City Council that certain action be taken and the Council subsequently decides whether or not a petition is approved or denied, and if a petition for a waiver of use approval is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council . If the matter involves a preliminary subdivision plat, all abutting property owners have been notified and our comments and those of the Engineering Division are made to the City Council which either approves or rejects a plat. No public hearing is held at the Council level . x 1[0 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 80-6-1-22 by Geneva Jane Cicirelli to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to R-7. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Division of Engineering dated July 8, 1980 stating that while there are no site plans connected with the subject petition, there would appear to be no engineering problems connected with the proposed rezoning proposal . That is the extent of the correspondence. Ms. Barbara Lynn, 15337 Farmington Road: I am from Real Estate World and represent the property owner, Mrs. Cicirelli , and the purpose of this rezoning is to allow her to sell the property. Mr. Andrew: What is the width of the property? Mr. Nagy: Two 80' lots; 160' x 535' . Mr. Andrew: Do you intend to give an easement over the frontage of Plymouth Road back to the site in order to allow ingress and egress? BMs. Lynn: She already has the easement from Plymouth Road; that is their property. She owned all the property and retained the easement so that she would have access to Plymouth Road. Mr. Nagy: The access appears to be 20' off Plymouth Road. . 7376 Mr. Andrew: 20' ingress and egress? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Scurto: Is there a purchase agreement on this now? Ms. Lynn: No. There was negotiation but they couldn't get together. Mrs. Scurto: This has nothing to do with the easterly R-7? Ms. Lynn: No. The people on the east side have approached us but couldn't get together with a price. Mr. Zimmer: Does Mrs. Cicirelli own any lots that abut Plymouth Road; any of the northern lots? Ms. Lynn: No, she has sold them all except this. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is on the right and left? Ms. Lynn: There is a restaurant, the El Camino, on the left. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is on the other side? Mr. Nagy: The floor covering business. Ms. Lynn: I know there is an Elias Brothers further up. Mr. Morrow: Is a 20' easement wide enough to support a road in and out? Mr. Nagy: It would take the full 20' , minimum for a two-way drive. Mr. Morrow: No landscaping to go along with this? Mr. Nagy: No. Mrs. Scurto.: Are two acres enough for a significant R-7 development? Mr. Nagy: They could put 20 units on two acres; ten to twelve units per acre depending on the number of one and two bedrooms. Like the Carrolton Arms east of Middlebelt. Mr. Andrew: As I recall at the study session when we reviewed this petition, I believe at that time the Commission understood the ownership extended all the way out to Plymouth Road. Does the professional staff have any comments in view of the fact that the petitioner does not own the land to Plymouth Road. Mr. Nagy: The tax roll when we looked at it at the time of the prehearing review showed her ownership. Apparently, she has since sold that. The Future Land Use Plan designates this as R-7 and we would support it . It would be our preference to use this parcel in conjunction with the easterly parcel in one development rather than the two pieces being developed individually. . 7377 Mr. Andrew: I have no difficulties with zoning but the twenty feet to Plymouth Road, h®w will you be able to tie this in together? to Ms. Lynn: We negotiated the property ion the east but we are very far apart in price and Mrs. Cicirelli will sit on it before she will take a low price. We discussed price with an appraiser and they could see no reason to consider that but if we get the zoning through, we may get the price. Mr. Vyhnalek: If she gets the zoning, she will sit on it and not develop it herself? This is strictly for the sale? Ms. Lynn: Yes, strictly for sale. Mr. Vyhnalek: The two long lots to the north; are they in one ownership? Mr. Nagy: Yes, they would have to be or it would be a lot division. Our records show there is one lot of record from the south right-of-way line of Plymouth Road. Mr. Vyhnalek: Your client does not have any interest in that property? Ms. Lynn: No. , She is an elderly lady. George Jarvenpaa, 14995 Cavell : I am more familiar with Mrs. Cicirelli than Ms. Lynn. The property on Plymouth Road Mrs. Cicirelli does not own. She still holds the land contract on the El Camino. There used to be an old farm there owned by Cicirelli . Harold J . Klee, 33830 Orangelawn: I have some questions before I support this . The reason for this request is just to sell the property? Ms. Lynn: That is correct. Mr. Klee: That would bring a much higher price. Ms. Lynn: Yes, and inasmuch as you have the R-7 zoning in this area, you could get a higher price for these lots. Mr. Klee: Would we have all that land R-7 in years to come? Mr. Andrew: I think the Future Land Use Plan calls for R-7 development in this general area. The lot to the west stops it. Mr. Klee: So it !will go all the way to the R-1 zoning? Mr. Andrew: Maybe some day. That is what the Plan envisions. Mr. Klee: I am opposed to this then. I would rather see it zoned R-1 residential because it would make my property more valuable because I abut this. It is close enough that eventually it will affect me. I have polled the neighbors in the neighborhood and they feel as I do. Mrs. Scurto: How deep is your lot? Mr. Klee: 630' deep. My house faces Orangelawn. 7378 Mr. Andrew: Anyone else i,n the audience wish to speak for or against this petition? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing on Petition 80-6-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was 1[0 #8-199-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1980 on Petition 80-6-1-22 as submitted by Geneva Jane Cicirelli to rezone property located south of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-6-1-22 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is in accord with the Planning Commission's adopted Future Land Use Plan which designates the area for a medium density residential usage. (2) It is a logical and minor expansion of an existing multi-family district occurring to the east of the subject area. (3) The existing multi-family zoning district is of very limited size, being less than four acres, and with this proposed zoning change the overall district becomes more practical , meaningful and usable for multi-family development. (4) The existing zoning classification established on the south half of the subject lots is RUF and the north half is in a commercial IL classification which creates two imcompatible and conflicting zoning classifications on these lots of record whereas the pro- posed zoning classification of R-7 would provide for a transitional and buffer use for the subject area separating the commercial development to the north from the residential development located to the south. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 4, 1980 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-7-1-25 by Columbus Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF and RUFC to P.S. and P. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Division of Engineering dated July 24, 1980 stating that there appears to be no engineering problems connected with this proposal . • 7379 Mr. Andrew: Nothing from the Fire and Police Departments or the Wayne County Road Commission? Mr. Nagy: That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Tom Celani , representing Columbus Development Company, 35901 Veronica, Livonia: We request this rezoning to build a credit union on Six Mile Road. Mr. Andrew: We received a letter from your legal counsel and in that letter there is a reference that your organization has explored the possibility of develop- ing the Allied credit union building. It is further commented that because of structural deficiencies in that building, it was not considered suitable for your company's development and therefore this was an alternative site. What bothers me is the structural deficiencies. Is this something we should refer to Mr. Kerby as to whether or not the building is safe for anyone instead of finding this out from the petitioner. John, I wish you would talk to Frank about that. The second thing; at the time Vargo's burned, it was rebuilt and as part of that rebuilding procedure this City had an understanding with Mr. Vargo that he would be allowed to rebuild the nonconfirming use and would be rezoned from commercial to residential to promote the residential development on Six Mile Road. We now have the same people back for a professional service zoning and I think Mr. Vargo is dealing off the bottom of the deck. I am not happy with that. Mr. Celani : We understand he wanted 80' lots and we want to leave it like it is. Mr. Andrew: I wish you would go back to Mr. Vargo and ask about what we talked about and what the consideration was in order for him to build that restaurant. 4 Mr. Zimmer: Do you currently own this property? ' Mr. Celani : Yes, we do. The whole piece. Mr. Zimmer: Is the Columbus Development Company a branch or you an employee of the Knights of Columbus. Mr. Celani : No, I am not. Mr. Zimmer: Is it coincidence that the names are the same. Mr. Celani : Yes, it is. Mr. Zimmer: You own the property and have a committal to develop it as a credit union? Mr. Celani : We have nothing to do with the building. We own the property and would like to sell it to them. Mr. Zimmer: All we are looking at is a professional zoning with no knowledge of what will happen to it. There is no guarantee that this credit union will go in. I have a lot of trouble with this and no legitimate reason for supporting it. 7380 Mrs. Scurto: Could you outline the property that Columbus owns and the portion you are asking for rezoning again? Mr. Celani indicated on the map the property owned by Columbus and the area proposed to be. rezoned. Mrs. Scurto: How long have you owned it? Mr. Celani : Approximately six weeks. Mrs. Scurto: And you purchased it knowing it was RUF? Mr. Celani : Yes, we did. Mr. Morrow: Were you privy to these commitments that Mr. Vargo made or buy the property unaware of those commitments? Mr. Celani : We know he wanted 80' lots and we didn 't want that. Mr. Morrow: You had no knowledge that Mr. Vargo had made reference to leaving it in an RUF classification? Mr. Celani : Not at all . Mr. Morrow: This is new to you tonight? Mr. Celani: Yes. Mr. Andrew asked for information regarding a request by Mr. Paciocco for rezoning in 4 this area. 4 Mr. Nagy:1[0 Mr. Paciocco wanted R-2, 70' lots and we wanted 80' . Mr. Falk: Are you saying the lots were settled at 80' x 120' . We said we wanted half-acre lots. I am asking, is the final committal half-acre lots back there? Mr. Nagy: There were actually two separate petitions. In connection with Mr. Vargo' s a committal was made that the C-1 zoning on the portion of the property under tonight 's petition would be rezoned from a then C-1 classification to an RUF classification but that was a separate matter not involved with Mr. Paciocco's petition. Removing the C-1 was for the purpose of stopping the commercial development at Vargo's restaurant. Mr. Paciocco's petition was to rezone all of Lot D1 and 16 and 17 to an R-2, 70' lot size. The Planning Commission recommendedagainst the R-2 but indicated a willing- ness to support R-3. It went to the City Council and the City Council initially denied that rezoning request. Shortly thereafter it was re- considered, went to the Committee of the Whole and the petition still remains in the Committee of the Whole. Vacri had an option and they didn't exercise that option and the property was sold to Columbus. Robert King, 30445 Six Mile Road : I have almost five acres. I think I am against the rezoning. About three years ago, Mr. Vargo wanted to expand his restau- o rant. He had to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals because he was too 7381 close to the road. We went to the Zoning Board meeting and the Zoning Board told Mr. Vargo to see what we could work out in regard to his expansion. We agreed at that time that he would do away with the parking, which he did later, and he would change it from C-1 to RUF because there was an agreement that there would be no more business west of Vargo's. Mr. Vargo agreed to put the berm in, which he did. We have gone over this proposal and if there is any business to go there, this sounds like a good one to go in there as far as we and our neighbors are concerned. Then the problem is, if you do rezone it, how much farther west is it going to go? The Council and Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission didn't want to go west with any commercial zoning. Mr. Andrew: The decision not to go west is a decision we made to this community. Mr. Celani : We have no desire to go further with business. Mr. Andrew: You are happy with this? Mr. Celani : Yes. Mr. Zimmer: What do you plan on doing with the balance of the property? Mr. Celani : Leaving it remain RUF. Mr. Zimmer: Because you see it as going RUF or because you have nothing in front of you to do with it. Mr. Celani : No. We plan to put homes up there. ; Mrs. Scurto: How long has Columbus Development been in business? 1[0 Mr. Celani : From four to six weeks. Mr. Morrow: Looking at the area you petition for P.S. and parking. Is that entire piece needed to support whatever you have planned for the area? It would seem that this parking depth is deep. Mr. Celani : Further landscaping. Mr. Smith: From what I can understand, all the agreements and statements Mr. Vargo made are not binding. Let's assume Mr. Vargo was no longer there. If that were true we have to look at this petition from the view is it good or not good for Livonia regardless of what someone said. It looks to me like the depth of the parking seems to encroach more on residential property. We have to look at it not from what Mr. Vargo did or did not say but is this a good site for C-1 or P.S. and then we have no guarantee that a credit union will go in. You have been in business for six weeks and everybody should understand that once the P.S. goes in there it could be a veteranarian or a clinic. What Mr. Vargo said has no bearing whatever and P.S. has no bearing on a credit union. Mr. Zimmer: In my opinion, Mr. Smith, we recognize the current Vargo site as being a tnonconforming business and when it burned down he was permitted to rebuild it in a totally residential area. In my mind currently, the Vargo Restaurant still remains to be an intrusion in a totally residential area. To make permanent a business intrusion at this time only negates the idea of what this is - a totally residential area. I see it no other way. • 7382 Mr. Andrew: I support Mr. Zimmer 100%. The fact still remains that he is a member IL of this community and as such has a responsibility to the community and the people he sells land to and it bothers me that Mr. Vargo has such a short memory. Ms. Moreau: We have an agreement if the property is rezoned to build a credit union on that particular piece of property. Our credit union main office is in Detroit and will always remain there. We service 27 Knights of Columbus Councils, five in the Livonia/Farmington area. 3,000 potential members would use that office. We had looked at the Allied property. There are structural defects on that property. It would cost us more to buy that than to build a brand- new building. We want to buy the property far back, all our parking will be facing Vargo's. All the greenbelt will remain to the Kings ' property. We have no intention to tear that down. Mr. Zimmer: What organization do you represent? Ms. Moreau: Michigan Columbus Federal Credit Unions, formerly Moynihan. Mr. Zimmer: In terms of Livonia potential , how do you square with some of the Livonia Councils who have their own credit unions. Ms. Moreau: We do not have all the Livonia councils, some now belong to us . Glen Lottie, 30320 Six Mile Road: I just want to let you know that l am against this rezoning. Charles Little, 29641 Munger: What will happen to the back part of the property? 4 Mr. Celani :1[0 We are going to leave it RUF, half-acre lots, using Munger as ingress and egress. Mr. Eisenstein, 16581 Henry Ruff: I reside in a home on Henry Ruff. If he proceeds to develop one-half acre lots, what are you going to do with Henry Ruff? Does he have to take into consideration putting in a road at this time? Mr. Andrew: I don't want to get into the question of residential development at this time. Mrs. King: What is the difference between professional and C-1? Why is a credit union called professional? Mr. Nagy: Dentists, doctors, etc. , are permitted uses in the professional district but certain other uses are allowed to be located in the district through waiver use procedures if they comply with reasonable standards of the Ordinance. Mr. Nagy explained in detail the meaning of the professional service classification and how certain uses are allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Morrow: I recognize there is a C-2 business in a predominately residential area which is not right, but it is there. The property abutting Vargo's property might never be developed but we have used a P.S. buffer in the 1 past between commercial and residential and I can support this petition. 7383 Mrs. Scurto: I hardly consider Vargo's as a business use as a buffer to stop business when the surrounding area is zoned residential . We have had plans for residential that have or have not gone through. Six Mile has retained a residential profile and I would hope that it remains that way. Mrs. Sobolewski : I did not know of the Vargo situation. Looking at this proposal on the value itself, I would not have any problem. This whole area is a lovely residential area. The problem with this property seems to be what to do with it. This rezoning for a credit union or bank would not be ob- noxious to the area. Perhaps by rezoning this property we can finally dispose of it. I would not be bothered by rezoning it. there was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-7-1-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1980 on Petition 80-7-1-25 as submitted by Columbus Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, , from RUF and RUFC to P.S. and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-7-1-25 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning to the Professional Service classifi- cation is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan as adopted by the City Planning Commission. (2) The proposed change of zoning to the professional office classifi- cation and its related development is inappropriate with, incompatible to and detrimental to surrounding and established residential uses of the abutting neighborhood. (3) Maintaining the residential zoning classification on the subject land will preserve, enhance and maintain the residential development character and the ongoing residential use and enjoyment of the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's goals and policies for land use which is to try to dis- courage the linear strip development occurring along the major mile roads of the City of Livonia. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Morrow, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. Mr. Vyhnalek: I will make a motion to approve this petition because it would be a good buffer between C-1 and residential and I agree with Mrs. Sobolewski that this could be a good way to resolve the situation. Mrs. Sobolewski : I support. 7384 Mr. Falk: The only reason we consented to the rezoning and land development was that Mr. Vargo did make a verbal commitment as a businessman in the com- munity. I think it ins important that it has a natural buffer in the land. We and all the people spent a lot of time on this and the people wanted it left as is. The building just made the 50% otherwise it could not have been rebuilt. We said we would live with the Future Land Use Plan and I don't think the reasoning as a buffer is right; the buffer Is there. We talked about professional going easterly not westerly. The fact that this happened two or three years ago still makes these commitments pertinent. The questions are still valid. I cannot support your reasons which are contrary to the Planning staff. Mr. Morrow: We do have a new owner and he has a right to petition for this and I am not sure that I want to see this property zoned in residential so close to Vargo's. Further to the south, yes. Professional can be used as a buffer. Mr. Andrew: During discussion with Mr. Paciocco did the Planning staff prepare a development scheme essentially for the land indicated here that Columbus Development owns as a residential development which did not have frontage on Six Mile Road and concerned some kind of cul-de-sac? Mr. Nagy: You are correct. Where you see the street vacated, we did have a scheme where that would become a residential street. Mr. Andrew: In your professional opinion, can this property be developed residential? Mr. Nagy: Yes, Mr. Andrew: I have not heard a word from the petitioner that justifies a change in the Future Land Use Plan. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski , it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1980 on Petition 80-7-1-25 as submitted by Columbus Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, fhom RUF and RUFC to P.S. and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-7-1-25 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Professional Service zoning will act as a buffer between the existing commercial and residential areas . (2) The proposed rezoning offers a solution to the development problem connected with this property. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek NAYS: Scurto, Smith, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew teABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. 7385 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #8-200-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1980 on Petition 80-7-1-25 as submitted by Columbus Development, Inc. , to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between ' Merriman Road and Oporto Street in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF and RUFC to P.S. and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-7-1-25 until the Planning Com- mission's Regular Meeting to be conducted on September 9, 1980. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk NAYS: Zimmer, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-7-2-21 by Fred J. Armour for Bob Evans Farms requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the north side of the 1-96 Freeway, east of Middleblet Road in the Southwest l/4 of Section 24. Mr. Nagy: We have letters in the file from the Fire and Police Departments stating they have no objections to this petition, a letter from the Bureau of Inspection indicating that there are no obvious deficiencies noted, and t a letter from the Engineering Division stating there are no storm or sanitary sewers readily available to service this site. There is also a letter in the file from Howard & Howard Real Estate, Inc. , stating that they have agreed to escrow enough money at closing to guarantee the paving of the easement to Middlebelt Road for Bob Evans Restaurant within sixty days after closing. Mr. Zimmer: lho owns the service drive? Mr. Nagy: In the Schoolcraft right-of-way, the State of Michigan. Mr. Zimmer: Would they have anything to say about this? Mr. Nagy: Permits would have to be obtained and the State would comment on such things as curb cuts, etc. Mr. Andrew: Generally the County acts for the State in these cases. Fred J. Armour, petitioner: I am representing Bob Evans Farms Restaurant. These are very good restaurants. If you look at some you will be happy with them. They are well kept. This is an excellent area for one and with Standard Federal going in on the corner it will make a good combination. The traffic will not interfere with anybody because the cross-over from the eastern service drive is right at the light where Bob Evans will be and it will simplify the traffic considerably. Mrs. Scurto: At the study session we questioned the signage on either side of the building. On the plans you still have the side sign on. 7386 Steve Warehime, representing Bob Evans Foods, 3776 South High Street, Columbus, Ohio: We could do without the one on the east side of the building but the one on the west side would be the only one seen from Middlebelt Road. to Mrs. Scurto: The color of the building is sign enough. I have no objection to the development but I am opposed to the side signage. The architecture is going to be a calling card in itself and I feel the reputation and cleanliness of the restaurant will speak for themselves and I do not support the side signage. Mrs. Sobolewski : This photo that we have in our books, is this exactly how the restau- ant will be constructed along with the drive, berms, etc.? Mr. Warehime: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski : The site plan shows parking along Schoolcraft. Have you given any thought to eliminating the parking along the boulevard and taking away all the asphalt? I would like to see more landscaping. Mr. Armour: We have just the minimum number of parking spaces for the Ordinance. Mr. Andrew: Have you been before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Armour: For the bay sizes and free standing sign. Mr. Andrew: John, were there any conditions attached to the Zoning Board resolution regarding the variances? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that the sign shall be internally lit and that it be nonrotating and nonflashing. Also, that 101 parking spaces be accommodated. Mr. Armour: That is accomplished on the plan that you have. Mr. Warehime: We felt we could get 101 spaces and that is the way the Zoning Board of Appeals wants it. Mr. Vyhnalek: Mrs. Scurto, you indicated the sign on the building -- which do you want to eliminate? Mrs. Scurto: Both signs. Mr. Falk: John, are you really satisfied since our study session that the petitioner would give us all that he promised? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Falk: Did we ask for anything along the Schoolcraft frontage? Mr. Warehime: I don't believe there was anything asked for there. Mrs. Scurto: The sign on Middlebelt Road is too large. Mr. Warehime: Middlebelt-Road does not have a sign. . 7387 Mr. Armour: We will have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals for that at a 40 later date when Standard Federal goes in. Mr. Zimmer: Assuming Standard Federal fails to go in, with this plan we do get a paved road out to Middlebelt and landscaping and a wall? 4 Mr. Andrew: No wall all the way to Middlebelt, only in relation to the restaurant site. Mr. Warehime: You will get the sod to Middlebelt and we have to have the road to operate. Mr. Andrew: Without the road they are in violation of the Ordinance. Mr. Kaminski , 29345 Perth: This is news to us as residents. Cadillac Motor was granted an expansion and their employees will be using the Freeway. We have the DRC and Forest City and this is a high traffic area. The tax board re- duced taxes based on the traffic pattern being a nuisance and high noise. The traffic now is unbearable without a light. There is no left-hand turn light. One proposal might not be bad but I can see maybe a small office building also and with the volume of traffic I don' t feel it is a practical proposal and if we go along with this I don't see how we will stop any other proposal . Mr. Andrew: The Master Thoroughfare Plan calls for what width on Middlebelt? Mr. Nagy: Seven lanes. and 120' of right-of-way. Mr. Andrew: Any additional traffic signals between Lyndon and Schoolcraft? 11: Mr. Nagy: Perhaps but that isn't part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Mrs. Stoelzle, 29229 Perth: Both places are between the light and Middlebelt, is that right? Mr. Andrew: Bight. Mrs. Stoelzle: There has been a lot of concern about traffic. Al Bsharah, 29297 Perth: We feel the same about the traffic. Bob Evans is a good restaurant but I believe the traffic will back to the corner clear around the service entrance. These two operations at this intersection - there is no way it can work, in our opinion. We don't mind professional build- ings but restaurants we don't appreciate and most of us are against it. If they are allowed there what will keep other chains from wanting to come in next to them. How are you going to stop them? What is the procedure on notifying residents in a situation like this. We were sup- posed to be notified of a public hearing. Mr. Andrew: The Ordinance provides that there will be an advertisement in the community newspaper 7 days prior to the public hearing. That was placed in the paper. Specifically on a waiver use, anyone within 500' of the affected property is notified by U. S. mail . Zimmer: I am still concerned about the service drive. I am still hung up about this being on a service drive and I have some serious problems about this intense use for that reason. tMr. 7388 Mr. Andrew: The petitioner indicated that he had a curb cut permit from the State Highway Department. Fred, have you been in touch with the State Highway Department or anyone else? t Mr. Armour: It is a three month process and would kill any building we wanted to do this fall . Mr. Smith: This R-7 has been there a long, long time and fits in with Livonia' s plan. Also, the C-2 is where restaurants go and this petitioner is following the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia and the C-2 has been there long before the subdivision was there. Mr. Bsharah: The traffic is backed off the entrance all the time and when you have the DRC open you can't get close to the place. Mr. Kaminski : I think that you owe' it to us to have the Michigan State Highway Depart- ment make a study. We live there and we all travel this section. The DRC and Cadillac Motor traffic is very bad. Mr. Warehime: A curb cut is a long process through the State. All we are asking for is a right to develop a restaurant. Before we start construction on a million dollar investment we will make sure we have a permit for a curb cut. Without a curb cut we do not have a restaurant. Mr. Andrew asked that the record show that Mr. Armour indicated that the site plan would be revised to strike the Knights Inn sign on Middlebelt Road. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #8-201-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, I 1[0 1980 on Petition 80-7-2-21 as submitted by Fred J. Armour for Bob Evans Farms requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the north side of the 1-96 Freeway, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-7-2-21 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan, revised 7/21/80, prepared by Wolfgang Dperschlag, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan, revised 10/10/79, prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlag, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan, Sheet lb, revised 8/15/80, prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlag, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (5) that the sign treatment for the site shall be limited to that of the 110 free-standing sign as approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in con- nection with Appeal Case No. 8007-75; and that, one wall sign only is 4 ,389 • approved for the front, or south, building elevation as shown on Building Elevation Plan, revised 10/10/79, prepared by Wolfgang Doerschlag, Architect; and (6) that Ithe protective masonry screen wall required to be erected along the north property line shall be constructed of materials in harmony with the materials proposed to be used on the restaurant building. for the following reasons: (1) The proposal complies with all of the special and general require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance listed in Sections 11 .03 and 19.06, as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) The proposed use is appropriate to the area for the reasons that it is in close proximity to the intersection of two major thorough- fares and is buffered from the single family uses in the area. (3) There are no similar uses in close proximity to this area of the community. (4) It will serve as a highway service, serving those travellers along the 1-96 Freeway as well as residents of the surrounding area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 1[MMr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Revised Preliminary Plat for Elliott Industrial Park Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of the CSO Railway in the North- ' east 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: We have a new, revised Plat before you tonight which is different from one you saw at the study meeting. Since the last study meeting, we have been meeting with the proprietor, Engineering and Industrial Development in an effort to overcome some of the problems that existed with the pre- viously submitted Plat. Mr. Falk: We got a letter from the Industrial Coordinator regarding Lots 11 and 12. What happened mow that it is all turned around. Who made the judgment that 11 and 12 would face Merriman when we couldn't live with that? Mr. Nagy: The position of the developer was that while the Ordinance requires 100 feet of setback, he wanted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals on that. All we advised him and what he accepted is to go to the Zoning Board but we recommend that a minimum of 50' be provided where landscape screening would be provided . The original Plat did not specify rear yards and when it is not specified, you look to the Ordinance for the definition. The narrowest lot width would be your front yard. The Plat now clarifies and specifies this. toje Mr. Andrew: Mr. Schubiner, are you in agreement with this plan. Your engineer pre- pared it. • 7390 Mr. Schubjner: I decided to take the course of least resistance and we have agreed with (0) the plan prepared by my engineer based on the plan prepared by your Planning staff. At the beginning of building #1 , our original proposal was that we would stop our paving. I wanted that drawn in but my engineer li; missed it but I would like that precedent to approval of the Plat. The 50' setback as recommended I am in agreement with at this time but eventually the greenbelt area will be eliminated by the overpass that eventually will go in. I ddn't see the need for over 10' on Lots 11 and 12 for greenbelt but beyond that I think the Plat conforms and we are conforming to what- ever Mr. Nagy has recommended. We can get a waiver on the yard require- ments. Mr. Andrew: You intend to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Schubiner: Yes, I think the additional 40' is unnecessary. Also, our paving would stop before going into the first building lot. Mr. Falk: I would like a letter from Engineering changing their position of last week regarding the easements. Mr. Andrew: I would like to bring to the Commission's attention that it is necessary to take action to rescind our prior resolution before we take action on this Plat. There was no one present in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the Revised Preliminary Plat for tElliott Industrial Park Subdivison closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #8-202-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to rescind its action taken in Resolution #5-123-80, adopted on May 6, 1980, which approves the Revised Preliminary Plat dated 4/22/80 for Elliott Industrial Park Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of the CO Railway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 for the reason that the proprietor has submitted a newly revised Preliminary Plat for Planning Commission approval . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #8-203-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 19, 1980, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Preliminary Plat dated 8/19/80 for Elliott Industrial Park Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of the C&0 Railway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that a greenbelt landscaping plan for the easement area as it relates to Merriman Road be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval ILbefore submittal of the Final Plat; and • 7391 (2) that Lots 11 and 12 shall have front yards facing Arden Court. j for the following reasons: 1L; (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat complies with the M-2 Zoning District Regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed Preliminary Plat provides for good utilization of the property for industrial development purposes consistent with good subdivision planning practices. (3) The Engineering Division, by letter dated August 25, 1980, indicates support of the approval of this Preliminary Plat. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: . AYES: Morrow, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Scurto, Falk ABSENT: Kluver tMr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a letter from General Development Corporation requesting permission to display a special mobile home at Wonderland Shopping Center. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #8-204-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 23, 1980 from General Development Corporation, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the location of a mobile home unit on property within the Wonderland Shopping Center subject to the following conditions: (1). that the location of the mobile home unit shall be as indicated on Wonderland Site Plan dated 6/4/80; (2) that the display of the mobile home unit shall be limited to a period not to exceed three months beginning September 1 , 1980 and ending December 1 , 1980; (3) that the site shall be landscaped in the manner as illustrated on Plan marked #79-1 and as explained in the letter dated 7/23/80 received from General Development Corporation and !°4 (4) that the location of the mobile home unit shall be approved by the Fire Marshall and any other conditions and/or requirements pertinent thereto as imposed by the Fire Marshall shall be adhered to. IL Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7392 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47, Vicinity Control Ordinance, and Section 18.58, Site Plan Ordinance, of Zoning Ordinance #543, to require the posting of bonds to ensure installation of approved site ° landscaping. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-205-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commis- sion does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.47, Vicinity Control Ordinance, and Section 18.58, Site Plan Ordinance, of Zoning Ordinance #543, to require the posting of bonds to ensure installation of approved site landscaping. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 395th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 1980. t4On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted , it was #8-206-80 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 395th Regular Meeting and Public. Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 22, 1980 are approved. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the Project Area and Project District Area for Newburgh Associates in connection with a proposal to construct a medical office park on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Munger in Section 17. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs . Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #8-207-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 18, 1980 from the Economic Development Corporation of Livonia, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the designation of property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Six Mile Road and Munger in Section 17 be approved as the Project Area and Project District Area, as defined by Section 8 of Act 338, Public Acts of 1974, for Newburgh Associates in connection with a proposal to con- struct thereon a medical office complex; subject property being legally described as: 7393 Land in the City of Livonia, County of Wayne, State of Michigan, described as: A parcel of land being a part of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, Town 1 South, Range 9 East, City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, more particularly described as: Beginning at a point on the West line of Section 17 (Centerline of Newburgh Road, 66 feet wide) , said point being South 0 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds East 661 .37 feet from the Northwest corner of said Section 17, thence South 89 degrees 22 minutes 20 seconds East 665.00 feet to a point; thence South 0 degress 06 minutes 15 seconds West 140.00 feet to a point; thence North 89 degrees 22 minutes 20 seconds West 664.68 feet to a point on the West line of Section 17; thence North 0 degrees 04 minutes 00 seconds West 140.00 feet to the point of beginning; except the Westerly 60 feet thereof conveyed to the City of Livonia by Deed recorded in Liber 16923, page 471 . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #8-208-80 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 78-2-2-5 by Berean Baptist Church requesting waiver use approval to construct a church on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Meadowview in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Landscape Plan for the Berean Baptist Church as prepared by Carr's Lawn Service, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #8-209-80 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 80-5-2-13 by Brown & Deyo Associates for Jacobson's Stores requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail sales building on the northwest corner of Newburgh and Six Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, subject to the following conditions: (1 ) that the Landscape Development Plan prepared by Prote, Krause & Allen, Inc. , dated 7/15/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered i to; 7394 (2) that the Irrigation Plan prepared by Prote, Krause & Allen, Inc. , dated 7/15/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that both the landscaping and irrigation systems shall be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the store and there- after maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski , it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Wall Sign Plan submitted in connection with Petition 79-9-8-30 re- questing approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, in connection with a proposal to construct a retail complex on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Stamford and Myron in Section 9, subject to the following condition: (1) that Sign Plan #3, prepared by Dino's, Inc. , dated 8/12/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolutionresulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek NAYS: Morrow, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver A Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails for lack of support. 4 Mrs. Scurto made a motion to table this item until a full Commission is present and an update on the four plans can be given to the Commissioners. There was no support to the tabling motion and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Wall Sign Plan submitted in connection with Petition 79-9-8-30 re- questing approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, in connection with a proposal to construct a retail complex on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Stamford and Myron in Section 9, subject to the following condition: (1 ) that Sign Plan #4, prepared by Dino's, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Zimmer announced that he would like to withdraw his motion and Mrs. Scurto concurred and offered a withdrawal of her support. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was le #8-2110-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to reconsider its action as set forth previously in a resolution to approve Wall Sign Plan #3. 7395 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: IL AYES: Scurto, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Morrow, Falk, Zimmer ILABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #8-211-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Wall Sign Plan submitted in connection with Petition 79-9-8-30 re- questing approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, in connection with a proposal to construct a retail complex on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Stamford and Myron in Section 9, subject to the following condition: (1 ) that Sign Plan #3, prepared by Dino's, Inc. , dated 8/12/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Smith, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Morrow ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was a #8-212-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request by Fred Richter, Red Carpet Realty, to replace existing signage on a building located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in Section 16, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Sign Plan by Bill G. Settles showing a 3' x 12' single face wall sign with internal illumination is hereby approved for the front of the building; and (2) that the Sign Plan by Bill G. Settles showing a 5' x 10' sheet metal , painted sign, non-illuminated, which is hereby approved for the east wall of the building shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #8-213-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1468, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 80-8-3-18P by Fred J. Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section ti: 7396 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a medical 1L; clinic and professional office building on the north side of School- craft Road, west of Hubbard in Section 22, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 800-554, Sheet 1 , prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , dated 8/6/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan 800-554, Sheet 4, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , dated 8/6/80, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan as shown on Plan 800-554, Sheet 2, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , dated 8/6/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition; (5) that the required protective wall shall duplicate the existing wall to the west of this property; and (6) that the building shall have internal trash compaction units and no outside storage of same shall be permitted. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #8-214-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated August 18, 1930 from Louis Chernoff, R&L Associates requesting an extension of approval of Petition 78-12-2-31 as submitted by Volk & London, Architects, requesting waiver use approval to construct a children 's day care center on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of the 1-96 Freeway in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution subject to adherence to all conditions previously attached to the original approval . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Michael Moss, a partner in Concept 2000, was present and made a presentation to the Commissioners and the approximate 18 interested persons in the audience of the plan in connection with Petition 80-2-8-9 by Howard Binkow. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #8-215-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 8.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance #1243, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 80-2-8-9 by Howard Binkow re- 4 7397 questing approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 in connection with a proposal to construct multiple dwellings on the east side of IL Middlebelt Road between Schoolcraft Road and Meadowlark in Section 24, until the Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 1980. to0 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew informed those present in the audience that the August 26, 1980 meeting will be a Special Meeting for the purpose of taking action on Petition 80-2-8-9 and that the meeting will be conducted in the conference room on the third floor of the City Hall . Interested persons in the audience are invited to attend. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 396th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 19, 1980 was adjourned at 11 :50 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION c).0 eph1�. a ecretary ATTEST: / / f��—fir, //<..G2G�1 i� Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman Lac i