HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1982-11-16 •
MINUTES OF THE 444th REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
4 CITY OF LIVONIA
4
On Tuesday, November 16, 1982, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia,
held its 444th 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 8:35 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested people in the audience.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Scurto Daniel R. Andrew Donald Vyhnalek
Joseph Falk Jerome Zimmer
MEMBERS ABSENT: Sue Sobolewski Donna Naidow
Herman Kluver Lee Morrow
Messrs. Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV and Rick Collins, Planner IV were present.
Mr. Andrew 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 then hold their own Public Hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver use request, and the petition is denied by the Planning
Commission', the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Other-
wise the petition is terminated.
[Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 82-10-1-15
by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the south-
east corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
7, from C-2 to P.O.
Rick Collins: We have a letter from Jim Ford, American Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#11-198-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-10-1-15 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property
located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile and Haggerty Roads in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 7, from C-2 to P.O. , the City Planning Commission .
does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 82-10-1-15 and deems that no
further action by the City is necessary.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-10-2-32 by Ki Song requesting
waiver use approval to operate an auto repair business within an existing
building located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Fremont
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Bakewell: We have a letter from Mr. Clark, Engineering.
t 7806
Mr. Sebastian Grassey, 19500 Middlebelt, Livonia, Michigan: Mr. Secrest is the
represenatative of the owner. I am an attorney representing Mr.
IL Song. Mr. Song presently leases and operates a gas station and
auto repair center at Seven Mile and Middlebelt. It is too small
for his present needs and he does not own the building. Mr. Song
does not anticipate many Cars remaining overnite. If a few are
stored they could be stored inside. The Zoning Board of Appeals
allowed 8 car parking on the west side. Smith Kellering is willing
to enter into a lease for parking space to the east. We will then
have 18 total, 8 on the west and 10 from Smith Kellering. We can
also park behind Smith Kellering if needed. Mr. Song will be in the
light auto repair business. There is surrounding M-1, commercial
and industrial uses here. There is very little residential here.
Because the M-1 zoning does allow a repair shop under certain
conditions I would request that this Board allow my client to have
waiver use approval for subject shop.
Mr. Andrew: Do we have a letter in our file from the adjacent property owner
pertaining to the 10 vehicles being parked on the property?
Mr. Grassey: My client is interested in a lease with option to buy the property
in the future. The property to the south that would be just for lease.
Mr. Andrew: There is a lease in existence.
Mr. Grassy: There is an agreement to enter into a lease if need be.
Mr. Andrew: How long of a lease?
3
i Mr. Secrest: On the east where the restaurant is located, they are leasing part
# of the property from Smith Kellering. They have 10-15 years.
Mr. Andrew: Smith Kellering will be leasing property in part to restaurant and
Mr. Song.
Mr. Secrest: The property is 40 feet wide and he couldn't use it for a building.
Mr. Andrew: Is your client planning to lease building?
Mr. Grassey: He will be buying it on a land contract. .
Mr. Secrest: Since 1952 my father has owned this building. The tall section was
originally a feed store. There were two additions put on, one to the
east and one behind the original building. We used the bt,ilding up
to 1975 as a machine shop. There was a fire in the building in 1977
and we leased to Chuck's Rebuilt Engines. He installed engines in
trucks and cars. He rebuilt the engines. When he moved we sold it
to John Gage and times were bad for them, we got the building back.
We are in the process of selling it again. He told us what he would
like to use it for. We went before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mrs. Scurto: When you had the business were cars stored outside.
. Mr. Secrest: We rebuilt cylinder heads. Chuck stored cars on the east side of the
building.
Mrs. Scurto: Do we have a landscape plan?
Mr. Grassey: We turned one into Zoning Board of Appeals. We have one here now.
7$07
4
{
Mr. Andrew: That landscape plan was a condition of their granting approval.
You were requested to turn the landscape plan in to the staff by the
Zoning Board of Appeals. Has planning staff seen the drawing.
)IL
Mr. Bakewell: I saw it in Mr. Yaske's office this morning.
Mr. Andrew: Do we have a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution?
Mr. Secrest: Zoning Board of Appeals did not grant the use of nonconforming parking
units. Originally it was turned down. They did not like parking out
front. They wanted perpendicular parking and not parallel parking.
Mrs. Scurto: The cars will back out onto Fremont.
Mr, Vyhnalek: It looks like grass.
Mr. Andrew: The Zoning Board of Appeals stated gravel only.; Would you need the
parking on Fremont? That is, if you obtain' the lease from property
to the east?
Mr. Grassey: I am inclinelto think that 10 should be sufficient.
Mrs. Scurto: I would like to see landscaping on that Fremont side and parking
restricted to the east.
Mr. Andrew: Is the large tree still there?
Mr. Grassey: Yes.
aMr. Zimmer: Has Planning determined the necessary amount of parking as far as we
4 are concerned?
Mr. Bakewell: We have no floor plan. Generally we base parking requirements on number
of bays.
Mr. Grassey: We would have at least 2 or 3 bays.
Mr. Bakewell: Plus employees. Three bays would require 6 exterior parking spaces.
Mr. Zimmer: You could park 10 cars at the Smith Kellering property. It is
adequate for 10 cars. Who has determined that figure.
Mr. Grassey: The length of the building is approximately 100 feet. Ten feet would
be allowed per car.
Mr. Zimmer: What about depth?
Mr. Bakewell: There is 10 feet between the property line and building itself. Part
is used for a walk. Then there is 40 feet adjacent to that. It
depends on what the restaurant is leasing it for. If they are using
it for a driveway his half would be parking. There would be 20 feet
in depth and 20 feet driveway behind it. If the restaurant uses it for
parking then there is a problem.
''Mr. Zimmer: From a traffic standpoint it would be detrimental to the sidestreet
of Fremont. We need some clarification on the lease space. I would
like to see that resolved.
r. Andrew: Was the Zoning Board of Appeals aware of where the fire hydrant and tree
were on the west side.
7808
.
Mr. Secrest: We had pictures of complete building. I am sure they were aware
of the tree and I think they were aware of the fire hydrant.
i
fMr. Zimmer: Do you have a legitimate document that leases 10 spaces.
4
Mr. Grassey: We have an agreement to enter into lease.
Mr. Andrew: Is there a fence on the south property line?
Mr. Secrest: There is no fence on our property. There is 10 feet behind building
and that is where our property ends. Behind that Mr. Smith has a
fence that runs parallel to Fremont. The property stops at 10 feet,
there is a fence and then a drive to Mr. Smith's property. There is
no fence on Mr. Smith's north line and our south.
Mr. Bakewell: There are two wing fences in front.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I am reluctant to allow parking of anything on the west. I could see
from the tree to south end but not from the pine tree to wing fence to
tree. I prefer parking on the east and south.
Mr. Falk: I object. There is enough land available for this operation to be in
its proper place. What has been done to Eight Mile is not our doing.
I think someone should go into the building and see what they are talking
about. I would like to hear from Mr. Smith. What about the restaurant.
Mr. Andrew: We do have a letter from Mr. Smith.
11 ! Mrs. Scurto: I would like some kind of knowledge of the agreement with the Topper
restaurant.
Mr. Grassey: I do not know what type of agreement Mr. Smith has with the restaurant.
Ms. Barbara Kosan, 20403 Fremont: There are only a few residents in this immediate area.
There are about 6 or 7 of us. We have to live hand and hand with
commercial and industrial. I would not like to stand in anyone's way
of making a living. I feel however, I do not want my property devalued.
It has always been somewhat of a garbage bin. There are cars parked
on Fremont. We would appreciate some landscaping. There is always
rubbish. We would not like to see junk cars. We also would like no
entry on Fremont.
Mr. Grassey: We propose an access on Eight and Fremont.
Ms. Kosan: Possibly street signs could be posted.
Mr. Andrew: We could require signage on property to insure that the people use
the proper driveway. The rubbish will be stored inside.
Ms. Sharon Wagner, 20417 Fremont: I am closer to the site in question. We have signs
posted for "no trucks," etc. This is a joke. We have a newly paved
street. The heavy trucks stop at the Ram's Horn. I called the Police
Dept. but there is nothing that can be done. As far as the driveway
of Smith Kellering I don't think they are supposed to use Fremont.
I would appreciate it if that were checked out. Trucks and cars make a
right turn on Fremont and go to Morlock and make a left. We don't need
anymore traffic problems.
Ms. Sullivan, Director of North Central Civic Association: We support the residents of
Fremont.
. 7809
Mrs. Scurto: If they did not park on Fremont, got some additional landscaping,
and had permanent parking on the east, would you rather see it filled
i
or vacant.
Ms. Kosan: As long as there are no junk cars parked outside.
11
Mrs. Scurto: This is not a bump shop.
Mr. Falk: I feel staff should check into the access and look inside.
Mr. Grassey: M-1 Zoning has been established there for many years. Smith Kellering
has been there for many years. With improved landscaping and upgrading
it will improve the area.
Ms. Kosan: What kind of landscaping?
Mr. Bakewell: Essentially the area I would assume they would be interested in is
Fremont and southwest corner.
Mr. Andrew: This proposed use would intensify the traffic on Fremont.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it
was
IIj #11-199-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
4 1982 on Petition 82-10-2-32 by Ki Song requesting waiver use approval to
operate an auto repair business within an existing building located on the
southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Fremont in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table
Petition 82-10-2-32 until December 7, 1982 at which time petitioner will
bring forth:
1. New landscape plan on Fremont.
2. Inside building bays and size.
3. Plan for paved parking on east side.
4. Scrap pickup, storage.
5. Restaurant lease.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to see a list of what petitioner classifies as "light
automotive repairs."
Mr. Andrew: If Smith Kellering has been violating ingress and egress on Fremont then
the lease for 10 spaces is not feasible.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
y
7810
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-11-2-35 by Linda Grajek
requesting waiver use approval to operate an automobile repair business within
an existing building located on the east side of Surrey between Schoolcraft
and Graytona in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28.
Rick Collins: We have correspondence from Mr. Clark, Engineering Division.
Mr. Andrew: Are there any improvements shown on the mortgage survey?
Mr. Bakewell: The parking spaces and fencing will be added.
Mr. Andrew: The entire front yard used for parking.
Mr. Grajek: Yes.
Mr. Andrew: Does this comply with M-1 landscaping requirements.
Mr. Bakewell: No.
Mr. Andrew: What is the frontage on Surrey?
Mr. Bakewell: 120 feet, with 30 foot setback.
Mr. Andrew: There is no parking permitted in front yard at all.
Mr. Felice Padula, 16891 Yorkshire: There was parking when we moved in 1968.
Mr. Andrew: What effect will this auto center have on the office building?
Mr. Padula: There will be a 6 foot high fence all around.
Mr. Bakewell: They proposed chain link with slats.
Mr. Padula: When Mr. Kerby and Mr. Don came out a few years ago about landscaping,
they tell me to paint building brown to match others.
Mr. Grajek: The parking in front is already blacktopped and striped. There are
shrubs out front. Before this the building was used for a boat repair
and then a cement business.
Mrs. Scurto: Fity percent of the front yard in M-1 should be landscaped.
Mr. Grajek: This is the nicest looking building in that area.
Mr. Andrew: I feel more landscape in the front is necessary. Can you live without
the cars parked in the front?
Mr. Grajek: It is parking for customers. They would have to be inconvenienced and
walk from the back parking lot to the front door.
Mr. Bakewell: If the gate is not needed we could eliminate three parking spaces
where the fence comes next to the parking lot.
Andrew: They would have to take out asphalt. Are you proposing lighting in the
rear yard?
[Mr.
Mr. Grajek: I would like to put a night light in.
Mr. Padula: There are lights on the north and back side.
7811
w
4
Mr. Grajek: I was not aware of that. I will not need any more lighting.
Mr. Andrew:1: What about rubbish?
Mr. Grajek: I will put it outside but inside of the fence.
Mr. Andrew: Where?
Mr. Grajek: In the corner.
Mr. Andrew: How big a dumpster.
Mr. Grajek: 10 yard.
Mr. Padula: 5 yard would be sufficient.
Mr. Vyhnalek: We would like to see the dumpster fenced on the three sides.
Mr. Grajek: I will eliminate outside storage and use inside only.
Mr. Andrew: Will you have enough-room?
Mr. Grajek: I will take it away twice a week.
Mr. Zimmer: If additional landscaping is put on the north corner where it is now
grass and on the south end will there still be room to get. through the
/
gates?
Mr. Bakewell:II
If they take a strip adjacent to the fence and take. out three spots,
both ends as well as the middle will have some.
1
i
Mr. Zimmer: Will you have overnight cars?
Mr. Grajeck: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: I would like to see all the parking in the front removed but I reluctantly
might be amiable to additional landscaping. I feel though it would be
best to landscape the whole thing.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I concur. I think three spots should be omitted. There should be
an inside dumpster. Also any dead shrubbery should be replaced.
Mr. Falk: I think a tabling motion would be forthcoming. We need a little more
in the way of concrete ideas and plans.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on this item closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted it was
#11-200-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-11-2-35 by Linda Grajek requesting waiver use approval
to operate an automobile repair business within an existing building located
on the east side of Surrey between Schoolcraft Road and Graytona in the North-
east 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission:does hereby determine
to table Petition 82-11-2-35 until the Study Meeting of November 23, 1982 at
which time the following plans shall be presented:
7812
1. Additional landscape plan.
2. Plan that shows inside of building.
3. Lights on building.
I
4. Signage that is proposed.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Scurto, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#11-201-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-10-6-5 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section
19.06, General Waiver Requirements and General Standards, of Zoning Ordinance
#543, to incorporate additional site plan standards pursuant to the
requirements of State law, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 82-10-6-5 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) This proposed amendment is necessary and in the best interest of the
City because of recent changes to State law regarding planning and zoning.
(2) The proposed amendment will provide standards and requirements for
architectural control and landscaping which are not currently clearly
spelled out in the Zoning Ordinance.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted it was
#11-202-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-10-6-6 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Council Resolution #703-82 to amend Section 10.03 and 11.03 of Zoning
Ordinance #543 so as to require waiver use approval for SDM Licensed
establishments in C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-10-6-6 be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed amendment will provide the City with direct control
over the location of proposed SDM Licensed establishments.
(2) The proposed amendment will provide for public discussion and input
regarding tiie location of future SDM Licenses within the City of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
7813
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
'
r
AYES: Scurto, Vyhnalek, Andrew
NAYS: Falk, Zimmer
ABSENT: Kluver, Naidow, Sobolewski, Morrow
lMr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-10-2-34 by Livonia Mall
requesting waiver use approval to operate a mechanical amusement area within
an existing building located within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center on the
northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 2.
Mr. Zimmer: I find this location improper. It is too far off the main track.
The hallway is barely adequate for the traffic coming there now.
I find that to be the problem at Westland. It is too far out of the
way.
Mr. Falk: If it were moved to another area would it be adequate.
•
Mr. Zimmer: If the location is adequate and the supervision adequate it would be
adequate.
Mr. Falk: I would like to see someone of Ms. Hildebrandt's character and the
Mall to handle this.
Mr. Andrew: In our study session we felt the location of the particular operation
11;1
should be one that services the entire 500,000 square feet.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and adopted, it was
#11-203-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-10-2-34 'by Livonia Mall requesting waiver use approval to
operate a mechanical amusement area within an existing building located within
the Livonia Mall Shopping Center on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and
Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-10-2-34
be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use is not of such location so as to be inharmony with and
compatible with the surrounding uses of the area as in the planned
location it is well removed from the main mall area and that would tend
to encourage loitering and make proper supervision difficult.
(2) In its planned location, it would not compliment the surrounding
and adjoining uses of the Mall as it is too secluded to be an integral
part of the Shopping Center.
(3) The proposed use would not promote the public health, safety and welfare
in accordance with Section 11.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
f A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Scurto, Vyhnalek, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Falk
ABSENT: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski
7814
.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-9-2-30 by Major Magic's
All Star Revue, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to locate a restaurant
E
within an existing building located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and
Middlebelt Roads in the Southwestl/4 of Section 25.
Mr. Andrew: The Zoning Board had allowed 65 machines.
Mr. Zimmer: It is a very popular and well attended activity on the east side. It
is very successful and well run. It also points out some of the things
that were disturbing me. A restaurant on this end of town is absolutely
not needed. We do not need additional restaurants. We have already
added 600 or 700 more seats in that end of town in the last eight months.
I feel this totally violates the spirit of the Ordinance from a traffic
standpoint and a need for restaurant on Plymouth Road.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was
#11-204-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-9-2-30 by Major Magic's All Star Pizza Revue, Inc. ,
requesting waiver use approval to locate a restaurant within an existing
building located on the northeast corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-9-2-30 be denied for the
following reasons:
/
(1) The proposed use does not comply with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section
11.03(c) the special standards of the Ordin nce that relate to this use.
(2) The proposed use would not be compatible to or in harmony with the.
surrounding and established uses of the are as the site would be
overburdened by the proposed use.
(3) The proposed use, its size, intensity and h urs of operation are
such that it would be inappropriate and inc mpatible to and not
support the orderly and appropriate develo ent of the surrounding
area.
(4) The proposed use, its size, the nature of the proposed use, its intensity
its hours of operation and its layout is such that traffic to and from
the proposed use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith
will be hazardous and inconvenient and will unduly conflict with the
normal traffic of the neighboring area.
(5) The location, size, intensity and periods of operation of the proposed,
use would be detrimental and cause a nuisance to the occupants of the
other nearby permitted uses by reason of noise, light, fumes, and odors.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
111[
NAYS: Scurto, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
1
.
7815
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was
#11-205-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1[0
1982 by Major Magic's All Star Pizza Revue, Inc., requesting waiver use
approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within a restaurant proposed
to be located within an existing building located on the northeast corner of
Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
82-10-2-33 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use does not comply with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section
11.03 (h) , the special standards of the Ordinance that relate to this use,
(2) The proposed use would not be compatible to or in harmony with the
surrounding and established uses of the area as the site would be
overburdened by the proposed use.
(3) The proposed use, its size, intensity and hours of operation are
such that it would be inappropriate and incompatible to and not support
the orderly and appropriate development of the surrounding area.
(4) The proposed use, its size, the nature of the proposed use, its intensity,
its hours of operation and its layout is such that traffic to and from
the proposed use and the assembly of persons in connection therewith
will be hazardous and inconvenient and will unduly conflict with the
normal traffic of the neighboring area.
(5) The location, size, intensity and periods of operation of the proposed
use would be detrimental and cause a nuisance to the occupants of the
{ other nearby permitted uses by reason of noise, light, fumes, and odors.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto, Vyhnalek
ABSENT: Kluver, Sobolewski, Naidow, Morrow
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Guastello: I would like to have had a full board present tonight.
What must I do to accomplish that?
Mr. Andrew: If you wish to be placed on the November 30 meeting a motion to reconsider
(made by someone on the prevailing side) would have to be made.
The three Commissioners voting (aye) did not wish to reconsider the petition tonight.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-9-2-29 by Sears, Roebuck
and Company requesting waiver use approval to operate a video game room
within an existing building located within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center
on the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast
3 1/4 of Section 2.
7816
w
A motion to approve was made by Mrs. Scurto, but failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Zimmer:1: I spent some at the arcade at the Oakland Mall. Based on those
observations I find this a poor location. There is a significant
amount of distracting noise for the customers. The inside of the game
room was poorly done. It was poorly supervised. Exposed conduit was
seen. There was noise through the walls. The entranceway as I watched
the traffic was not in total harmony with what Sears was to be in business
there. An Allstate person was overseeing the room. The whole scene was
distracting to the public. This does not open a room up to all Mall
shoppers easily, only to Sears.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, and adopted it was
#11-206-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 16,
1982 on Petition 82-9-2-29 by Sears Roebuck & Company requesting waiver
use approval to operate a video game room within an existing building located
within the Livonia Mall Shopping Center on the northwest corner of Seven Mile
and Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-9-2-29 be
denied for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use would not be compatible to or in harmony with the
surrounding and adjoining uses of the area as the space proposed,
having two external walls and diminishing the cafteria floor area.
/ (2) The amount of noise that would be generated by this proposed use would
adversely affect the surrounding and established uses of the area as
there is no documentation submitted to show what improvements would be
made for sound abatement purposes other than that being created by the
new party wall.
(3) The proposed use would not promote the public health, safety and welfare
or the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Section 16.11(a)
of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(4) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use complies with Section 16.11(a) of Zoning Ordinance #543.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto
ABSENT: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski
Sears Representative: I am opposed to not having a full vote here. We sat here for
three hours when it took only a few seconds. We should have been put at the
top of the agenda.
[Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted it was
#11-207-82 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 443rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on October 26, 1982, be approved.
•- 7817
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
1
AYES: Vyhnalek, Scurto, Andrew, Falk
ABSTAIN: Zimmer
ABSENT: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was
#11-208-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, as amended by
Ordinance #1630, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition
82-11-8-26P by Bell Isle Awning Company requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to install
a canopy on the Art Van Furniture store located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Wayne Road and Yale in Section 33, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) that the awning canopy shown on the plan prepared by Belle Isle Awning
Company is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
(2) that the Belle Isle Awning Company shall provide the Fire Marshall
with a certificate of flame resistance regarding the proposed awning
canopy; and
(3) that Art Van Furniture Company submit a detailed landscape proposal
for the site to the Planning Commission for approval within thirty days.
11 )
4Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
n a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 444th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on November 16, 1982, were adjourned
at 10:35 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Jos 1163-74;411. cretary ad-
"" ti
�^
ATTEST:
Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman
[ .
a{