Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1982-12-14 7818 • • MINUTES OF THE 446th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY • PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA [On Tuesday, December 14, 1982 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 446th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with approximately 60 persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J. Falk Donald Vyhnalek Jerome Zimmer Sue Sobolewski Robert L. Morrow Judith Scurto Donna Naidow Herman Kluver 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. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on tonight 's agenda involves a question of rezoning or vacating, this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Council and the City Council after holding a public hearing makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied, and if a petition re- questing a waiver of use is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council . Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 82-10-1-16 by Livonia Post 3941 V.F.W. to rezone property located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from R9-II to C-2 and P. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file pertaining to this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated November 10, 1982 from the Engineering Divi- sion stating that their office has no objections to the rezoning proposal and noting that Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent of 60' in accordance with the City's Master Thorough- fare Plan. That is the extent of our correspondence. Gerald T. Genette, Commander, Livonia Post 3941 , 9112 Henry Ruff, Livonia: The purpose of our request is to add additional hall space and a member's lounge on the adjacent property; an addition to the building. Mr. Andrew: The expansion would be to the west? Mr. Genette: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Does the V.F.W. own the property or do you have any option? 4r. Genette:r. Andrew: We have an option subject to this rezoning. 1If you were successful in the rezoning, when would you undertake ex- pansion? r. Genette: In three to five years. 7819 • Mr. Andrew: But you have acquired the land already? [Mr. Genette: Yes. ;Mr. Vyhnalek: What becomes of the land for five years? Mr. Genette: It will be vacant. Mr. Vyhnalek: No additional parking now? ' Mr. Genette: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: It will be maintained? Mr. Genette: Yes, it will be. Mrs. Sobolewski : Additional hall space and lounge -- ladies' and mens'? Mr. Genette: No, it will be a members ' club room. Mrs. Sobolewski : You don't have one now? Mr. Genette: No. Mrs. Scurto: When we went on a tour of the City to check sites, I noticed your sign. Is that your permanent sign -- the one in front? Mr. Genette: We have two signs; one V.F.W. sign and one is a blinking sign. Mrs. Scurto: Is that going to remain there? 4 ,Mr. Genette: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: Do you anticipate needing any other access in order to facilitate the use, such as a westerly driveway? Mr. Genette: Yes, we do. We have room now. Mr. Zimmer: My concern is traffic and curb cuts. Is that necessary in that you can't get to the lot where you presently make access? Mr. Genette: It probably could be used with the present driveway. We have a double driveway now. Mr. Zimmer: There is no way you could access into your property off Middlebeit? Mr. Genette: No. Mr. Zimmer: You have no plans to work at that? Mr. Genette: No. ii:Mr. Andrew: Would you have any difficulty in dedicating the 27' for the right- of-way? 4 {r. Genette: No. 7820 [There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 82-10-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #12-217-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 14, 1982 on Petition 82-10-1-16, and pursuant to.a letter dated December 13, 1982 from Livonia Post 3941 V.F.W. requesting to amend Petition 82-10-1-16 so as to request the rezoning of property located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from R9-Il to C-2 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-10-1-16, as amended, be approved for the following , reasons: (1) The proposed rezoning as amended to read C-2 and P is a logical , minor extension of the C-2 Zoning District already established within the area. (2) The proposed uses that would be permitted by this change of zoning are compatible and in harmony with the surrounding uses of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would promote the orderly growth and development of the area as the proposal will expand the site area and increase the offstreet parking capacity for the V.F.W. , which parking is needed in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in accordance with Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, 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 Petition 82-11-1-18 by Arthur Pollack for Redman Apartments Company to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt between Six Mile Road and Pickford Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12, from RUF to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated November 18, 1982 in the file from the Engineering Division indicating that there appears to be no engineer- ing problems connected with this proposal . Arthur Pollack, 144 W. Lafayette, Suite 1110, Detroit: Right now we have no definite plans for the property. We own the Morristowne Apartments to the east and north. We feel this is in turn to rezone and sometime in the future we would have a use but there are no plans for it now. Mr. Andrew: Your proposal conflicts with the Future Land Use Plan which indicates in the opinion of the City that this property should be used for medium density residential . Why should the Future Land Use Plan be 110 changed? Ir. Pollack: Actually when you take a look at this one piece, it is set off. We are individual owners; it is a separate entity. I think a little piece of two individual houses on that property just isn't conducive next to the Cemetery. A better use is for an office building, parti- 7821 ILularly along Middlebelt to the north and west there is a small bank and other type of office uses. It is a better use than for a medium density housing. Mrs. Scurto questioned Mr. Pollack regarding the Redman Apartment Company. Mr. Pollack: The Redman Company did not develop Morristowne. We were able to acquire this property from the other owner but after Morristowne was started. Mrs. Scurto: Where else have you developed? Mr. Pollock: Gale Gardens in Melvindale; Burroughs International Building in Kalamazoo. We have an apartment project of 242 units in Melvindale. One in Walled Lake on Walled Lake Lake Road. , Mr. Zimmer: Your comment about two houses -- I presume which would square with the RUF; the Future Land Use Plan defines that as medium density. What amount of housing could you put on there with that kind of zoning? Mr. Shane: Approximately ten units. Mr. Zimmer: Why do you want to consider Morristowne as separate from this? Wouldn't it become an addition to it? Mr. Pollack: No. This was a HUD insured loan. They would never permit another loan to tie it in together. If we built one building of ten units, Iii; we wind up with a whole new ownership and new project. It is one, small little acre in there and I don't think that would be conducive to it. If we could have owned the piece when Morristowne was developed, then we would have used it for that but to have a separate ten-unit building just wouldn't work out. A whole new management. Hud would not allow two projects. Mr. Zimmer: In my opinion, I find amidst a lot of houses I find it an intrusion. I also have problems with Morristowne's general appearance. I think from an amenity standpoint, some separate, private use might add a lot of character to the rest of the territory. Mr. Vyhnalek: Where, is the closest P.S. zoning, H? Mr. Shane: There are some offices on Six Mile Road. That would be the closest. Mr. Falk: I think it is spot zoning and unrelated to the area. We have enough professional service. . There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 82-11-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #12-218-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 14, 1982 on Petition 82-11-1-18 as submitted by Arthur Pollack for Redman Apartments Company to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt 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 7822 Petition 82-11-1-17 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the Planning Commission which Plan calls for the retention of the medium density residential use. (2) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses that are incompatible with and unrelated to the surrounding uses of the area, which uses are all residential . (3) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Land Use Policies of the Planning Commission as the proposal is of such small size and unrelated to any other uses of the area that it represents a piece-meal , spot-zoning approach to development. (4) There is no need for additional P.S. zoning in this area as there already is sufficient available and undeveloped P.S. zoned property in the area to accommodate development as may be proposed by this change of zoning. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in accordance with Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, 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 Petition 82-11-2-36 by Vicki Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Andrew: The last time the petitioner was before us he was granted apprDval for the restaurant but there was limited seating capacity imposed upon the petition. What was that limitation? Mr. Shane: He was limited to ten seats at the time. Mr. Castaneda: We are approved for 32 now. Mr. Shane: We understand he was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals which would give him 32 seats. Mr. Andrew; What happened -- 10 to 32. Mr. Shane: As the site is being used, the number of parking spaces is based upon use of a beauty salon and what was left over after the beauty salon is accommodated. As the site stands currently, he would be allowed 22 seats. The Zoning Board allowed him and addition of up to 32. Mr. Andrew: What kind of conditions were imposed? 1:04 Mrs. Scurto: When you left here after asking for seats, did you understand the seats we allowed you? r. Castaneda: When I talked to some people from the City they said if I remodeled 7823 I would be able to get more seats. The business is very slow now and I said I don't know if I can spend $15,000 for ten chairs. Mrs. Scurto: Did you know what remodeling would cost you? Mr. Castaneda: Yes, I did. Mrs. Scurto: I really felt that we went to bat for you and that you had a legit- imate reason to go for more seating. Mr. Castaneda: All we did is to use the ones in the back and we put them in front. I asked for four chairs for each parking space instead of two and the City told me they would give me more and I don 't have to take them out. Mrs. Scurto: Then you should have been honest with us. You told us you would take the ten chairs and that ten chairs would be fine. Mr. Castaneda: If somebody tells you you can get more chairs as long as you invest $15,000 you can 't blame me. I spent $90,000 just on the building. Mr. Falk: I didn 't support this originally. We made it clear that he would have a parking problem. There was no talk about getting the land of the beauty salon. We talked about the shopping center for getting more parking. I share the opinion of Mrs. Scurto; you had no in- tention of staying with that amount of seating. No one should lihave told you to go ahead. I don 't like to see Five Mile go like Plymouth Road. You will not get my support on this. "1r. Morrow: 1 What would you figure would be the parking requirement based on 32 seats. Mr. Shane: He needs six spaces for the beauty salon and sixteen for the 32 chairs plus however many employees he has, which is three. That would be nineteen for the restaurant and six for the beauty salon, making 25. The Zoning Board of Appeals report will be more explicit. Mr. Morrow: I have a concern that the granting of a Class C Liquor License would tend to intensify a use that already seems to be congested. The license would prolong the people being in the restaurant and magnify an already difficult problem. Mr. Castaneda: I only found out what I have to do. Right now I may only have two cars all day. Business is so slow. I 'm not asking for much. In the future I may need more parking. The people in the shopping center use my parking spaces, too. I came to Mr. Nagy and he told me I would have to apply for a waiver of use. All you have to do is tell me what I have to do and I will do it . You told me I could get ten chairs; someone else told me I could get more. Mr. Andrew: How far is it from his site to the Church? Kr. Shane: Approximately 600 feet. Ar. Andrew: Isn't that a violation of the Ordinance? g Ar. Shane: That is a Michigan Liquor Control Commission law. 7824 Mr. Nagy: I understand the separation is 500 feet. Mr. Morrow: Where is the closest Class C to that? 1[ ' Mr. Shane: Stable's on Middlebelt. It is over 1 ,000 feet. I have the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution on the variance granted. The required parking is 18 and proposed is 15 for a deficiency of 3. They have waived that for the following reasons: Mr. Shane read the reasons for the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals to the Commission from a letter dated December 10, 1982 regarding Appeal ; Case No. 8212-145 which was made a part of the record. Mr. Shane read the conditions of approval which were attached by the Zoning Board, of Appeals to the granting of the variance in connection with Appeal Case No. 8212-145 which was made a part of the record. Mr. Morrow:, Was the Zoning Board aware of your request for the Class C Liquor License when they talk about it never being a parking problem? Mr. Castaneda: I don't know for sure. Mr. Morrow: It seems their decision was based on your restaurant and you are changing that and it may change their variance. Mr. Castaneda: What is your opinion here of me getting the liquor license? Do I li: have to improve the building? I just want to know your opinion. don't want to argue or anything. You told me I had to remodel in order to change the zoning. What do I have to have for the license. Do I have to get rid of the people behind me so I can enlarge the parking? Mrs. Scurto: How much of your business is carry-out? Mr. Castaneda: It varies. Mrs. Scurto: Would you say 30 or 40 percent? Mr. Castaneda: 40 percent. Mrs. Scurto: Are parking spaces allotted for the carry-out? Mr. Nagy: It is figured into the offstreet parking requirement. Mr. Falk: I thought I asked you before if you had plans to expand and I thought you said no, you were just trying to survive, but I think you have a bad spot to try to expand. Mr. Falk: The Zoning Board made reference to the fact that there are two chairs in the beauty salon. Is that correct? \Mr. Castaneda:1[00 There are two operators and four chairs. The people just sit in the chairs. Mr. Falk: When does their lease expire? r. Castaneda: Two and a half or three years from now. I was thinking of selling 7825 Mexican beer or wine by the glass. tMr. Andrew: If your approval is granted by the Council are you aware that the liquor license would also entitle you to serve liquor? Beer, wine and liquor? Mr. Castaneda: Yes, I know that. Mrs. Sobolewski : I do not have any objection to Mr. Castaneda adding additional chairs to sustain his business or increase it but I do have an objection to the Class C Liquor License. I believe that will have an effect on parking and will increase traffic in and out. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #12-219-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 14, 1982 on Petition 82-11-2-36 as submitted by Vicki Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located on the south- west corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the Northwwest corner of Five Mile Road and Harrison in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-11-2-36 he denied 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 Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible t with the adjoining uses of the area. (3) The location and intensity of the proposed use are such that traffic to and from the site, the site layout and available offstreet parking will be such that it will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area and the adjacent uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Suction 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, 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 Petition 82-11-2-37 by Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to erect an addition to St. Colette Church located on the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Vargo Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Andrew: Let the record show that the Chairman relinquishes the Chair to the Vice Chairman and that I will refrain from voting on this petition. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Vargo Concerned Residents to', signed by Larry A. Schroer, Chairman. The letter is dated December 6, 1982 and states the residents' hopes that the participation of the Planning Commission in this matter will help insure a building plan 7826 that will meet the needs of the church and protect the interests of the neighboring property owners. ,Joseph Lemieux, Lindhout Associates: We met with the group and we agreed to widen the greenbelt by ten feet. We also added a row of 6' evergreens in the front and a row of 4 to 5 foot trees in the rear. Also, we added a 4' berm to protect the houses from car headlights. We feel a 35' greenbelt is excessive. Three islands have been cut into the parking lot in accordance with the Commission's request. .Our parking will go to 393 from 356. We are adding less than 40 cars. There will be a barrier of of heavy evergreens plus the 4' high berm. Mr. Zimmer: The weed tree question -- are they in the way of the landscaping you are proposing? Mr. Lemieux: Probably not. There is landscaping on both sides of the berm. An automatic sprinkling system is really not necessary. This is a treed area and they do not need sprinkling; it damages the roots. Mr. Zimmer: Where are you going to locate the lights? Mr. Lemieu indicated where the lights are to be located and showed a photograph of the light to the Commission. Mr. Zimmer: Are those lights on in early morning? Mr. Lemiuex: No. Mr. Zimmer: Saturday night service 6 to 7? [Mr. Lemieu: And they would also be on until 10 or 11 for the activities building. The parking lot would be lit up. Father Joseph Ferens, St, Colette Church: Every night, seven nights a week. Mr. Zimmer: We had a concern about the air conditioning unit located on the site. How is that being handled? Mr. Lemieux: It is on the north property line beyond the houses. There is a 6' high, masonry wall covered with the same material as is on the building. Mrs. Scurto: I am a member of this parish but not a participant in any governing body and as such I feel I have an obligation to vote. The parking lot lights are on two separate switches -- on a standard evening's activity, I have never seen anybody park any. place but in the main parking area. Is there a way that could be lit and the area closest to the residents not lit? Mr. Lemieux: Yes, I think that could be done. Me. Morrow: You have a 4' berm and the trees which are 6 feet. That would accom- plish your concern with the headlights shining on the abutting resi- dents? Mr. Lemieux: Yes, definitely. In ten years, we would have a solid row in each row. The berm begins to rise just west of the parking lot . rs. Sobolewski : How far from the houses till you reach the construction of the new Tali 1 building? Lemieux: From the south property line, it is 272' . t. Sobolewski : Will there be lights on the new building? Lemieux: Yes, at the entries. Larry Schroer, 37282 Vargo: Those weed trees are cottonwood trees, and are a nuisance. The architect said he was sure there would be no problem in removing the trees, but they have crowded in these spruce trees. We have made transparencies that indicate that the berm is 2' off. Mr. Lemieux: I said 4' off the parking lot. Mr. Zimmer: Would it make it if you had a letter to the effect that the berm will be 4' off the surface? Mr. Schroer: Yes, that would be fine with me. Mr. Zimmer: Would that be satisfactory to you, Mr. Lemieux? Mr. Lemeiux: Yes. Mr. Schroer: About the greenbelt -- it is a 20' berm but it is all hill . No level spot anywhere. We would like the cottonwoods removed. This is a huge parking lot, bigger than most commercial lots in the City. We are not opposed to their need for parking but we find it unusual that all the expansion is in one direction. You could get another 15 to 20 feet by moving the parking over even though the people would L have to walk a little further to the Church. We are not objecting ' to the parking lot but would like 20' more greenbelt. Mr. Robert Peters, 37214 Vargo: Do you have catch basins and drainage into that storm sewer? Mr. Lemieux: Yes. The water will be picked up internally through catch basins and piped internally into the system. Completely internal and approved the the Engineering Department. Mr. Schroer: No water will come on either side or drain on our property? Mr. Lemieux: No, it will not. Mr. Schroer: We had not seen plans on the lights but have no problem with lights, only the weed trees and the additional greenbelt. Wh Ms. Martha DubovskY, 37180 Vargo: The existing parking is 356 and32re t320 isars equisred. Why is St. Colette going to provide 393, 70 mMr. Lemeiux: We have 430 seats, 356 cars. We are adding over 500 seats. People don't come in three to a car. is. Dubovsky: Father Joe told me you were requiring more parking than is necessary. ' 7828 • Mr. Zimmer: Is 320 the City's requirement? r. Nagy: Yes. ;r. Zimmer: Beyond that is the proposal made by the petitioner? r. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Dubovsky: Why can't you eliminate one row of parking. You still have more than the City requires. Mrs. Larry Schroer, 37282 Vargo: They allow the Rets School to use that parking lot. The students park on this side of the trees which is in our direct view. And, why couldn't the Church use the Dickinson parking lot which is vacate all day Saturday and Sunday. ' Father Ferens: They have permission to park there and they make us a little offering for it. Mr. Peters: Will you add to your drawings the 4' height of the berm off the park- ing lot floor? Mr. Lemieux: Yes. Mr. Peters: I mean the Planning Board. Zimmer: We have latitude here and we can; in words, make that a condition of approval . 'rs. Rita Spirka, 37080 Vargo: No one realizes how high that Church property is. When Ir. you hit our corner off Six Mile, every one of those cars look like they are parked right in front of my house. That lot is used all the time. I think it detracts from the area terribly. All of us are in a hole. We have had to dig a hole around our house to keep the water out. Mr. Morrow: Which was there first, the homes or the lot? Mrs. Spirka: The homes. Mr. Morrow: When was the Church built? Father Ferens: Ten years ago. Mr. Morrow: The Church added to their property since? ' Mrs. Spirka: There has been a baseball field here. I have kids running bikes and children running though here all the time. There is a tremendous dilemma. Everybody considers our yard part of the Church property. Mrs. Schroer: We would like a fence. Most of the time that is required. A 15' fence would satisfy us and that is all we are asking. That is a concession St. Colette could easily live with. -s. Van Ormsby, 37248 Vargo: When it rains, my yard is flooded and the kids skate in my yard. I have a water problem now. 7829 • Mrs. Peters: With the 20' setback, I am concerned about the slope of the berm and whether or not that will be able to hold the dirt on the slopes. In that respect, if you could park parallel and give us more distance, we wouldn't have quite the slope that we are going to have as it stands now. r. Lemieux: Going back to the greenbelt, we are not expanding that much in park- ing space. We gave up 15 cars to increase the width. To ask another 15 cars we feel is a little heavy. Mrs. Scurto: What is on the south side of the berm. Mr. Lemieux: On the south side is where the trees are. Mrs. Scurto: What are you planting -- ground cover or what? Mr. Lemieux: Seed. Mrs. Scurto: You will need something to keep that grass growing until this growth is done in about 1990. Resident: That is Church property that is seeded now and watered. Mrs. Scurto: I don't feel it is fair for the residents to have to maintain that property. r. Zimmer: Are you prepared to maintain your property? 11:hairman, r. Lemieux: Yes. here was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew,declared the public hearing on Petition 82-11-2-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was • #12-220-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 14, 1982 on Petition 82-11-2-37 as submitted by Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to erect an addition to St. Colette Church located on the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Vargo Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-11-2-37 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan revised 12/82, prepared by Lindhout Assoc- iates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 , dated 12/82, as revised, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscape materials installed on the site shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; further, that the berm shown on the south property line shall be four feet (4') above the parking surface; (3) that the landscape materials shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; 7830 • (4) that the Building Elevation Plans marked E-1 , E-2 and E-3, prepared IL by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (5) that the Building Floor Plan dated 5/82, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (6) that the proposed south parking lot lighting system shall be on a separate switching system so as to have that lot lighted only when Church services require, otherwise it shall be unlighted; and (7) that the four foot (4') earth berm shall be sodded and properly maintained; for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed expansion. (2) The site layout and proposed uses are such that the proposal will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) All pertinent Zoning Ordinance regulations and requirements are being complied with. 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. ' roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 1 AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Andrew • Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 82-11-2-38 by Wonderland Center Food Hall requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within an existing restaurant establishment located on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicating there are no problems in connection with this petition. Mr. Andrew: One basic problem with the petition is that the Zoning Ordinance pro- hibits a Class C Lugor License within 1 ,000' of an existing liquor license and there are two here. This petition is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance, IL. Zimmer: Any relief for that? Andrew: The City Council . 7831 r. Kluver: Based on that, as one Commissioner I would move the proposal on. There is nothing that we can do at this level . T. Falk: In the past when we have had a conflict with the Ordinance we didn 't take action. We would have to deny the petition. Representative of Wonderland Center: We realize it is not within your authority to approve this and it would have to go to the City Council . Do you make favorable recommendations to the Council in these instances? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 82-11-2-38 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #12-221-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on December 14, 1982 on Petition 82-11-2-38 as submitted on Wonderland Center Food Hall requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License within an existing restaurant establishment in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 82-11-2-38 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed waiver use is in conflict with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11 .03(h) . the specific standards of the Zoning Ordinance which relate to this use. (2) The proposed waiver use requesting a Class C Liquor License would not promote the orderly development of this facility as this proposed Class C Liquor Licensed facility is not compatible to the established and surrounding family-oriented uses of the area. (3) The proposed Class C Liquor License use is inappropriate for this area for the reason that to property control and regulate the use in the proposed open setting of the subject area would be difficult to achieve and would detract from the otherwise orderly and regulated uses of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was given in accordance withe 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 Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #12-222-82 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 the Future Land Use Plan to change the designation of property located south of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from High Density Residential to General Commercial and Parking; 7832 AND that, notice of the above Public Hearing be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 . ir. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. a n a. motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #12-223-82 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 445th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on November 30, 1982 are approved. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #12-224-82 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 82-8-2-20 by Village Greengrocer requesting waiver use approval to operate an open-air retail sales business on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in Section 3, subject o the following conditions: (1) that the Landscape Plan for Village Greengrocer, prepared by Joel Smith, Architect, dated November 10, 1982, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and IL (2) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site before occupancy is granted for the flower shop with the exception of the landscaped islands in the main parking lot which will be required upon completion of the outdoor sales phase of this proposed development. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, announced that Petition 80-1-2-1 by Hugh Leave] ] is removed from the agenda. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #12-225-82 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with Petition 82-11-8-26P by Bell Isle Awning Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended 'by Ordinance #1630, 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 3, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Landscape Plan for Art Van Furniture Store at 35323 Plymouth Road, as prepared by Cal Fleming Landscaping, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the landscape materials as shown on the approved Plan shall be installed on the site by May 1 , 1983 and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. IL Andrew, Chairmam declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7833 ' On 'a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was I12_226_82 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 82-11-8-28P by Rocco Corsi requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1630, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing restaurant located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads in Section 1 , subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #7101 , Sheet 1 , dated 11/8/82, prepared by Anthony C. Rea, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation as shown on Sheet 3, dated 11/8/82, prepared by Anthony C. Rea, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the petitioner shall upgrade the existing landscaping in front of the building by adding six (6) Spreading Yews, 18/24" just east of the existing Birch Tree, by May 1 , 1983. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: Scurto, Andrew Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. l[n a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, t was 12-227-82 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a party store and retail rental space on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Fllmore in Section 9, be denied for the following reason: (1) The location of the proposed entry/exit drive would be such that traffic to and from the subject property would conflict with normal traffic in the area and, accordingly, would constitute a hazard to the surrounding uses in the area. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 446th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 14, 1982 was adjourned at 11 :30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMM SSION �J G�� — Jo ph J. alk, ecretary / ;TEST: ajed/e-d--. --n 4 Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman /__— ac