Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1986-06-17 9674 • 1[ 4.0 MINUTES OF THE 518th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 17, 1986, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 518th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with approx- imately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski C. Russ Smith Donna Naidow Michael Soranno Members absent: *Herman Kluver Michael Duggan Jeanne Hildebrandt Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV were also present. Mr. Morrow informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request or a subdivision, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Commission holds the only public hearing on a pre- liminary plat. 1: Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 86-4-1-18 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the east side of Horton Avenue, south of Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to R-1. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that they have no objection to the proposal and a letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals indicating their feeling that this lot could not be used for any commercial purpose due to its size and that the Board feels it should be rezoned back to the R-1 zoning classification. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-4-1-18 closed. *Mr. Kluver entered the meeting at 7:06 p.m. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #{6-154-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on Petition 86-4-1-18 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the east side of Horton Avenue, south of Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from C-1 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-4-1-18 be approved for the following reasons: 9675 (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide a zoning district that is compatible with the existing use of the subject property. (2) The subject site is not of sufficient size to be developed for uses permitted by the C-1 Zoning District. (3) The proposed zoning district is the same as the abutting district to the south and east. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Smith, Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Duggan, Hildebrandt Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-1-22 by Thomas Guastello requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from R-7 to P.S. 1; Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this proposal. There is a letter in the file from James P. Riley of Mike Kelley's Restaurant urging approval of this petition by the Commission, and a letter from Oak Creek Medical Center indicating their support of the petition. Thomas Guastello, 38200 South Gratiot, Mt. Clemens: We have owned this property for a number of years and have actively pursued the best use for the property. We have come to the conclusion that some of the things that make the property unattractive for multiple family development are the accessibility to Schoolcraft and Middlebelt and I-96. Those things act as a deterrent to multiple development. As a result of a study we had made, we feel this would be an excellent location for offices similar to the type built in Laurel Park and on Farmington Road. We think an advantage to the community with office develop- ment is that there would not be week-end traffic or even the traffic that multiples would have. We have a layout which we can show you if necessary, but we are not asking site plan approval at this time. This property is bordered by Chi Chi's, Mike Kelley's and twenty- one homes. The I-96 Freeway is recognizable as a good way to get to Southfield, Detroit and other communities. Should we go through this step, the next step will be site plan approval and we realize there will be concerns at that time by the neighbors and we will 140 address those concerns then. Mr. Morrow: You are thinking of a one-story office building, residential in 9676 nature. Is that your current thinking? Mr. Guastello: Yes. The pitch roof will be advantageous and will blend in with the other development that is already there. Mr. Morrow: Sometimes petitioners do approach some of the neighborhood residents concerning their proposed developments. Has anything like that been done by you or your associates? Mr. Guastello: Yes, we have talked to a number of residents before and many are here today. I think we can say that the vast majority do not fine a professional service objectionable. They are concerned with the type of berm that will be separating the development. I think only two out of twenty felt it shouldn't be used for office use. We met a great deal of reluctance with developers on developing the site as multiples. Mrs. Sobolewski: What do you have in mind as far as starting and completing? Mr. Guastello: We have had meetings with our company and we have a financial commit- ment that will expire in September. We have decided that we would like to get going with two buildings by the fall. We thought we would finish one building and the other foundation and upon renting the first building, we would proceed with the second building. Based on the needs of the community, we will have nine to eleven buildings there. 1: Barry Wolk, 14308 Garden: I am in possession of a petition with signatures opposed to this type of construction. The general consensus is that we believe the property will develop but we have seen this kind of development and we totally disagree with it. We have very specific objections and I believe people in the audience will tell you about them. There are eighteen signatures on the list. The only people who were approached on this are the people who have abutting property. Mr. Smith: Why are you opposed? Mr. Wolk: The general consensus is that we are not necessarily opposed to the use but to the actual configuration of the property. The kind of concentration they will need would be detrimental to the adjoining property. There was to be a greenbelt buffering this property from the development behind it. Some people called the Commission and were made to believe that there would be some kind of wall behind their residences and we are definitely opposed to that. Also, there was to be a 75' greenbelt placed there. Mr. Smith: Our job here tonight is concerned with the proper zoning classification for the property. If now is the time to remove the R-7 zoning from the property and is P.S. now the more appropriate classification. Mr. Morrow: By Ordinance, there must be a protective wall where the property abuts the P.S. The only one that could waive that is the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am not aware of any 75' greenbelt. Zoning cannot be conditioned. 9677 10' Mr. Nagy: The 75' greenbelt was placed on a previously approved site plan. Mr. Pacific, 14027 Alexander: Last night, I walked along the houses on Alexander and Perth and talked to people, . Primarily, their concern is what you are going to do with the land adjacent. A lot of people are opposed to a wall twenty feet away from their property line. The consensus is that they like the land the way it is and would like to keep it that way. I think they realize it is going to change and they are concerned about what this is going to do to their view. Mr. Morrow: I have asked Mr. Guastello if he would work with the residents. I can only speak on his record and they do have a track record of build- ing in Livonia and they usually come up with something the neighbors want to see. Of course, that is no guarantee. Mr. Smith: I would like to emphasize that the R-7 zoning is there and a developer could build apartments now. The sixteen people who signed the peti- tion -- in my mind I can't believe they are saying they would rather have apartments. That is what we get confused about. We are talking now strictly about the zoning. If this is denied, tomorrow they could begin building apartments. I live in the south end of Livonia and I believe this is better for the south end of the City. I think this development would be the best development that could go in. Mr. Pacific: We would actually prefer professional service with some stipulations as opposed to apartments. IL Mr. Soranno: Regarding the wall -- any use other than residential would require that wall. Al Bsharah, 29297 Perth: I don't think most of us are opposed to the change and we don't mind the office type set-up. Our concern is that we want that green- belt between the property lines and we don't want apartments. We don't want parking there and where will the entrance be? Mr. Morrow: As we said earlier, there are ways to accomplish a greenbelt and a satisfactory site arrangement. Surujdial Sigh, 29313 Perth: Two years ago we were here when Mr. Guastello was peti- tioning for Mike Kelley's. We have a buffer between the development. It is my understanding that Mr. Guastello said he could not sell the property for R-7 because it is not suitable for multiple family and it is not his intention to put in a restaurant there because Livonia could not support another restaurant. Mr. Guastello promised us and Council that the property between Mike Kelley's and the property behind that would not be developed and that the traffic leading into Mike Kelley's would have a berm. That is not true. When the restau- rant opened, we complained about the berm and the microphones that were being used. I don't think Mr. Guastello delivered what he said he would. And, he said there would be up to three to five acres of 10 land set aside and preserved. 4 Mr. Guastello: We want to clarify a couple of things, and I like to feel that we did 9678 give what we said we would. If there is any problem, I would like people to call me. In the time we were developing this, I did not receive any calls and not one letter. At that time, we had all the property cut. We had another complaint about a person living in the tree and that was corrected. I would like to clarify that we said we we would stop with restaurant or food development and at no time did we say that we would give away three or five acres for a preserve. There seems to be a majority of neighbors against a wall. In the areas where the neighbors do not want a wall, we would petition the Zoning Board of Appeals. We realize we will have work to do with the neighbors abutting the property and to the best of our ability we will satisfy them on the wall or any other issues that concern them. Mr. Morrow: The gentleman said something about a covenant. Mr. Guastello: The only thing we agreed to is that we would not come in with a com- mercial use. We agreed that we would not put in another restaurant. We have a long-term commitment to Livonia. We talked with developers and they have stated they couldn't put quality multiple development on the property. Mr. Wolk: We request that a decision be delayed until we have had sufficient time to research the covenant to find out just what it stated. Mr. Morrow: That will be taken into consideration when we make our motion on the petition. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you remember what the covenant said, Mr. Nagy: Mr. Nagy: My memory tells me that there was only one owner then and when you place a restrictive covenant, you only restrict yourself. It is my recollection that it the petitioner did restrict the use of the property to prohibit another restaurant after the property was sold to Kelley Johnson. Mr. Sigh: If this is approved tonight, according to the City Ordinance anyone can come and put a concrete wall on the property line. Mr. Morrow: Not without a permit. I have never heard of a wall being built without the major development. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #6-155-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on Petition 86-5-1-22 by Thomas Guastello requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt, north of Schoolcraft Road in the 1140 Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from R-7 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-5-1-22 be approved for the following reasons: 9679 I: (1) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that will complement the commercial enterprises in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a transition or buffer zone between the existing residences in the area and the traffic noise generated by the freeway and from the commercial uses in the area. (4) The subject site has locational advantages for the office uses permitted by the proposed zoning district because of the I-96 Freeway and Middlebelt Road. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-1-23 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north- east corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. 10 Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this rezoning proposal. David B. Nelson, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn, 2290 First National Building, Detroit: I represent the owner of the property, Mr. Hesano, who opposes the rezoning. The small size makes it virtually infeasible for P.S. Mr. Hesant has been trying to sell this property as it is presently zoned to Mobil Oil. The land is ideal for commercial use. It is completely buffered and screened and in addition, the sub- stantial development we have seen really means it is essential to provide commercial services in that area -- Freeway related services. The site and the building that could be built on the commercial or P.S. would be the same. It would be virtually impossible to develop for office and it is an ideal situation for a commercial and on that basis I request that you deny this request. Mr. Morrow: John, can you speak to the viability of the site for its use? Mr. Nagy: Our studies show that a 35,000 square office usage on that property. I think it would be a very viable building for an architect, lawyer, insurance office or real estate. Mr. Nelson: We have a purchaser for the property. ILMr. Smith: Have they agreed on a price should this not be rezoned? Mr. Nelson: Yes. 9680 to Mr. Edward Hesano, 27460 Beacon Square, Farmington Hills: To answer Mr. Smith's question, there is a purchase agreement signed and I have received first option. I bought the property as a user and spent. a year and a half going through approvals with the City. That was in the early 80s. I am now involved in another business opportunity and have put the property up for sale. The bank didn't show any interest in buying the property. Quite frankly, with the wrap-around I thought it would be a good use for a bank. I had other people interested but I didn't think the City would be interested in those. I didn't think Livonia wanted a small retail business there although someone was interested. Mr. Soranno: I would like to say that I feelthat the nature of that section along Six Mile and especially between the Freeway and Haggerty has been changed recently. I think it is a classy looking area and that it will be even more so. Therefore, I feel that a C-2 classification on the corner is not appropriate. I think the change in zoning would be more compatible with the existing development. Mr. Hesano: About three years ago at the Council it was brought out that they favor a one-story office or commercial building. Basically it is the same type of thing and you will have the same type of problems with egress and traffic because there is no difference whether it is commercial or office. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, a Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-1-23 closed. 11, a On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #6-156-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on Petition 86-5-1-23 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from C-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-5-1-23 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are consistent with the existing and proposed uses in the surround- ing area. (3) There is no need for additional commercial uses in this general area as would be allowed by the existing C-2, general commercial, zoning district. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 10 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 4 AYES: Soranno, Vyhnalek, Kluver, Sobolewski, Naidow, Morrow 9681 NAYS: Smith ' ABSENT: Duggan, Hildebrandt I: Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-2-21 by John Dinan requesting waiver use approval to utilize a building proposed to be located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Gill Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 for general office use. John Dinan, 37799 Professional Ct. Dr. , Livonia: This will allow us general offices as well as medical. General offices are much more restrictive con- cerning traffic and parking because the general office use is mostly employees. A site plan was included when the Commission considered the rezoning. We left the zoning on each side of the subject property single family to provide a berm. This will be a four-sided building and very attractive no matter what direction you're looking at it from. Mr. Smith: I assume you will use the same typesignage as your other development. Mr. Dinan: Yes, low signs. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-2-21 closed. 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 1[10 #8-157-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on Petition 86-5-2-21 by John Dinan requesting waiver use approval to utilize a building proposed to be located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Gill Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4 for general office uses, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-5-2-21 be approved subject to the follow- ing conditions: (1) that the Site Plan marked Sheet #1, dated 5/12/86, prepared by Michael A. Boggio, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet #2, dated 1/31/86, prepared by Michael A. Boggio, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered toi; (3) that a Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion for approval within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution; for the following reasons: 100 (1) The the proposed use complies with all waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning 4 9682 Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions on Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate the portion of St. Francis Avenue located north of Seven Mile Road, and a portion of the alley lying west of St. Francis Avenue located north of Seven Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that nearly all of the St. Francis right-of-way south of Bridge Avenue is encumbered within a designated flood plain for the Upper Rouge at this location. Ownership of the parcels between the north line of the Bushel Stop site and the Rouge River should be determined from a standpoint of landlocking these parcels from a public right-of-way and that their office has no objections to the vacating of the street right-of-way subject to review of the ownership of the parcels. A letter from the Detroit Edison Company indicates that they have no objection to the vacating of the alley and road provided easements are reserved the full with of the existing alleys and road to protect their existing equipment. Joseph Crenshaw, 26911 Santa Maria, Detroit: I am the owner of the Bushel Stop and we are in the process of reorganizing and upgrading our facility. I have concern for the vacating of St. Francis because at this point in time there are four lots on the east of St. Francis that are not part of the Bushel Stop operation and those parcels would not have access. To the west there is a very similar situation with another landowner or possible future landowner if he would have to get access to those lots. The alley is essential to the over site plan. Mr. Morrow: You are in favor of vacating the alley but are concerned with vacating St. Francis because of the property owners' access through your property? Mr. Humackey, 22461 Haynes, Farmington: I own Lot 122 through 126. How would I get in there if you block it off? Mr. Morrow: I think that was one of Mr. Crenshaw's concerns. toMr. Humackey: Why are you doing this? Mr. Morrow: The reason is because there has been some movement in that area as far 9683 as the Bushel Stop is concerned. It is not unusual to look at streets and alleys that will not be used. This gives us a chance to study them and determine if St. Francis should be vacated and whether the alley should be vacated. It is a paper street but the right-of-way is owned by the City. Mr. Nagy: When the subdivision was developed, by recording the plat the right- of-way was recorded for the City. The Bushel Stop was successful in expanding their commercial development and the plan submitted as part of the development plan caused the Council to look at the overall area and they felt that St. Francis really serves no purpose. St. Francis cannot physically run through to Bridge Avenue because of the flood plain. It seemed more feasible to have the City take a look to see if St. Francis is really needed so they requested that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not it should be vacated but the City could not landlock any property owner. Mr. Humackey: You mean I can't build a home? Mr. Nagy: You would have to stand the expense of bringing the street up there. I indicated that it would not be vacated if you needed it. This merely allows us to bring up some discussion on it. Mrs. Humackey: I would rather the alley be kept open for access to our property. I have to go through the alley to get to my property. t4 Mr. Vyhnalek: You want the alley closed, Mr. Crenshaw? Mr. Crenshaw: Yes. They seldom frequent their property. They have a house or a relative's house up Angling Road and it is a matter of convenience to go through the alley rather than go down to Seven Mile Road to get to their property. Mr. Morrow: But they do have access to their property? Mr. Crenshaw: Yes, 100% of the time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was X16-158-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on Petition 86-5-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate the portion of St. Francis Avenue located north of Seven Mile Road, and a portion of the alley lying west of St. Francis Avenue located north of Seven Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Plan- ning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-5-3-3 be approved only to the extent that the alley lying west of St. Francis Avenue, north of Seven Mile Road, be vacated and 110 that the portion of St. Francis Avenue located north of Seven Mile Road not be vacated, the subject alley vacating being subject to the retention of a full-width easement over the alley to protect existing equipment located therein, for the following reasons: 9684 (1) The subject alley is no longer required to provide public access to abutting lots. (2) No public purpose can be served by retaining the subject alley in public ownership. (3) The vacating of St. Francis Avenue would landlock several residential lots, thus preventing access to those lots from any public street. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Soranno, Smith, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Duggan, Hildebrandt. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-11-3-10 by Michael A. Boggio requesting the vacating of Phillips Road, east of Haggerty Road and south of Eight Mile Road in Section 6. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they 3 have no objection to the vacating but recommend that a full-width easement+be retained for public utilies. Detroit Edison Company indicated they have no objection providing easements are preserved. Michael Boggio, 255 South Woodward Avenue, Birmingham: We request this because it has never been developed. There are only three property owners in the area. The road goes nowhere. During our site plan approval, we made it known that we were planning to do this. We feel it will enhance the area. Mr. Soranno: I assume you heard from CBS Fox regarding this? Mr. Boggio: We have heard no objection and we have made it known that we were requesting this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-11-3-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #i6-159-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on Petition 85-11-3-10 by Michael A. Boggio requesting the vacating of Phillips Road, east of Haggerty Road and south of Eight Mile Road in Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-11-3-10 be approved subject to 9685 retention of a full-width easement to protect existing utilities, IL for the following reasons: (1) The subject road right-of-way is no longer needed to provide for current or future public access to abutting properties. (2) The subject road right-of-way can be used more advantageously by the private property to which it will attach. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-7-3 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by incorporating property located on the east and west sides of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and Edward Hines Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Director of the Wayne County Parks and Recreation Department requests that Lot 549 at the intersection of Newburgh and Hines Drive be added to the Master Park Plan as part of the Middle Rouge Parkway inasmuch as Wayne County Parks & Recreation Department has secured approval from the Michigan Land Trust Fund to IL purchase this property as part of the Parkway. There is a letter in the file from Charles W. Chandler, Chairman of the Historic Preserva- Commission transmitting a resolution of the Commission indicating its support of the Wayne County Department of Parks & Recreation's re- quest to designate this property on the Park Plan as recreation area. Nancy Watkins, Chief of Planning & Design, Wayne County Department of Parks and Recrea- tion, presented a plan to the Commission and audience showing the development plans for the Middle Rouge Parkway which included the property under consideration this evening. Ms. Watkins: Henry and Clara Ford dedicated this property to the Wayne County Road Commission in 1948 to be incorporated into the Middle Rouge Parkway. The County has been acquiring property along the Parkway and the property at Plymouth and Newburgh was also involved. This particular piece of property is very important to the overall plans in terms of no further development taking place on the property. Mr. Newman is not in favor of selling the property to us. We have the funds and are proceeding with an appraisal for a fair market value in the event condemnation proceedings are necessary. Norman Newman, Newman Management, 22371 Newman Ave. , Dearborn 48124: Our family owns the property. This morning is the first time I have know this action is being taken. I had no idea that the gentleman who called me on May 28th had taken any type of action. I told him I would get back to him after talking with the rest of my family. He doesn't want the entire property, only a piece. 10 Mr. Morrow: Has this property ever been for sale? I 9686 Mr. Newman: I have owned it many years. My parents bought it years ago. 111: Mr. Morrow: Would you be willing to weork with the County? Mr. Newman: I met with them once a month ago and I am surprised all this is happening. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Newman, what is your profession? Mr. Newman: I am a broker. Mr. Kluver: Do you have a sign on the property? Mr. Newman: Yes. Mr. Kluver: What does the sign say: Mr. Newman: For lease or will build. Mr. Soranno: Did you request a meeting on May 28th? Mr. Newman: I requested an informal meeting five to six weeks prior to that. Mr. Soranno: What was the purpose of the meeting? Mr. Newman: Just to get my general feeling. Someone from their office was to contact me. I thought then I was not interested in selling the II property. Mr. Morrow: Are you aware of the condemnation proceedings? Mr. Newman: No. When I had the meeting with Mr. Reickel, no mention was made of it. I request that I be given ninety days to discuss this with the other members of my family. Ms. Watkins: By September 1st, we need to come up with a purchase agreement. We really think we should buy it at fair market price and that is why we have an appraisal on it. Wehave made a very generous offer on the property and have gone to a lot of trouble to secure the property. We have a letter from Mr. Newman rejecting our offer. We just want to pay fair market value for the property and develop it as a memorial. Mr. Newman didn't return any phone calls made to his office and we didn't order the appraisal right away because we were hoping to deal with Mr. Newman and we didn't order the appraisal until after Mr. Newman rejected our offer. Mr. Nagy: Would thirty days be harmful? Ms. Watkins: Yes, it would, because I see no harm in having the Master Plan in- corporating this parcel. It is not a rezoning. We have been deal- ing with this almost a year and incorporating it on the Master Plan wouldn't hurt or hinder the property owner at all. Mr. Newman: In the January 27th phone call, you stated at that time that you 9687 would like to buy the property to preserve the intersection and the road from going through. You stated I made a phone call a week after my meeting with Eric Reickel. I did not make any phone call 14; or anyone else in my office regarding this piece of property. Mr. Vyhnalek: You don't want to sell the property? Mr. Newman: No, but we don't want to go through a hassle. Mr. Vyhnalek: But the County is adamant that they want the property. I am in favor of putting this on the Park Plan and see what happens between you and the County. Mrs. Sobolewski: Why are you objecting to it going on the Master Plan. What is the difference one way or another> Mr. Newman: I am trying to deal with the other members of my family. Further, they are interested in only part of the property, not all of it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-7-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #6-160-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts li, of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission having held a Public Hearing on June 17, 1986 for the purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan, the Master School & Park Plan of the City of Livonia, the same is hereby amended by incorporating property located on the east and west sides of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and Edward Hines Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 for the following reasons: (1) The described properties are located such that they would be a logical addition to the inventory of public park land in the area. (2) The proposed amendment will encourage the future use of the subject property for park and open space purposes. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia which is incor- porated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by reso- lution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further, that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deed for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 4 adopted. . 9688 ILMrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 86-5-7-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, by deleting that portion of Glendale Avenue located north of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates no objection to this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-5-7-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #6-161-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission, having held a Public Hearing on June 17, 1986 for the purose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, the same is hereby amended by deleting that portion of Glendale Avenue located north of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Hubbard Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 27 for the following reason: (1) The proposed amendment will provide for development of a proposed industrial subdivision while, at the same time, furthering the goal of the Master Thoroughfare Plan. a AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and furhter that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat for Summer Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: There are letters in the file from the Traffic Bureau and the Fire Division stating they have no objection to this proposed develop- ment. Ray Hurley, 5199 Raintree, Canton, was present, representing the developer. Larry Roesner, 34805 Norfolk: At the last meeting, there was discussion about the zoning. Which way is this going, R-3 or R-4? 9689 Mr. Morrow: R-3, the recommendation for R-4 was never acted on. Mr. Roesner: There is some question about the location of the drain on the plan and the actual drain which is really a drainage ditch. Mr. Nagy: At the east property line there was a surface drainage easement. The The subdivision as proposed would disrupt that drain. His concern is what will happen to that water and will it create a water situation in his backyard. The engineering plan submitted is not finalized but it is proposed that the lots that back up to the drainage ditch will have to have a storm sewer to pick up the drainage. The plan sub- mitted doesn't show the storm going up that far to his drainage ditch but it is only fair that the developer pick that up. We are working that out with our Engineering Department. Mr. Roesner: Will the electrical be in the backyard? Mr. Nagy: In the backyard, underground. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the preliminary plat closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was MI6-162-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 li: on the Preliminary Plat for Summer Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Summer Creek Subdivision be approved subject to waiving of the open space requirements and the submittal of an entrance marker plan for Planning Commission approval prior to approval of the Final Plat, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with all applicable Ordinances and Regulations pertaining to the subdivision of land. (2) The proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good design solution for the subject property. (3) No reporting City department objects to the approval of this Preliminary Plat. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was 10 #6-163-86 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission i Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period concerning effective- 4 9690 ness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with the Pre- liminary Plat for Summer Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat for S.I.J.L. Industrial Park Subdivision proposed to be located south of Schoolcraft Road, west of Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy: Letters in the file from City departments indicate that they all recommend approval of this proposed subdivision. Mr. Nowak, Engineering for the project: We have been working on this project for about a year and ten months. We are about 80% done with our engineer- ing and will be ready for bids in about two weeks. Plant Engineer, Ford Motor Company: The road coming to the edge of our property - will that restrict any expansion of my building? Mr. Nagy: His plan doesn't restrict it any more than you are already restricted by the City's Thoroughfare Plan. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat closed. L On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-164-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 17, 1986 on the Preliminary Plat for S.I.J.L. Industrial Park proposed to be located south of Schoolcraft Road, west of Merriman Road in the North- east 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for S.I.J.L Industrial Park be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable Ordinances and Regulations pertaining to the subdivision of land in the City of Livonia. (2) All reporting City departments recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat. (3) The location of theproposed industrial road providing access to the proposed industrial lots is in compliance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow: This will conclude the public hearing portion of our agenda and 9691 1[0we will take up now various miscellaneous items and site plans. o Mr. Vyhnalek left the meeting at this time. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #6-165-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Rennolds Ravines Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Department of Engineering & Building recommends approval. (3) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ILMr. Vyhnalek re-entered the meeting at this time. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #6-166-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Belden Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located north of Plymouth Road, west of Wayne Road, if extended, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28 for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Department of Engineering & Building recommends approval of the Final Plat. (3) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was li, #6-167-86 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Merriman 9692 and Hubbards Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 27 from C-3 to M-2. AND THAT, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-168-86 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 517th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 3, 1986 are approved. Mr. Morrow, 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 #6-169-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 86-4-8-20 by John J. Fox requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing shopping center located on the south side of Five Mile Road, westof Newburgh Road in Section 18, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan addition to Chatham Village Shopping Center, prepared by South Market, Inc. , dated 4/14/86, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan prepared by South Market, Inc. , dated 4/14/86, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the landscaping on the site shall be renovated in accordance with the previously approved Landscape Plan. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Kluver, Soranno, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith ABSENT: Duggan, Hildebrandt Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #6-170-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 86-5-8-29P by Robert Crosetti requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a pro- 9693 posal to construct a strip commercial center on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Rayburn and Roycroft in Section 13 subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Plan for The Crosetti Building as shown on Sheet 1, dated 6/16/86, prepared by Anthony C. Rea, Architect, 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 building occuancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Soranno, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Smith, Naidow, Morrow NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Duggan Hildebrandt Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-171-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 86-5-8-30 by Mobil Oil Corpoiration requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to rebuild an existing service station located on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Middlebelt Roads in Section 23 subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 04-AKQ, dated 5/12/86, prepared by Mobil Oil Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building and Canopy Plan 10375GA, prepared by Mobil Oil Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan 586, Sheet L-1, prepared by Mobil Oil Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that all grass areas shown on the Landscape Plan shall be serviced by an underground sprinkling system; and (5) that this approval is subject to any variances being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, 10 it was #8-172-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-6-8-31 by John H. Mouat requesting 9694 I: approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing buildings located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Pickford in Section 11 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan for Middlebelt Plaza II, Sheet 1, dated 6/2/86, prepared by Poly/Mitchell, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan, Sheet 4, dated 6/2/86, pre- pared by Poly/Mitchell, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan, Sheet 3, dated 6/2/86, prepared by Poly/Mitchell, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that the landscaping shown on the approved Plan shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #6-173-68 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission 1[0 Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period concerning effective- ness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 86-6-8-31 by John H. Mouat requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to the existing buildings located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Pickford in Section 12. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-174-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 86-6-8-32P by John M. Olsen requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on the north side of Schoolcraft between Middlebelt and Inkster in Section 24, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 86-08, Sheet 1, prepared by Kamp-DiComo, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 110 (2) that Building Elevation Plan 86-08, Sheets 3, prepared by Kamp DiComo, Architects, which is hereby aproved shall be adhered to; 9695 1:0 (3) that Landscape Plan 86-08 with sprinkler system by Kamp- DiComo, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that the landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow left the meeting at this, passing the gavel the Mr. Smith, Vice Chairman. Mr. Allie: I agreed to revise the plan to remove some parking and increase the landscaping but on account of the time element, it was almost im- possible to have the plans corrected. Mr. Smith: If we approve this, it will be held in the office until you submit the revised plan. Mr. Allie: That is no problem. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was 416-175-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 80-11-8-24P by John Allie requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance 41543 in connection with a proposal to IL construct retail stores on property located south of Norfolk, west of Middlebelt Road in Section 2 subject to the updating of the Landscape Plan prior to release of this resolution, and to the following con- ditions: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan for an addition to Allie Brothers Mini Mall dated , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Revised Building Elevation Plan dated 6/16/86 for John Allie Brothers Mini Mall which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the new landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to occupancy of the new stores. Mr. Smith, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow re-entered the meeting at this time and the gavel was returned by Mr. Smith, Vice Chairman. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted it was #6-176-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 84-5-8-20 by Daniel Vosotas for approval of all plans required 9696 1[ 41; Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a motel on the south side of Six Mile Road between I-275 and South Laurel Park Drive in Section 18 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the pool accessory building and landscape plan for Quality Inn, prepared by Kamp-DiComo, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 416-177-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the the City Council that Petition 86-6-8-13 by Luckenbach/Ziegelman requesting approval of all plans required by Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a multi-use complex on the east side of Haggerty Road in Section 6, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the proposed Chestnut Hills Site Plan marked SD-1, dated 6/13/86, revised, prepared by Luckenbach, Ziegelman & Associates, Architects,which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 1[1; (2) that the Site Plan for the proposed Livonia Surgicenter/Medical Mall, dated 6/3/86, prepared by Tower-Pinkster-Titus, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the Building Elevation Plans for the Hotel/Office complex marked Sheet SD-9 and SD-10, dated 6/13/86, revised, prepared by Luckenbach, Ziegleman & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the Building Elevation Plan for the Livconia Surgicenter/ Medical Mall marked Sheet 2DD, dated 4/29/86, prepared by Tower- Pinkster-Titus, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (5) that the Landscape Plans for the Livonia Surgicenter/Medical Mall dated 6/3/86, and for the overall site and hotel/office complex dated 6/4/86 and 6/10/86, prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Landscape Architects, which are hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and all landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (6) that the Lighting Layout Plan prepared by Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Landscape Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (7) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the build- ings shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for approval prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. 9697 ILMr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-178-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Sign Application submitted by The Hodge System, Inc. , for a ground sign on property located at 17000 South Laurel Park Drive in Section 8 subject to the following condition: (1) that the Sign Drawing for the office building prepared by Sign Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr.Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 518th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 17, 1986 was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Donna J. Naidow, Secretary 1[10 ATTEST: iQ ;7-2 4 R. Lee orrow, Chairman ac 9697 4 4 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-178-86 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Sign Application submitted by The Hodge System, Inc. , for a ground sign on property located at 17000 South Laurel Park Drive in Section 8 subject to the following condition: (1) that the Sign Drawing for the office building prepared by Sign Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr.Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 518th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 17, 1986 was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Donna J. Nai / , Secretary C . ATTEST:. L• R. Lee Mor• f,�row, Chairma ac i