Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1985-05-21 9374 • 4 MINUTES OF THE 496th REGULAR MEETING 1: AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 21 , 1985, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 496th 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 8:00 p.m. with approx- imately 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Herman Kluver Jeanne Hildebrandt Sue Sobolewski Joseph J. Falk Michael Duggan C. Russ Smith Members absent : *Donna Naidow Donald Vyhnalek 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 or vacating request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council ; otherwise the peti- tion is terminated. 4 Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 85-3-1 -10 by Norman Akarakcian to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.S. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, advised the audience and Commission that the petitioner has requested that this petition be withdrawn from the agenda, and that the public hearing will be rescheduled. Those having received notice of tonight's public hearing will receive notice of the new public hearing also which is scheduled for June. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-4-2-8 by Carlos R. Galeana requesting waiver use approval to construct a build- ing for general office uses on the west side of Farmington Road between Curtis and Pickford in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . That is the extent of our correspondence. Carlos R. Galeana, 14375 Hubbard: My plans are to build an office building for a general insurance agency and other offices. We will try to build a nice building; something beneficial to Livonia. We will try to keep the parking to the rear and the front for shrubbery and grass . LMr. Morrow: The site is currently professional service and you are requesting that that be waived so you can use it for general offices? Mr. Galeana: Yes . 9375 Mr. Falk: At the study meeting, we discussed an underground sprinkler and a trash compactor, and we had a question on lighting and the wall . Iii;:e Are you going to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Galeana: I believe so. We have incorporated those things on the plan. We want something dignified. We don't anticipate that the lights in the parking lot would be on past 8:00 p.m. Steve Morris, 18414 Fi lmore : Will there be a wall? Mr. Morrow: A one foot wide, six foot high masonry wall is required by Ordinance. Mr. Nagy: That wall will be constructed. The wall on the south is to be waived. *Mrs. Naidow entered the meeting at 8: 10 p.m. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-4-2-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #5-93-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-4-2-8 by Carlos R. Galeana requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for general office uses on the west side of Farmington Road between Curtis and Pickford in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the 1[4: City Council that Petition 85-4-2-8 be approved subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals' approval of a variance to eliminate a protective wall along the south property line and rear and side yard deficiencies, and the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan dated 4/18/85, prepared by McDonnel Proudfoot & Assoc. , Inc., Consulting Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Landscape Plan dated 3/26/85, as revised, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that Building Elevation Plan dated 4/18/85, prepared by Albert Abbo & Assoc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons : (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use is 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 of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 9376 AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Falk, Duggan, Sobolewski , Smith, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Naidow ABSENT: Vyhnalek Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-4-2-11 by Levan Party Store, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within an existing party store located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale and Levan Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this proposal . Mr. Smith: The R-1 is undeveloped; have we not seen a site plan for residential on that land? Mr. Nagy : The zoning was recently changed to permit single family residential and a plan was submitted showing a cul-de-sac with residential lots. Mr. Smith : What will be on the C-2? Mr. Nagy: It will be developed into a commercial center, either by adding on 11, to the existing store or a free-standing building. N Mr. Smith: The owner of the party store now would develop the C-2? Mr. Nagy: No, the party store has been sold. He owns the existing C-2, not the party store. Mr. Falk: The building was made so that he could lay out the wall to the east so that if he wanted to expand, it would be very easy. I can't under- stand why he would come back a second time when this was denied once before. With the residential and the propensity of traffic, it would not be a site to dispense liquor or increase the traffic. Kathleen McCann, Attorney representing the petitioner: There has been a beer and wine license operating here for we l l over a year and there has been no abuse and no violations. The new owners have improved the land and have established a good rapport with the neighborhood. They have not had any accidents coming in or out of the store since the beer and wine business. I understand there is a concern but they have had a good business and have not caused any problems. It is a lovely store and they have improved the corner. They work hard to keep it clean. We are speaking of transferring a current license from Middlebelt to here. Mr. Morrow: We have heard comments about the C-2. Is your petitioner associated with that property? 'Ms. McCann: Mr. Daniel is the owner and developer of some property. They are on a friendly basis and will work together in developing this. s Mr. Morrow: Does your client have any interest in those properties? 9377 Ms. McCann: No, he does not. 4 William McIntyre, 35996 Leon: The residents were up in arms when this was first developed. First he built the party store, then he got the beer and wine license, and we knew pretty soon he would get the liquor license. I disagree with the Attorney, there have been problems with traffic. The resi- dents have just given up. There is an intensity of licenses on Plymouth Road. The guy built the building first and then you gave him the beer license. The residents think they just can't beat the people up here and they figured the next step would be the liquor license. Mrs. Irene Deman, 11053 Levan : Two homes have been built on Levan .and on the last lot on Parkdale. They haven't even moved in yet. My main concern is that the liquor license is another story from the beer and wine license. That might cause foot traffic from the park. There was an accident at Plymouth and Levan tonight and I was inside the store on another night and there was an accident. I disagree with this lady, this is a high accident corner. I am against the liquor license. Donna Deman, 11053 Levan : There is foot traffic from the park and this will increase the foot traffic. The intersection at Levan and Plymouth is a bad intersection. I have a degree in engineering and I suggest that a stop light be put there for each lane on Levan because it is a dangerous situation. I would like to see something done about that. 4 Discussion was held by the Commission and audience concerning the difficulties of negotiating turns onto Plymouth Road and into the party store from a southerly direction on Levan, the general traffic problems in the area and the fact that this has been brought up before but nothing has ever been done about it. Mr. Samboydoun, 34731 Plymouth Road: I own the Maikai Wine Shoppe. There is no doubt that traffic is a big issue in this area but I am concerned about competition. In a one mile radius, seven party stores have SDD licenses. That is too much competition. I believe it is unfair competition to the area to have more than three or four. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-4-2-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #5-94-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-4-2-11 by Levan Party Store, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License within an existing party store located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Yale and Levan Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-4-2-11 be denied for the following reasons: IV (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. 9378 (2) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use, the site layout and its relation ' to streets giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the site will be hazardous to the neighborhood since it will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area. (3) The proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible with the residential uses of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-4-2-12 by Frizzell Cartage Company requesting waiver use approval to operate a truck terminal with outdoor parking of vehicles on property located on the east side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . Patricia Smith, Frizzell Cartage Company: When we were in before this area was used for a driveway on the south. There was a driveway there. The people 110 leasing the building will not use it on a regular basis but for emergency purposes. I have been asked to tell you that if they must pave that, they will do so. d Mr. Morrow: On the map you show the outside storage of vehicles and the only way to the rear yard is through the gravel area? Ms. Smith: Yes . Mr. Smith: I have been by the building many times, and it is a very attractive building. There was a huge truck there on Sunday. Someone had said only trailers would be parked there. In regard to the driveway to the south, there was some water and the run-off is not good. I think to asphalt from Merriman Road to the dock would enhance the building very much. I think it is important to keep the southern driveway open from the back building to the sidewalk and I believe paving will enhance it. The back section I see no reason to pave. Mr. Falk: I asked if he was going to keep it for emergencies. He agreed to either hard surface it if he keeps it or grass it. Ken Strusk: I am the owner of the property. I assume we are talking about the driveway from the fence to Merriman Road. Ms. Smith: We are talking about the fence to the beginning of the building. tJ Mr. Smith: I would recommend to the eastern edge of the building. Ms. Smith: We will agree to hard surface the driveway to the cyclone fence. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman , declared the public hearing on Petition 85-4-2-11 closed. 9379 1: On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #5-95-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-4-2-12 by Frizzell Cartage Company requesting waiver use approval to operate a truck terminal with outdoor parking of vehicles on property located on the east side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-4-2-12 be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that the southernmost driveway between Merriman Road and the cyclone fence be hardsurfaced with concrete or asphalt within ninety (90) days of this resolution; for the following reasons : (1) The proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use standards set forth in Section 16.11 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surround- ing uses in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance ' with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 11; adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-4-2-14 by Frank M. DiMattia requesting waiver use approval to construct a build- ing for general office uses on the east side of Farmington Road between Rayburn and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that when Westmore Avenue was vacated north of Rayburn Avenue, a full width easement was retained over the original street right- of-way to accommodate an existing sanitary sewer which outlets the Wood Creek Farms No. 3 Subdivision and, accordingly, it is recom- mended that the dumpster enclosure area and the protective wall shown on the petitioner's plan not be located within the 25' wide easement area. Mr. Shane explained the site plan, building elevation and landscape plan to the Commis- sion and interested persons in the audience. Frank DiMattia, 16902 W. Warren, Detroit, petitioner: We propose to build an office building and 3,600 square feet will be occupied by a real estate office. The main entrance to the building is from Farmington Road. There will be a secondary drive which is mostly required by the Fire Department. We will attempt to save as many trees as we can. We will landscape as proposed on the landscape plan. 30% of the site is proposed for landscaping. We would like a very attractive building. 9380 te We are asking the Commission for the waiver for the real estate office. I believe what we are proposing will be beneficial to the neigh borhood. Medical offices would require twice the parking as our general office building and twice the traffic would be created. I think this will be a big asset to the neighborhood. Frank Ogrocko, 33387 Broadmore Ct. : I purchasedthis home three years ago. We came to City Hall to find out what would be constructed behind us and were told it was P.S. All of a sudden it is general office meaning traffic seven days a week while P.S. would be open only five. There is an extreme amount of traffic, and it is a high accident area. My main objection is that being a property owner I bought thinking it would be professional office, not general office. Across the street, we have Earl Keim as well as another real estate office across the street where we have a lot of traffic. We have doctors' offices where there is not that much traffic when people make appoint- ments. Bernhard Andriekus, 33251 Rayburn: We get quite a bit of traffic with the school busses and the neighborhood traffic. The dust which we have had for ten years is unbearable. More building will ruin the whole neighborhood, I think. it should be paved. Mr. DiMattia: Usually the paving of the street is required by the City. We are willing to pave it and we will be assessed for half of the road and the people on the other side the other half. L Resident directly east of the building site: My complaint is about the problem of the dust. It is terrible. We have nothing but dust and the rest of the neighbors are concerned too. If we are going to have more traffic there, this has got to be taken care of. Mr. Morrow: Paving of streets is usually handled by the Council through a special assessment. You will be given an opportunity to deal with the paving of Rayburn when this petition is before the Council . Resident: I have lived there for five years. We were told that was professional service. Any summer afternoon I can wash my windows and an hour later they are covered with dust. Why come in and try to build a big mansion. Mr. Smith: I think people going to the facility will not use Rayburn, but will use Farmington Road instead. Mr. Falk: All the people seem to be saying the same thing and the Chairman has tried to explain that the paving of the road is not a matter for the Planning Commission. This gentleman has stated that he will fulfill his obligation and will be glad to pave his half of the road. The residents will have to pay for the other portion. We have no jurisdiction to assess for the paving of the road. This gentleman is proposing to go with a compactor and a greenbelt instead of the wall if it is approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. He is giving us more than we normally ask for in landscaping including an under- IL ground sprinkling system. Mrs. Andriekus, 33251 Rayburn: This will be right across from my driveway. Farmington 9381 is very busy and it is difficult to get out of Rayburn onto Farm- ington Road. There are a lot of accidents in this area because of the way one lane is cut off. Kenneth Kampman, 15638 Westmore: I have owned my property since 1946. What recourse do we have on the paving? I don't want to object to this man's pro- posed building. Mr. Morrow: This petition will be either approved or denied by recommendation tonight. If it is approved, it will go before the Council and you will have the opportunity to discuss the same thing with Council . At that time, it can be asked that they seriously consider paving. They will give you a number of options as to what they can do with this street. If it is denied and not appealed, you can approach the Council and tell them you want something done about the paving of that street. Mr. DiMattia: If dust seems to be a problem, we can eliminate the driveway on that street and have no problem. I don't need access on Rayburn and access on Farmington Road. Then it will not create any dust. The main entrance is on Farmington Road. Rayburn is the secondary entrance and I don't really need the secondary drive on the side. Mrs. Kampman, 15638 Westmore: I understand they will have a trash compactor. It will not be an incinerator, will it? Mr. Morrow: No, it will be a compactor. II Tim Ryan: I live on the site and would like to stay there. The traffic is a problem but it is not from the neighborhood. I suggest that you widen the driveway on Farmington Road and remove the one from Rayburn. Michael Taylor, 33351 Broadmore Ct. : My problem is one of traffic generation by this facility and the traffic the way it is currently. I assume there will be an increase in foot traffic and there will be a greenbelt. With this increased traffic at night, they can walk across a green- belt, but not through a wall . Paul Granzow, 33363 Broadmore Ct. : I live directly behind this . There is an easement for underground utilities and storm sewer. How are they going to build a wall with those easements there? Mr. Morrow: Was that easement addressed in the Engineer's letter? Mr. Nagy: Engineering's comments deal only with the east property line. If there is, in fact, an underground utility, it will be evaluated by the Engineering Division. If they find a problem, it would have to be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. You can't put a wall on the easement. Mr. Di:Mattia: There are no underground utilities on the north side of the property. We have not had a topographic survey, but we will if necessary. There is a 6' easement on our side and 6' on the other property. We have proposed a fence and there are four different fences which are accepted by the community. 9382 Mr. Morrow requested the Planning Director to seek verification on the underground utilities from the Engineering Division. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, ° Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-4-2-14 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #5-96-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-4-2-14 by Frank M. DiMattia requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for general office uses on the east side of Farm- ington Road between Rayburn and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-4-2-14 be approved subject to favorable action by the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a variance removing the require- ment for a protective wall on the east and north property lines and the following conditions: (1 ) that Site Plan dated 5/20/85, as revised, prepared by the F. M. DiMattia Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Landscape Plan dated 5/20/85, as revised, prepared by the F. M. DiMattia Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed prior IL to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that Building Elevation Plan dated 5/20/85, prepared by the F. M. DiMattia Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) The proposal complies with all of the specific and general waiver use standards set forth in Section 9.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is 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 of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 0 Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-5-2-16 by DiConti Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant at the southwest corner of Farmington and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28. J - - 9383 1: Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Division of Engineering stating that it appears that an easement was retained over the original vacated alley to accommodate Detroit Edison facilities and that the existing pole line within the vacated alley may have to be relocated in order to maintain specified clearances from the proposed building area. In addition, it is recommended that the three drive approaches be reviewed by both the Wayne County Road Commission and the Michigan Department of Transportation. David Jernigan, 26400 Lahser Road, Southfield, representing K.F.C. Take Home Food Company: We have requested that this matter be tabled for this evening. We are investigating some possibilities regarding the placement of the building on the site and we are in the process of getting a commitment or approval from the County for curb cut geo- metrics. Mr. Morrow: Because it is a public hearing, we will go forward with the hearing and then consider your request. Mr. Falk: There was a court case previously involving this site. The Planning Commission's position is that we should develop this land to the north as we have to the south. If there is one thing we have too much of it is fast food restaurants. I was hoping you were going to say you are thinking about locating some place else. liMr. Jernigan: I was aware of the court case but not the particulars . Angelo D'Orazio, 17823 Country Club: I own the office building next door to the south. I don't think this is a good place for a restaurant with the traffic and all . The first thing you know, they will be parking in my park- ing lot. Felix Padula, 16912 Yorkshire: We want to see what this will look like. Are there any plans. Mr. Morrow: The petitioner has asked us to table this so he can work on his site plan. When it is to be placed on a study meeting agenda, you will be notified of that meeting. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-4-2-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #5-97-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-5-2-16 by DiConti Architects requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant at the southwest corner of Farmington and School- craft Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 85-5-2-16 until the Planning Commis- sion's Study Meeting to be conducted on June 4, 1985 . 10i 7 Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. a ' 9384 '' Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-4-3-3 by Dannie L. & Brenda Miracle to vacate a portion of Laurel Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that they have no objections to the vacating of the road right-of- way subject to the retention of a full width easement for public utilities over the street right-of-way to be vacated. Dannie Miracle, 21825 Jefferson, Farmington Hills : We bought this property in 1975 in hopes of building a home. There were no sanitary sewer facilities and we were denied a permit to put in a septic tank. We would like now to build. The vacating of this property would give us control of the property and it would avoid bringing up traffic from Windridge . Mr. Morrow: Would vacating to the north end of your property satisfy yourplans? Mr. Miracle: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-4-3-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was IL #5-98-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-4-3-3 by Dannie L. & Branda Miracle to vacate a portion of Laurel Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 85-4-3-3 be approved for that portion only ling immediately'west of and abutting Lot 23 and that the balance of right-of-way lying north of Lot 23 not be vacated; subject vacating being subject to the retention of a full width easement to protect exist- ing public utilities, for the following reasons: (1) The subject right-of-way adjacent to Lot 23 is no longer needed to service adjacent property. (2) No reporting City department objects to the proposed vacating. (3) Laurel Road adjacent to Lots 8 and 9 of Fairway Subdivision should be retained as public right-of-way to allow for future access to the rear portions of lots facing Eight Mile Road in the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. lifMrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-5-3-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances to vacate a portion of Ashurst Avenue, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16. i 9385 4 Mr. Nagy:IV A letter from the Engineering Division notes that the description provided retains the 43' wide right-of-way at the rear of Lot 508 in order to provide access to the school site. The amount of public right-of-way to be retained behind Lot 508 could be adjusted de- pending upon the final site plans for the development of the school site. It also notes that should the right-of-way be vacated, a full width easement for public utilities should be retained over the same right-of-way. There is also a letter from Consumers Power Company requesting that a full with easement protection for possible future accessibility be provided. Ronald Bartholomew, 15755 Southampton: To whom does the vacated property revert, to the property owners now or those proposing to buy the property? Mr. Nagy: It would attach to the lots according to the widths. There would never be a road there; it would stay in its present state except that you would be able to use the property. Alice Gunderson, 15715 Southampton: Even if the property is purchased, I understand it doesn't make a difference. Is there a reason why you are tabling? Mr. Nagy: Some additional property may be needed in the future when the property is developed; only on the southerly corner of the property. The developer may want a more gradual curve to the road so there might be a need for a portion of the road for the development of the future road. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-5-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #5-99-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 21 , 1985 on Petition 85-5-3-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances to vacate a portion of Ashurst Avenue, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 85-4-3-4 until the Study Meeting to be conducted by the Planning Commission on June 18, 1985. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Sobolewski , Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 85-2-7-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VII of the Master Plan, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located south of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from medium density residential to office . There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, 1110 Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 85-2-7-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mrs . Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #5-100-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission, having 9386 conducted a public hearing on May 21 , 1985 for the purpose of amending Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, the same is hereby amended by changing the designation of property located south of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 from medium density residential to office for the following reasons: (1) The proposed amendment will reflect the current developing land uses on the subject lands. (2) The proposed amendment reflects the current Planning Commission goals and policies for future development along the Freeway corridors. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Public Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Morrow announced the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission will proceed with items pending before it. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falkand unanimously adopted, 1[00 it was #5-101-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School & Park Plan, by incorporating property located on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Inkster Roads in Section 36. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow and seconded by Mrs . Hildebrandt, it was #5-102-85 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 495th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on May 7, 1985, are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Naidow, Falk, Sobolewski , Smith, Morrow, NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Duggan ABSENT: Vyhnalek Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ° adopted. 9387 lie On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #5-103-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application #1666 by Paul Zsenyuk requesting approval to erect a wall sign on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Westmore Avenue in Section 3 be denied for the following reasons: (1 ) The proposed sign is not in keeping with the design image hoped to be achieved by the City within the several vicinity control areas throughout the City. (2) The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the proposed sign, as designed, is required to affect proper commercial identification for the subject site. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was #5-104-85 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Sign Permit Application #1711 requesting approval to erect a wall sign on a build- ing situated on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Seven Mile Road in Section 1 until the Planning Commission study meeting to be conducted on June 4, 1985. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Hildebrandt, Naidow, Falk, Sobolewski , Morrow NAYS: Kluver, Duggan, Smith ABSENT: Vyhnalek Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Duggan and unanimously adopted, it was #5-105-85 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 Petition 84-6-8-26 by Villanova Construction Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a proposal to construct commercial stores on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Parkview in Section 21 , be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Civic Center Plaza Phase II Plan 84D 602, dated 5/18/85, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 9388 (2) that the Building Elevation for Phase II addition dated 5/18/85, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the Revised Landscape Plan for Phase II addition which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that the petitioner submit to the Planning Commission a page from the lease stating that trash must be carried to the dumpster and not left outside on the adjacent premises . Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-106-85 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 84-9-2-30 by Apostolic Christian Church requesting waiver use approval to con- struct a nursing home and care facility for the aged on the south side of Wentworth Avenue, west of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #8131 , revised 3/25/85, prepared by T. Rogvoy, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 104 (2) that the Building Elevation Plan, revised date 3/19/85, prepared by T. Rogvoy, Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the Landscape Plan prepared by John Grissim & Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and the landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 496th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 21 , 1985 was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sue Sobolewski , Secretary - 1 ATTEST:\ R. Lee orrow Chairman ac