Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-04-21 . 9928 MINUTES OF THE 536th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 4 LIVONIA jOn Tuesday, April 21, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 536th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. C. Russ Smith, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. , with approx- imately 180 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Donna Naidow Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Herman Kluver Members absent: *Michael Soranno Richard Straub Jeanne Hildebrandt R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Smith informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will 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 11days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is i terminated. The Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after tonight. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is a rehearing of Petition 86-9-2-32 by Dominic Soave for waiver use approval to utilize an SDD and SDM License within a retail beverage store proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile and Northland in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Nagy: There is a petition in the file containing signatures of twenty four residents reaffirming their 100% opposition to this petition. There is also a letter from Allan and Cora Halse stating their opposition to the petition. A letter from John R. Carney, Attorney for the petitioner, requesting that the petition be amended and stating that the proposed SDD/SDM Licensed business will not be operated as a pizza carry-out, nor a party store. It states they plan to establish a niche as importers of fine wines, liquors and cheeses. *Mr. Soranno entered the meeting at 7:13 p.m. John Carney, 18518 Farmington Road, was present. Beverly Prieur, 19261 Newburgh: I am suffering now from being pushed up against com- mercial development and a fence. I am opposed to this. 4 • 9929 Paul St. Henry, 37500 Seven Mile Road: I would like to go on record as being opposed to the Liquor License, either one. You can buy beer or liquor at Meijer's at Eight Mile and Haggerty, Seven Mile and Farmington and Six Mile and Newburgh, all within one to one and a half miles. There is a commercial project for that area and there will be no residential area except in Section 5. This rezoning would primarily be for transient residents rather than the immediate area residents. Basically, what we are talking about is the petitioner as opposed to the residents in the area. I don't mind driving an extra mile for alcohol and I am speaking for the people in my area. There is also a race track in Northville and I am wondering about the traffic that would be generated by the interest in the liquor. Clarence Coveney, 19283 Newburgh: Locating this establishment in our area would ultimately lower the property values in the area. Our neighborhood is full of small children. I am here to ask you to deny the petition. Michael Linkevich, 37718 Northland: I agree with what has been said. What would this do to our neighborhood? The residents have expressed their unequivocal opposition to this petition. I have noticed over the years that there are kids who throw broken beer and liquor bottles along the road. Putting a liquor store here would increase that. There is a dead-end road down there and I have also seen people go down the street for social purposes and they have left all sorts of litter. I oppose this and know all the other residents do also. William Lute, 19358 Newburgh: I have come here so many times and every time it is to have the south 360 feet zoning changed and always it is the same thing, from residential to commercial. The Police are down there more times than you can shake a stick at. I am picking up beer cans and bottles from all along the highway all the time. I hope I never hit one. Give us a little consideration. Joseph Phillips, 19235 Bethany: We would like to see a suitable kind of business in the community. We have more than enough of these places. We would appreciate your consideration in trying to keep this out. Judy Gibbs, 19343 Bethany: I am opposed to this petition for all the reasons stated. I have too many children and therefore worry about their exposure to liquor. Mr. Sajdak, 37650 Northland: We moved to Livonia to get away from this type of thing. We really don't need this in Livonia. Mrs. Prieur: Something should be done about the gas station. The current construc- tion has affected the drainage on the adjacent properties. Mr. Kluver: I ask that a letter be sent to Engineering requesting them to make a field check to see that there is proper drainage during this construction and to have them contact Mrs. Prieur about it. Mr. Carney: This will not be a liquor store. They really want to run an import store, and they have been through a lot of pain in the hearings to have this rezoning. to Mr. Sobolewski: What was the original intent for the store when it was built? Mr. Carney: You will see that part of the property is C-2 and part P.S. It 9930 was purchased in about 1973. The problem was that we had to come up with a use for the property. The northern part is P.S. , the southern part is C-2. What we have done after many months is to try to get alternative uses for the property. The P.S. zoning there was a compromise. The P.S. can be used for office. 4 Mrs. Sobolewski: Was this originally to be a pizza place? ti Mr. Carney: There was an error when the petition was filed. It was never intended to be any kind of carry-out. This will be like a liquor emporium, by the bottle. We will not operate a so-called party store. Mrs. Sobolewski: What are the operating hours? Mr. Carney: 11:00 p.m. would be late. I don't think it will be open that late. Mrs. Sobolewski: What is the opening time? Mr. Carney: Before 11:00 a.m. Probably not later than 10:00 in the evening. Mr. Soranno: Do you see any difference in a party store and liquor store? Mr. Carney: A party store carries liquor. What I want to make clear is that we do not intend to run a party-store type operation. SDM and SDD is the same. We will have no milk, chips or any kind of pizza. Mr. Soranno: If someone comes in to buy a bottle of whiskey, is there any dif- ference in the way you will sell it? 3 Mr. Carney: No. 4 Mr. Soranno: Do you expect a different type of clientele? Mr. Carney: We will have liqueur, special wines, etc. ; a higher income bracket. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are there any in the City of Livonia like that? Mr. Carney: Showermans is the closest except that they have a lot of things we wouldn't have. Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you copying off any establishment in the area? Dominic Soave, petitioner: There is one in Birmingham, right downtown. Mr. Vyhnalek: Will you have magazines? Mr. Soave: No magazines. No lotto or anything like that. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is in your shopping center besides Primo's? Mr. Soave: There is a video shop. kNr. Vyhnalek: Do you own any other liquor stores? • Mr. Soave: No. 4 I • 9931 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 86-9-2-32 closed. 40n a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was 4 4 #4-76-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 86-9-2-32 by Dominic Soave for waiver use approval to utilize an SDD and SDM License within a retail beverage store proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile and Northland in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 86-9-2-32 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed uses are incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (2) The proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. (3) 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 1[: AYES: Kluver, Soranno, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Sobolewski, Vyhnalek ABSENT: Morrow, Hildebrandt, Straub FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-1-1-4 by K-1 Partners to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east and west of Gary Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to R-6. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition. There is also a letter in the file from Virginia Louiselle stating she cannot attend the public hearing but is in opposition to this rezoning. Lawrence Garon, Partner in K-1 Partners, petitioners: We belive this is the best zoning for the property. It was platted August 12, 1958. At that time, it was platted with the two lots on Five Mile quite a bit larger than the other platted lots. I think it is evident that since nothing has been done on that propoerty, it is indicated that single family homes are not the best and most viable use for the property. We are not proposing the office type plan for that property but condos J 9932 in the form of two-family unit buildings. We hope to sell approxi- mately 2,000 square foot homes with attached garages and basements in excess of $100,000. We are not seeking to create a transient 4 community. We are seeking to enhance the community that is there now. These homes would be sold on an as-sold basis and they are larger than the other homes in the area. There is no guarantee that someone won't buy and rent but that could be done with a single family home. The houses will be masonry and wood exterior, equal or better than the homes on that side of Five Mile Road whose values would not be that much. Mr. Soranno: You are going to put two two-story structures there? Mr. Garon: We are putting seven structures on two lots, three structures on one and four on the other. Every structure would be a two-family struc- ture. Right now we could put in seven one-family structures. Mrs. Sobolewski: Are you the owner and developer? Mr. Garon: Yes. Mrs. Sobolewski: Right now? Mr. Garon: We purchased the propoerty in July of 1986. Mr. Kluver: Was the purchase of the property contingent on rezoning? Mr. Garon: No, we own it outright. 1 Colonel Wayne Myers, 15127 Ellen: I have been there since 1959. We bought with the r impression that that would stay single family. Mr. Koloff tried to rezone it years ago and that was denied. I have a petition with 200 signature and we feel it would lower valuations in the neighbor- hood, encourage less permanent residents and disrupt the continuity of single family homes on the south side of Five Mile Road. Robert Nicolai, 15297 Riverside: They are putting fourteen units where there should be only five and at $100,000 each, that is a lot of bucks. I am against this. Resident on Ellen Drive: I disagree with the developer's estimation of the value of the homes in that area and I don't see anything in the area that this would be compatible to. He is only trying to get more units on that property and there is no reason for it. Frank Cassar, 14932 Ellen Drive: Any structure, other than a single family home, would distort and lower the values of all of the homes. I have lived there for fifteen years and spent money in my home and I would like to stay there. If this goes in, it will shut the area off for people here now. For the homes there now, we can probably get $85,000. If the value of property goes up, so will my home and I will be able to buy something somewhere else in the future. I can't see anything going up there other than what would add to our values. Michael Salmeto, 15073 Gary Lane: We have put a bit of money in our house and have 4 applied for an addition. I wouldn't have bought any place in this 9933 area if I wanted to live next to a rental unit. There are no rental units all up and down Five Mile. If you look in the West Chicago area where duplexes are, you might see what you might have there. I would like to see this stay single family. Ronald O'Donnell, 15234 Riverside: I am opposed to this. A home was put on the market and the asking price is $131,000. Mrs. Gary Plank, 15175 Gary Lane: We bought a house eight years ago and checked it out before we moved there because we didn't want to move near any- thing but residential. We have put a lot of money in our house. I lived near duplexes before and one side is kept up and one side is not kept up. Gary Plank, 15175 Gary Lane: We like our home and want to maintain it. That is what we are here for. We oppose this rezoning. Mrs. Kazmierczak, 15050 Ellen: I am opposed. Mr. Garon: I respect everybody's opinion but I think there is a little bit of a misconception. These will not be rental units and will not lower your home values and they won't block the subdivision off. There is probably as much condo ownership now as single family. People live in them and maintain them as their homes. The woman who just spoke was speaking of multiple rentals and they do lower values of homes but this is a far better development and will not lower values. The height will be the same as allowed for a two-story home. We are not asking for much more than allowed under the present Zoning Ordinance. Kay Milet, 15103 Ellen Drive: We do not want these buildings built at Five Mile and Gary Lane. They will be an eyesore. Parking will be a problem. There will be parking in front of our homes. I don 't want it and I don't think the other folks here want it either and I hope you consider our side of the petition. Jessica Rose, 15136 Gary Lane: I know for a fact that condos do bring the value down on propoerty when the back up to multiple rental buildings. I am an underwriter for a mortgage company. I am opposed to the petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-1-1-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was: #4-77-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987, on Petition 87-1-1-4 by K-1 Partners to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east and west of Gary Lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to R-6. , the City Planning Commis- sion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-1-1-4 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan recommendation of low-density residential land use for a the area. 9934 (2) The proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (3) The current zoning district, R-2, does provide for developoment of the subject lands into single family lots similar to the rest of the lots in Koloff's Greenbriar Subdivision. (4) The proposed zoning district would represent spot zoning in the area which is contrary to good planning practice. 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-2-1-11 by Richard M. Lewiston to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Joy and Hix Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, from C-2, P.S. and R-1 to R-7. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there are no City maintained storm sewer systems of sufficient size and capacity to accommodate the site development and it appears that it will be necessary to detain storm water run-off on the site and outlet the storm drainage in a restricted manner to the adjoining subdivi- sion areas. There are also letters in the file from Mr. and Mrs. Eugene T. Lewis, Mr. & Mrs. Robert Premo, Mr. & Mrs. Edward Stadler, Joe G. Wash, and the Dover-Arbor Neighborhood Association, all in 1Eopposition to the rezoning petition. Richard M. Lewiston, 21790 Coolidge Hwy, Oak Park: We are asking to amend a con- sent judgement entered between Applebaum/Arbor Drugs and the City of Livonia. Pursuant to that judgement, over one half of this property can be used in general commercial, approximately one acre for pro- fessional office and 5.4 acres for single family homes. Approximately 100,000 square feet of commercial space could be built on these five to six acres. Despite the fact that land presently zoned C-2 has a higher value, we seek to coordinate the zoning on all to permit us to build 120 units. We feel it is more suited for this type of develop- ment; three diverse developments. Market studies were done when Arbor owned the property. It was their judgement that there were more suitable locations for their drug store. We have the reputation of being in business forty years and of developing the highest quality single and multiple family developments. All the neighborhoods where our multiples have been located in other communities have all pro- gressed and are still operated by Sullivan-Smith and have improved with the neighborhood. I can think of no area more suited for high- quality multiple development. It is unlikely that a first class commercial or professional development could be developed on the property. This development would be a visual buffer between the traffic on both Joy and Hix Roads and the commercial uses on the south side of Joy Road, and the residential neighborhood in Livonia to the north and west of the property. Our developments in other communities have been owned by us for a long time and we intend to keep ownership of them. This is not primarily residential property. It is primarily commercial property. If this high-quality development does not go in, a very large commercial development will go in. 9935 Mr. Lewiston showed and explained a site plan of the development. t Sharon Cisco, 38812 Grandon: There are 209 homes in this subdivision in the south- east corner of Livonia and because of that, we have felt that we have been forgotten by Livonia. Because of that, we have pulled together over the last years on issues concerning us. We don't want 120 apartments that this man proposes to put on this property. Our property values have begun to rise. We have noticed an increase in our property values and would like to keep it that way and we don't feel this development will help in that way. Multiples and condos are going in all over the place. We ask that you deny this petition. I would like to present 490 signatures of residents in the area who ask that you deny this petition. Mr. Vyhnalek: Would you like a shopping center there? Mrs. Cisco: We would like some stable businesses there. Mr. Smith: I would like to ask Mr. Nagy to give us the type of businesses that could locate in C-2. Mr. Nagy: They would be general commercial businesses such as auto repairs, party stores, dry cleaners, carry-out pizza. Not restaurants but there is a provision within the C-2 regulations where a restaurant could be allowed. Mr. Smith: And, would you give them the P.S. uses? lbMr. Nagy: Medical offices, legal, engineering, architectural, accounting but not general offices like insurance or real estate. Joe Wash, 8874 Pere: I understand that an Ordinance has been passed where any new home built in Livonia must have a sump pump. We do not have a sump and this many units scare us. We have signatures of 96% of the homeowners abutting the property who protest any building on this property other than single family homes. There are apartments in the area and many more are planned. This is a well-kept neighborhood where homes are appreciating and still in high demand. Mr. Lewiston mentioned that we needed a buffer in there. If he thinks multiple dwellings would be a buffer, I disagree. Eileen Wilhelman, 9870 Knolson: I object to the petition because of the traffic situation and I don't believe this complex would help the situation at all. David Kiak, 9243 nolson: I oppose this petition also mainly for the reasons stated by the Engineering Division and also the schools wouldn't support the development. Mrs. Schmidt, 9326 Patton, President of the Dover Arbor Neighborhood Civic Assoc- iation: I have lived and worked in Livonia eighteen years. I love the area and don't want to see it cheapened. I have seen all kinds of problems in some of the surrounding communities and don't want those problems for this community. I am opposed to the petition. Michael Burdt, 38856 Grandon: I oppose the petition because there are apartments 1: down the street that are not fully rented. This would be better for 9936 us than a fast food pizza. Do we have a hearing on the C-2? Mr. Smith: No, he could build a shopping center tomorrow. Mr. Burdt: A liquor license? , Mr. Smith: No, but a pizza carry-out. Paul Jermanus, 9084 Deborah Ct. : I oppose the petition because of the storm sewer system and the effect on the neighborhood. That plot of property would hold about forty homes rather than 120 apartments. I believe the traffic created would put an undue burden on Hix Road. I would like to incorporate by reference the comments made by the mortgage company underwriter regarding lowering of property values where multiple rental units back to property. Mr. Smith: On the R-1 portion of this property, how many homes could be built? Mr. Lewiston: Eighteen homes. Raymond Jackola, 9089 Deborah Ct: We just bought this home a year ago in November. I sacrificed a great deal to get out of the apartment environment. I think there are enough apartments in Livonia and across the street in Westland. We don't need any more. Larry Reckling, 9227 Knolson: I object because of the traffic. I was the second family in the area almost twenty years ago. liiJoseph Genovese, 38774 Grandon: I would like to see more houses go in there. Robert Miller, 8988 Pere: I think this will detract from the area. I would like to see single family here. Mrs. Scholz, 38777 Northfield: There is a problem with traffic and it is difficult every day getting in and out of that subdivision. Also, there is a water shortage. Resident, 38606 Grandon: I at opposed to this because of the traffic and water shortage. Daniel Callahan, 9115 Marie: The traffic is very bad. There are kids who have to cross there and traffic goes through the stop sign all the time. I am against this and would like single family homes. Frances Blackburn, 9243 Marie: I am opposed to this rezoning for all those reasons. These are rental and not permanent residents of the area. They would not take pride in their homes as we do. Marie Nuyens, 9027 Butwell: I am opposed to the petition. Mrs. Larry Reckling, 9227 Knolson: I object on account of the kids who have to cross the road, and the traffic. Dennis Nasuti, 9134 Houghton: There is already a water problem in this area. I am concerned with the traffic that may be shifted over the Houghton. I 1:040, recommend that you deny the petition. 9937 Mrs. R. Landrum, 38655 Grandon: The Supreme Court has stated that single family residential is preferable to multiple. There will be an increase in traffic and I urge you not to allow this. , Ed Jezewski, 38433 Northfield: Dumpters get full in apartments and the garbage falls 1[0 out and attracts rats and other animals. We don't need this or the apartments. Leon Swan, 38910 Northfield: I oppose these apartments. Terry Martin, 9109 Deborah Ct. : What this will do is cause all the prople living in the development to go through our subdivision to get to I-275. I don't think this is beveficial to the people of Livonia and I urge you to turn down this zoning change. Carl Newsome, 38457 Grandon: I think the former petitioner admitted that multiples lower the value of homes. I object. John Cicala, 8964 Deborah Ct: I object. John Brambs, 38703 Grandon: I think it will lower the value of the homes in the are too, and I object. George Endreszl, 38775 Grandon: I was instrumental in having the property rezoned to residential and compromising for this zoning. I concur with my neighbors. I think the rezoning of R-1 would be better for the community. Hix is not a trunk road and cannot be developed and the Highway Department cannot widen Joy Road because of the sewer system. I object and urge the Commission to deny this. Mr. Soranno: I am curious because if a C-2 zone is carried through, you would have a wall abutting your property. Do you understand that? 4 There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this itemand Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-1-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was ##4-78-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-2-1-11 by Richard M. Lewiston to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Joy and Hix Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31 from C-2, P.S. , and R1 to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-1-11 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses which are already prevalent in the general area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmiony with the adjacent residential subdivision. (3) The proposed change of zoning would provide for uses which would be detrimental to the adjacent residential neighborhood because 111of the increase in volumes of traffic likely to be generated from uses permitted by the proposed zoning district. r 9938 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. to A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Soranno, Kluver, Sobolewski, Naidow NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Morrow, Hildebrandt, Straub Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-2-1-12 by David Phipps to rezone property located on the west side of Farming- Road between Five Mile and Lyndon in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to R-9II & P.S. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division notes that there are no City maintained storm sewer systems to service the subject site. There is also a letter in the file from Lyman B. Mathewson stating his objection to this proposal. Architect for the petitioner: This project will consist of 246 units for the elderly. It will be six stories and the R-9 would access from Farmington Road. R-9 is similar to the zoning south of this property. We propose the P.S. for a professional service development which would be used in conjunction with the elderly facility. David Phipps, 14931 Farmington Road: My family has owned this property since 1948 10 and have never petitioned to rezone it. I felt I would like to do something on behalf of my mother who is deceased and I would like name this after her. I would like to put this in the City. We were here to see the City become a City and my mother was very active in the City. Milton Holley, 14821 Farmington Road: I own parcel 6a. The whole area has been on City plans time and time again. At no time did they have plans for a six-story building. Senior housing is one of the biggest rip- offs today. I am not against senior housing but what we are fight- ing for is to keep the whole area open. There is a workable solu- tion. Up by the cemetery -- there is a strip in there -- that 60' must be for a road but the other half of the road was supposed to come down that vacant lot. I tried a long time ago to get all this property zoned civic center. I am concerned about the City of Livonia and the future and once you build a development like that on land, it is gone. What goes there should go in with the Civic Center. Lyman Matthewson, 14905 Farmington Road: I am opposed because I will be blocked in on the north and west sides. All that country living is gone. If I wanted to sell it, I wouldn't be able to because I would be looking at a prison wall. Also, there is no need for more pro- fessional service here at this time. Mr. Toupin, 14701 Farmington Road: I would like to see this area stay vacant and 1 open. We enjoy it very much the way it is. 4 9939 Mr. Phipps: I think all the lots are 600 to 660 feet in depth. It won't be like we would be building in the residents' backyards. I apologize for not being able to keep the land open for his pleasure but it is just not feasible to keep it vacant forever. Mr. Soranno: What about the width of Farmington Road.? li"r Mr. Phipps: There will be a small median down the center. Mrs. Sobolewski: Who will be building this? Mr. Phipps: We are leaning toward the builder that built Ziegler. Mrs. Sobolewski: Six stories high? Mr. Phipps: Yes. Mr. Vyhnalek: What is the waiting list for senior citizen housing? Mr. Nagy: Well over a year. Over 600 names on the list. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-1-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #4-79-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-2-1-12 by David Phipps to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Lyndon in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to R-9II & P.S. , the City IL Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-1-12 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changes of zoning are in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends the types of land uses permitted by the proposed zoning districts. (2) The proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and complimentary to the Civic Center and surrounding area. (3) The proposed change of zoning to the R-9II classification will provide for the development of senior citizen housing which is desperately needed in the City of Livonia. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Soranno, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Sobolewski ABSENT: Morrow, Hildebrandt, Straub Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on thenda isthPetitiontth side 3-1-13 by S.E.M.M.C. Company to rezone proper y located on • 9940 Seven Mile Road, west of Stamford in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to R-2 and C-1. Mr. Nagy:li: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition. o John Mahn, 15510 Farmington Road, representing S.E.M.M.C. Company, was present and showed a rendering of the proposed development to the Commission. Mrs. Sobolewski: Why are you changing from R-3? The other homes are R-3. Why not carry this through? Mr. Mahn: We don't think we would be able to sell them. This area is R-2. The lots will be 77' x 217' and brings us within $100,00 to $110,000. The 'also have to have a cul de sac. Stamford will be a dead-end. Douglas Nichols, 18808 Stamford: That was one of my concerns. I don't want Stam- ford to go all the way through. On the west side of Stamford, there has been a party store, two computer stores and now a real estate office. There are other offices not even filled. Carol Nowacki, 33733 Clarita: Our lots are 80' wide and I would like to see it stay that way. I think we have class and would like to keep it that way. I am opposed to the C-1 zoning. Another house to add to the house that is already there I think would add to the neighborhood. Edward Kennedy, 19044 Norwich: My major concern is traffic and the value of my house. There is a very nice row of trees there and it is secluded in my back yard. I am sure they would level all those trees. I am definitely opposed to looking out my window at an office building. 1[0 Dale Hartsock, 18745 Stamford: Stamford is already blocked off. There is a barrier there. People just drive around. I don't see any need for the C-1. There are many mini-malls in Livonia that are not filled. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-1-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-3-1-13 by S.E.M.M.G. to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, west of Stamford in the North- east 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to R-2 and C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-1-13 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning districts are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning in the area. (2) The proposed zoning districts represent a continuation of similar zoning on adjacent properties. II: (3) The proposed zoning will provide for commercial and single family residential uses that are consistent with existing development located east and north along Seven Mile Road and south along Stamford Avenue. 9941 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Vyhnalek, Smith I NAYS: Soranno, Sobolewski, Naidow ABSENT: Morrow, Hildebrandt, Straub Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion failed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #4-80-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-3-1-13 by S.E.M.M.G. Company to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, west of Stamford in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from R-3 to R-2 and C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-3-1-13 until the Study Meeting of May 5, 1987. A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Soranno, Vyhnalek, Naidow NAYS: Sobolewski, Smith ABSENT: Morrow, Hildebrandt, Straub Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution to adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-2-7 by Schaft/Quigley Development for waiver use approval for outdoor storage of contractor's equipment on property located on the south- west corner of Eight Mile Road and Melvin in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to this petition. Mr. Hibbler, 30015 W. Eight Mile Road, representing the petitioners: The company has been a combination of retail office and hardware store. We anticipate the building for light industrial use and will redesign the exterior and interior. We have been working closely with Livonia and are trying to do all we have to do to meet the construction code. We ask to use the back of the property for the use of parking some con- struction vehicles. More specifically, the occupants of the building would be a trenching and contracting company and asked to be permitted to locate trenching machines and vans for transporting equipment. Vans would be stored inside the building. Most of the area around is used for industrial uses. We will conform to the setback and include some landscaping and buffering. Mr. Vyhnalek: How many vans? 100 Mr. Hibbler: At any one time about five or six vans. Many will be on the site, so maybe three. • 9942 Mr. Vyhnalek: How about the trenchers? LMr. Hibbler: Two. 11 Mr. Vyhnalek: What would you do with the trenchers during the winter? 4 Mr. Hibbler: They would be mostly stored inside. Mrs. Sobolewski: In the winter there is not much work being done there? Mr. Hibbler: The contracting company is involved in activity for trenching but most are stored away. Mrs. Sobolewski: Five to six vans outside but nothing in the winter? Mr. Hibbler: I don't anticipate any. Kenneth Quigley, 30015 W. Eight Mile: We have four vans and three trenching machines. During the summer they are out on the job and during winter stored inside. In the winter there might be one trencher out. Mrs. Sobolewsk: If we limit it to that, you can live with that? Mr. Quigley: Yes. Mr. Hibbler: We want to asphalt it over to cut down on dust and dirt and, of course, 10 we will have some landscaping for a buffer. Mrs. Sobolewski: How do you describe the vans? I Mr. Quigley: Forty ton. Mr. Kluver: Approximately how many square feet of area do you intend to asphalt? Is it indicated on the site Plan? Mr. Quigley: Yes. Mr. Kluver: Does all your equipment have to be stored outside? Mr. Hibbler: No. Mr. Kluver: How much has to be stored outside that you can live with? Mr. Hibbler: Four vans and three trenchers. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-2-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #4-81-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-3-2-7 by Schaft/Quigley Development for waiver use approval for outdoor storage of contractor's equipment on property property located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Melvin in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-2-7 be approved subject to the following conditions: 9943 L (1) that Site Plan dated 1/19/87, prepared by Sprinkler Services Company which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (3) that the outside storage of equipment shall be limited to four (4) vans and three (3) trenchers; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies in all respects with the waiver use standards and requirements 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 of 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. . ) Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-2-8 by Andrew Ansara for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant 4 operation located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Northwest 1/7 of Section 17. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objections to this petition. Andrew Ansara, 24827 Plymouth Road: I would like to remodel the place. It is incon- venient for customers to park and go around the building to the entrance. If we move the entrance to the parking lot side and add a greenhouse it would improve the looks of the building and be competi- tive to the new businesses around. We have noticed that it is in- convenient in the winter because no matter where they park they have to go around the building to the entrance. Mr. Smith: You would close the entrance to the north? Mr. Ansara: Yes, and we also want to remodel the inside. Mr. Smith: Do you intend to do anything to the south side of the building? Mr. Ansara: We want to do a total remodelling job. ILMr. Sorrano: What about the dumpster? Mr. Ansara: We had it enclosed and put on a new gate. 4 Mr. Vyhnalek: Every since you expanded, it seems you don't have enough help. 9944 Mr. Ansara: We are trying. We are not adding much seating. We have a hard time 116-; getting help. Mr. Soranno: Has the question of the parking been resolved? ILMr. Nagy: Mr. Ansara has produced a document to rely on the shopping center parking. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-2-8 closed. Mr. Kluver: I think the traffic pattern that would be internal to the parking lot is an integral part of this development and should be looked at in detail. I think we should do this at a study session and we can get more insight as to the traffic even if he has an agreement with the shopping center. This will have a tremendous impact on the entrance to the west. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted it was #4-82-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-3-2-8 by Andrew Ansara for waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant operation located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Levan Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 87-3-2-8 until the Study Meeting of May 5, 1987. 4 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-2-9 by Michael Southers for waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt between St. Martins and Bretton in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicates that they have no objection to this petition. Michael Southers, 18555 Newburgh: This will be a shop with about seven or eight sandwiches. There are about 1,000 stores in 43 states. This will not turn into a greasy spoon; no grill, no fries, only salads and sub sandwiches. It will be approximately 70% carry-out. No break- fast. The only restaurants between Seven and Eight Mile are Big Boy and Ram's Horn. Mr. Soranno: No grill. Does that mean all your sandwiches are cold? Mr. Southers: We have a microwave and we do make our own bread. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-2-9 closed. ILOn a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was t 414-83-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 4 1987 on Petition 87-3-2-9 by Michael Southers for waiver use approval to operate a restaurant within an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between St. martins and Bretton in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition IL; 87-3-2-9 subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan as submitted by the petitioner dated 3/26/87 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the menu offered by the proposed use shall be limited to sandwiches and salads only; (3) that the seating capacity of the restaurant shall be limited to twenty eight (28) seats; for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies in every respect with the waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (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 II with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a drainage easement within Fairway Subdivision No. 2 located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Norfolk Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objection to this petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-2-3-21osed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #4-84-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a drainage easement within Fairway Subdivisiion No. 2 located on the west side of Gill Road, south of Norfolk Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-2-3-2 approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject easement is no longer required to provide for storm drainage in its present location. 9946 (2) The subject easement has been relocated so as to better serve the ti; proposed Summer Creek Subdivision. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance 1110 with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 2.10, Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms, of Zoning Ordinance #543 by incorporating language regarding the size of private garages. There was no on present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-85-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987 on Petition 87-3-6-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 2.10, Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms, of Zoning Ordinance #543 by incorporating language regarding the size of private garages, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petitioon 87-3-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: i (1) The proposed amendment will allow for more flexibility in the size of attached garages in residential districts. (2) The proposed amendment is in keeping with current trends in the construction of attached garages in the housing industry. 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing reslution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat for Katrina Villa Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, west of Wayne Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Attorney representing the petitioner states that because of objections by the Fire and Police Departments to the name of Martin S. Drive in this proposed subdivision, the petitioner has agreed to change the name of the proposed subdivision to Martin Villa Subdivision and to change the name of the street from Martin S. Drive to Katrina Drive. Also, that the petitioner will dedicate a 60' right-of-way in front of each and every lot in this proposed subdivision as required by the Engineering Department. In a letter from the Engineering Division, it was suggested that a 60' wide road dedication be provided for the entire width of Lot 10, t; and, in addition, based on a preliminary review of the proposed sanitary sewer system, it appears it will be necessary to outlet the sanitary sewer for the subdivision south in Van Road. The Police Division, Traffic Bureau, has indicated in a letter dated 4/2/87 that the 9947 proposed plat will involve the closing of about 608 feet of the II; existing Van Road. They recommend that the road width be set at 31 feet instead of the existing 28 feet and that the street name Martin S. Drive be changed. It is also pointed out that Seven Mile Road is only four lanes and the left turns will increase accident probability. The Fire Department has indicated in their letter of 4/7/87 that they have no objection to the development. Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road, Attorney representing the petitioner: The proposed subdivision plat consists of nineteen lots zoned R-4, curb and gutter type road, concrete pavement. That will be an improvment over the present road and will probably lead to improvement of Van to the south as the residents have been talking about. Karen Smith, 18801 Van Road: There is a southern portion not included on the map. Van is privately owned. I see perpetual use for the road with the development of this subdivision. I would like to know what this means to Van. Mr. Nagy: Within the subdivision only it will be a fully improved road. Once it is improved, it will be turned over to the City for maintenance. Your portion will remain privately owned. If the residents who share the private road of Van want to improve it, it would have to be put in with City standards and then turned over to the City. Mrs. Smith: The road is owned by one person. We have rights to it. .} Mr. Nagy: This is something that is being pursued by the Attorney and how it comes out is a private legal matter. I Dewey Johnson, 18817 Van Road: I am glad to see this but why don't they pave the old road. I was the first one to build on that road and one person owns it. Mr. Smith: I suggest that you get together with the developers about this. Roger Stone, 18805 Van Road: Are there adequate drainage facilities for this? Mr. Nagy: They will tie into a system in the subdivision to the south and bring it north along Van Road to serve this subdivision. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Martin Villa Sub- division closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #4-86-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987, the City Planning Commissioin does hereby recommend to the City County that the Preliminary Plat for Martin Villa Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, west of Wayne Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8, be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all applicable require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Rules and Regulations. 9948 (2) No reporting City Department has objected to the approval of the Preliminary Plat. (3) The proposed Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable solution to the development of the subject area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Smith, Chairman, announced the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat for Pine Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objection to the proposal. Also the Fire Department indicates they have no objection. Lidia Veri, 35189 Vargo, proprietor, was present. Ronald Hammer, 35010 Six Mile: I have about 900' of fence I have built and a small out-building. I would like to see the fence remain and if it has to come out because it is rusty, I would like it replaced. It helps to protect my barn. This was pasture land once. Mr. Smith: Is the fence on your property? Mr. Hammer: It is on both, on the dividing line. Mr. Nagy: It will be up to the individual property owner who will want to main- tain their own fence and a barb wire fence is not permitted in resi- dential sections. Mr. Smith; Are their horses back there now? Mr. Hammer: No, they are gone. Mr. Smith: The residents there will share the cost of a new fence with you. Mr. Vyhnalek: It seems logical that if people are going to have $150,000 homes they will want to put up a fence of their own. Mr. Hammer: But I don't see why I have to pay for a new fence because I don't want the fence taken down. Mr. Nagy: If you don't tie into the fence, you do not have to pay anything for the fence. Mr. Hammer: But I don't want it to come down. Mr. Nagy: It may not have to come down. Ronald Klenk, 17449 Laurel Drive: We were pleased to see the subdivision plan but 9949 It; at the corner of Vargo and Laurel Drive we would like to see the barrier maintained until the subdivision is completed. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on the Preliminary Plat for Pine Creek Sub- (' division closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-88-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 21, 1987, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Pine Creek Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9 be approved including the waiving of the open space dedication requirement since the subdivision is small and is adjacent to a City park site, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Preliminary Plat complies with all appolicable require- ments and regulations set forth in Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. (2) No reporting City Departments have objected to the approval of this Preliminary Plat. (3) The Preliminary Plat represents a reasonable solution to the develop- ment of the subject land. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #4-88-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Windridge Village Subdivision No. 6 proposed to be located south of Eight Mile Road, west of Gill Road in the West 1/2 of Section 4, for the following reasons: (1) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. (2) The City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat. (3) The Final Plat complies in every respect with the previously approved Preliminary Plat. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9950 #4-89-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 536th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 7, 1987, are approved. 110 Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 413-90-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 86-8-8-52 by Pallos Architects requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct three office buildings on the south side of Plymouth Road between Eckles and Alois in Section 30, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #021087, Sheet A-1, dated 4/15/87, prepared by Thomas Pallos, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; . (2) that Building Plan #021087, Sheet A-3, dated 4/15/87, prepared by Thomas Pallos, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan #021087, Sheet L-1, dated 4/20/87, prepared by Thomas Pallos, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to building occupancy and thereafter permanently main- tained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resoluton adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #4-91-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-8-8 by Robert MacPherson requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to reniovate an existing gas station located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Harrison and Garden in Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan #86-24, Sheet A-1, prepared by Robert J. MacPherson, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building and Canopy Plan #86-24, Sheet A-1, prepared by Robert J. MacPherson, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the approved landscaping shall be installed on the site upon completion of the building renovation and canopy instal- 9951 lation and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 110 adopted. i On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #4-92-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-4-8-9 by DeMattia & Associates requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing auto sales facility located on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Wayne Road in Section 32, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 87673, Sheet A-1, dated 4/7/87, prepared by DeMattia & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be a adhered to; (2) that Building Plan 87673, Sheet A-2, dated 4/7/87, prepared by DeMattia & Associates, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 1On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #4-93-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 00 87-4-8-10 by Laura M. Toy & Colleen Siembor requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Cranston and Blackburn in Section 34, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site and Landscape Plan for 32109 Plymouth Road, prepared by Laura M. Toy & Colleen Siembor, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; . (2) that the Building Plans as shown on Sheets 1, 2, 3, & 4, prepared by Laura M. Toy & Colleen Siembor, which are hereby apporoved shall be adhered to; (3) that the proposed landscaping shall be installed prior to occupancy of the new addition and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Soranno, it was #4-94-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request by Billie J. Meadows to construct a satellite dish antenna 9952 on property located at 18225 Fremont, subject to the following con- dition: (1) that the Site Plan and Specifications submitted with Permit 113363 by Billie J. Meadows are hereby approved and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 110 AYES: Sobolewski, Soranno, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Kluver, Vyhnalek Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 536th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 21, 1987, was adjourned at 11:230 p.m. CITY P ING COMMI ION (2 Donna J. Naidow, retary ATTEST: "/� ✓ C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac 9 td d