Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1987-06-16 9984 I: MINUTES OF THE 539th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, June 16, 1987, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 539th 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 7:00 p.m. , with approx- imately 80 interested persons in the audience. Members present: C. Russ Smith Donna Naidow Donald Vyhnalek Sue Sobolewski Jeanne Hildebrandt R. Lee Morrow Michael Soranno Richard Straub Members absent: Herman Kluver 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 days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions do not become effective until seven days after tonight. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying reso- lutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 87-4-1-19 by S.E.M.M. Company to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to C-1. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that they have no objection to the rezoning proposal. There is also a petition containing signatures of 478 residents on the surrounding streets who are opposed to the petition and stating that they reassert their desire to maintain lands in the area, especially east and west of Newburgh Road and between Six and Eight Mile Roads, for one family residential and oppose any spot zoning and high rise development. Joseph Durso, 35345 W. Seven Mile Road: I am not sure I understand the petition signed by the 478 residents when they are talking about high-rise buildings. All we are trying to do is rezone to a one-story building to accommodate a Pro-Golf store and other related local use stores. We are not interested in a high-rise at all. 9985 Mr. Smith: The question here is whether or not this is the proper location for C-1 zoning in the City of Livonia, not the height of the building. Mr. Durso: I agree and understand but the problem I have is that mainly the concern seems to be with what is going on across the street. Mr. Smith: I I am sure, but the question is if this is the proper place for C-1 zoning. Once you have the zoning, you could put in anything you want, not what you are speaking about now. Mr. Morrow requested that the petition from the 478 residents be read again. Mr. Smith: It appears that they understand the petition. Mr. Morrow: The key is spot zoning. Mr. Durso: It is a little hard to accept when they blanket an area. Mr. Morrow: Does your client own the property? Mr. Durso: No, we are purchasing subject to the rezoning to build a one-story complex. We are not interested in anything else. There is C-1 and P.S. across the street and C-1 next door. Mr. Morrow: So far there is no investment in the property. We established the fact that they are doing business in that area. My concern with the peti- tion is that increasing the commercial in the area would set the stage for the property north of that. I have a long-standing as one Com- 11 missioner as feeling that the area should be residential. Mr. Straub: This particular proposal is contrary to our Future Land Use Plan and would exceed what is normal growth in that area. I would have to oppose the petition on that grounds. The Future Land Use Plan sets up the area to provide residential or a professional service transitional use area between the commercial and residential. Resident, 36694 Clarita: I represent Gold Manor Civic Association. We submitted that petition with the cooperation of the entire neighborhood. The property owners adjoining our subdivision are also opposed. There is no doubt that the people around us are getting tired of all the commercial around us and the changing of the area. This is an example of an attempt to spot zone and there will be no end until all available land is used. It is an attempt to take a home and convert it to commercial. We urge you to deny the spot zoning. Jack Engebretson, 18871 Comstock: I represent citizens in the north quadrant of Livonia. We are opposed to this petition because of all the commercial zoning in the area. One of our concerns is the intersection of Seven Mile and Newburgh. Will it handle all these developoments? Getting through that intersection at certain times during the day is traumatic. A traffic study has been ordered by the City Council. We are also concerned about this petition serving as a spring board to the rezoning of all the property in this area. It will diminish the standard of living of the people in the area. We suggest it is time to pause and re-evaluate the development going in the area and we contend it is in the best interests of the citizens and City to deny this petition. 9986 Tito Coronado, 18807 Comstock: I have heard Mr. Shenkman say that he is interested in turning this section into a major business section and making it into a city within a city. They don't care that most of us have moved into this area and that that is not in our best interests. They don't seem to care that their plans are inconsistent with the City's plans. We are asking you for a continued show of good faith by voting against this proposal to maintain the present life style of the area and so that we citizens and the City might work together to bring forth a plan that would bring forth acceptable commercial areas that do not overwhelm the exist- ing neighborhoods. William Lute, 19359 Newburgh: I am 100% against this rezoning. I have lived here for a long time and watched the City grow and all the old farms are gone. If you rezone this, pretty soon a big bulldozer will come in and take out my Dad's place and the next thing I know, you will be at my place. Come out to my place. I would like to show you and explain some things to you. So far, all the talking I have done hasn't done any good. If there is anything you can do -- because I don't think the Council does anything about it, but you ladies and gentlemen sit here and listen but it doesn't seem to help us any. I just hope I win on this one. Mr. Smith; We appreciate your comments and you speak from the heart. I think the gentlemen before you reinforced what you said. With 400 plus signa- tures of people who say they don't want this, it will be weighed by the Commission along with your comments. John Casey, 19377 Fitzgerald: I collected the names on that petition and everybody I talked to clearly and specifically were concerned with that piece of li, land. They do not want a piece of residential land turned into com- mercial. Commercial development in this area would destroy our neigh- borhood. Employee at Pro Golf: I work for Pro Golf. We are very ecstatic with Livonia as far as business goes. We find the location is great for consumers who want to purchase golf equipment, which is the reason we pursued this. Re- gardless of the outcome, Pro Golf would like to thank Livonia for participating with us. Jack Schwartz, Pro Golf: We take great pride in the reception Livonia has given us us and a business, like a community, must undergo change. A community will either grow up or down as business goes up or down and the time seems logical for intelligent growth in Livonia. I think Pro Golf compliments that and if we were to make a model Pro Golf store, it would represent Pro Golf stores all over the world. This would be a very intelligent change in the community and we would be very happy to work with the communiity to give them exactly what they are asking of us. Mr. Smith: All of these comments are related to site plan use approval and not zoning and that is what we are discussing tonight - zoning. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-4-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was t #6-125-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-4-1-19 by S.E.M.M. Company to rezone property located on 9987 the east side of Newburgh Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the South- west 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-4-1-19 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would invite similar requests for changes of zoning north along Newburgh Road thus leading to strip commercial zoning in the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be incompatible to and not in harmony with the residential uses in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan which recommends a low-density residential use for the area. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Straub, Sobolewski, Soranno, Vyhnalek, Naidow, Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Hildebrandt ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 3 Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-5-1-20 by Donald & Charles Colsher to rezone property located on the north side of Bretton Road between Middlebelt and Louise in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from P.L. to RUFA. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states that they have no objection to this proposal. The petitioners were not present at the meeting. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-1-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno and seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt, it was: #6-12-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-5-1-20 by Donald & Charles Colsher to rezone property located on the north side of Bretton Road between Middlebelt and Louise in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from P.L. to RUFA, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-1-20 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject parcel is no longer needed by the Clarenceville School District for public school uses. (2) The proposed change of zoning will provide an opportunity for the subject property to be put to private use and on the tax rolls. 9988 (3) The proposed change of zoning will give the subject parcel the same zoning designation as the adjacent property in 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-5-1-21 by Philip Barth to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Curtis and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-1 to P.S. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there are no City maintained storm sewer systems readily available to service the proposed zoning area. Mr. Smith: This petition supports the Future Land Use Plan? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it does. Philip Barth, 18845 Beech Daly: There is a storm drain running east and west along Pickford Avenue approximately 80 feet north of the property and there is an easement running on the back of the property that would run through to the storm drainage on Pickford. I believe that with the cooperation of the adjoining owners to the south, we would solve any ' storm drainage problem that would be involved with this. Mr. Morrow: Do you think some of the concerns of the residents would also be solved, like the storm water, with the development of your property? Mr. Barth: Absolutely. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this itemand Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #6-127-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing have been held on June 16, 1987 by Philip Barth to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Curtis and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-1 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-1-21 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is in compliance with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends general office use for the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with recent changes in zoning in the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding residential uses in the area. , 9989 1[1, FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance 4 with the provisions of Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 4 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Soranno, Morrow, Straub, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Hildebrandt ABSENT: Kluver 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 87-5-1-22 by Unity of Livonia to rezone property located north of Five Mile Road, west of Harrison in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from P.S. to R-9, and from R-9I and R-7 to RUF. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there are no engineering problems in connection with the proposal. There is also a letter in the file from University Village Partnership stating that it is with their full knowledge that the petition is being sought and their full hope that the Board approves the rezoning request, and a letter from Allie F. Fayz, owner of Harrison Square Plaza, stating they are in full agreement with this petition. Mr. Smith: Mr. Nagy, would you give us a little history on this? 1100 Mr. Nagy: It is a former elementary school site. Mr. Spiro was successful in acquiring the property from the Livonia School System. Mr. Spiro, at that time, petitioned for the rezoning. It was his intention to utilize the existing building for expansion of the existing convalescent home. That never came to pass and this petitioner is attempting to acquire the property, and he is here tonight. Mark Sempke, 25621 Rutledge Crossing, Farmington Hills: We would like to build a sanctuary with 1,000 seats and an administration building over the next three years. Then develop the existing building into school rooms with retirement housing in the area at the northwest corner. That would be in three to six years. The final phase would be to put in a retreat center and physical fitness building. Access would be from Harrison. This would be beneficial to the community and we hope the community accepts it. Mr. Larsen, 15423 Harrison, was present and objected to the petition because of the plans to exit onto Harrison and wanted to see a road out to Roycroft. He felt it unfair to dump all the traffic on Harrison. Mr. Morrow: We might remind the people that we are talking about zoning and some of the things that they are concerned about are not zoning matters. Gary Garland, 15809 Harrison: When the zoning was changed, nobody ever said the I; property would ever be split up, and the old design was based on the exit onto Five Mile. Now the Engineering Department says there should not be traffic out on Five Mile Road. I moved there when it was a school and I totally understood that the City didn't need a vacant build- 9990 ing. When University wanted the rezoning, it was still acceptable to me. Now, you say this is down-grading but you want me to accept a sanctuary, a school, a church, a retreat, apartments and a health fitness ILcenter. The church needs all this? There is no tax base -- they are tax free. The Church didn't tell you that if this zoning is changed, they can put the traffic anywhere they want and they can sell the property. University's plans were always based on access to Five Mile Road only. And, the wall -- my wife doesn't want to go out in the back yard and look at a solid, unpierced wall. If this were developed RUF, you would have 32 homes there and nobody would object to that but if you want to give a waiver for this kind of stuff, I think it would be totally un- consionable and is totally adverse to what was said before. To take this sixteen acres that was a school and turn it into residential, would be totally acceptable, but to take it and turn it into a resort I think would be terrible. Mr. Morrow: With the current zoning and if a proper site plan were brought in, within a matter of months a development such as that could go in. Mr. Smith said he felt it was a down-grade of the zoning and whether we approve it or don't approve it, you are faced with something less intensive that could go in in a matter of months. Charlotte Eickhoff, 28900 Rayburn: Rayburn and Roycraft have one way in and that is Middlebelt. At the end is where they want to put the two story building. If they wanted to rezone all this back to RUF, I would be happy with that. We didn't want this at first when it was said this property will be put back on the bax base. Why can't they rezone it all to RUF? I: Mr. Smith: Because they don't want to. Gary Latzman, 15840 Harrison: I built a new home on Harrison and I am a residential builder also. How can they put all these different things on the same zoning? How can they build a fitness center in an RUF zone? Mr. Nagy; It is a valid accessory use of the school property. Mr. Latzman: How about the sanctuary? Mr. Nagy: That is a waiver use. Mr. Latzman: There we go -- everything is a waiver use. Everything was approved before with the stipulation that the traffic would go out to Five Mile. How does this fit in with the Land Use Plan? And, if it is approved for RUF and when they get ready to build the sanctuary, it will be up to the Commission to approve it? Mr. Nagy: Absolutely not. There will be another hearing just like this one and he will need to bring in plans showing development of the site. The question tonight is only whether or not we should have the zoning. Mr. Latzman: What I feel here is that we are trying to be convinced that the zoning is going to be changed the way the people want it zoned but that the property won't be used that way. toMichele Behrman, 28515 Broadmoor: I have a problem with the current zoning. A four- story senior citizen residential building would be needed in Livonia but a sanctuary with 1,000 seats would be several thousand people every 9991 - Sunday morning. I enjoy my yard and this will be a disruption with all the cars in the area. There are many young people in the area with small 1[0 children. I don't care if they put in seniors there but my objection is the Church. Lee Jacobs, 15360 Harrison: The plan really looks great but I can't see one to three thousand cars passing my house on Sunday mornings. If it was all zoned for houses, sixty-eight cars wouldn't bother me. Vernon Weber, 15444 Harrison: When Mr. Spiro was trying to get this, Mr. Ventura said no four-story buildings would go in there -- only three stories. It is not the Church that bothers me, it is all these other things in the back. The brochure that was sent around said that Harrison was going to be widened to three lanes. When will that be discussed? Robert Pollock, 29056 Roycroft: This has nothing to do with site plan approval, only zoning? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Pollock: Then I would be for the downgrading. Mr. Smith: We are talking only about zoning and like the man said, this could be ten years down the road. Mr. Garland: I don't think this is a downgrade at all when you're going to put all these uses on the property and they don't even pay taxes. I own 400' and I would be very happy if this site is all R-9I. Mr. Morrow: I think what we have tonight is a classic example of mixing site plan 110 and zoning. We will have to go through this whole process again when he is ready to begin. To say that going from R-9I to RUF is not a down grade I think is an inaccuracy. You are looking at that site plan and perhaps we shouldn't be looking at the site plan. The petitioner is trying to give his concept and he has been honest but you remember the other site plan and that one is out the window. Ms. Keutgen, 28501 Broadmoor: What should we do? Can we petition? Where do we go from here? Mr. Smith: You can't petition because you don't own the property. If this is approved, each time they build a building, we will have another public hearing and you will be able to guide them as to how you want each build- ing developed. Mr. Morrow: The choice we have is, do we go from professional service to senior citizen or four-story senior citizen to RUF. That is basically the question. All this other stuff is handled by waiver of use and if you were notified for this public hearing, you will be notified for those public hearings. Ralph Moore, 28409 Broadmoor: Why does Unity need the zoning change? They can build what they want in the P.S. zoning. Mr. Nagy:Ilw They could but it would be more of a convalescent home with medical. Shelley Mangas, 28880 Rayburn: This affects me very much. I can't believe you would 9992 approve a two-story building in a ranch home area. It will stick out like a sore thumb, and fifty feet for the greenbelt is only like from my drive to another drive. It is not very wide. , Mr. Morrow: In the interest of time, I suggest that we keep the discussion purely to zoning. Resident, 15432 Harrison: I object because of the school and traffic. If it should be approved, I think the entrance should be only on Five Mile. Mr. Semke: Thank you for your opinions. We appreciate them because we are a part of the community, too. I would like to think we took our first step tonight in bringing something positive to the City. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-1-22 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnaklek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski, it was #6-129-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-5-1-22 by Unity of Livonia to rezone property located north of Five Mile Road, west of Harrison in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from P.S, to R-9 and from R-9I and R-7 to RUF, the City Planning Commis- sion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-1-22 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changes of zoning are compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (2) The proposed changes of zoning represent a change to more restrictive zoning districts. (3) The proposed changes of zoning will provide for additional senior citizen housing for the City and will provide for the use of a closed structure formerly used for public school purposes. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Vyhnalek, Sobolewski, Hildebrandt, Morrow, Straub, Naidow, Smith NAYS: Soranno ABSENT: Kluver 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 87-5-2-15 by Lidia Veri for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a proposed bakery proposed to be located on the north Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this petition. 4 , 9993 Lidia Veri, 35189 Vargo: We are opening a bakery but we will also sell take-home pizza and other items and I think people would like to pick up some wine and beer to take home. It would not be like a party store. It is for convenience more than anything else. r Mr. Smith: You are aware that you do not comply with the Ordinance. Mrs. Veri: Yes, but I found out that if I am denied by the Planning Commission, then I would go to the Zoning Board. Mr. Smith: The Planning Commission finds non-compliance and a variance would be required. There is that technicality about the Church being closer than 400 feet. Mr. Nagy: The Commission could deny this if it so determines but you have the right to approve it subject to the petitioner going to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. Robert Candlish, 32415 W. Seven Mile: Some time back, the neighborhood submitted a petition to both Livonia and to the County because we were concerned with the traffic on Seven Mile. At that time, it was proposed to have a T-intersection for access to the apartments and to the commercial development. The County concurred with our objection to the T-inter- section because it would make it impossible to put up a light in that area between Farmington Road and Loveland which, I would say, is the most hazardous traffic area in Livonia. Somehow there is a curb cut to the building that has already been denied. We have objection to further commercial development easterly and the City assured us that we would not get a party store. We don't like it. { Mr. Smith: It is an approved use, but from what I hear, you are opposed to beer and wine in that location. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-2-15 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-128-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-5-2-15 by Lidia Veri for waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a bakery proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-2-15 be denied for the following reason: (1) The proposed use fails to comply with the waiver use standard set forth in Section 10.03(g)(2) of Zoning Ordinance #543 which requires that such proposed SDM Licensed establishment shall be located at least four hundred (400) feet distant from any church building as measured from the nearest point of the building pro- posed to be licensed to the existing church building. 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. 1; Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 9994 adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #6-128a-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to 14: waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period concern- ing effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 87-5-2-15 by Lidia Veri for Waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a bakery proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3. 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 87-5-2-16 by Michael Boggio Associates for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping plaza on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Spanich Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states that they have no objection to this proposal. There is also a letter in the file from the petitioner requesting the -Planning Commission's consideration in waiving the seven day effective date to allow their project to proceed on to the City Council for their consideration as soon as possible. Michael Boggio, 255 S. Woodward, Birmingham, presented a site plan to the Commission and audience. Mr. Boggio: The proposal is for a 120,000 square foot shopping center with 729 parking spaces. Thea area bordering on Spanich Court has a 50' area for a greenbelt. Along Five Mile there is a 25' greenbelt and all landscaped areas are bermed. All loading and transformers are located in the rear of the building. Light poles are 20' . There is a wall on the south property line where it abuts residential property. We plan to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a portion of the wall to be waived to take advantage of a greenbelt in that are. We intend to use maintenance-free materials -- brick, aluminum, dryvit and a little stained cedar siding. The heights of the buildings will vary from 18' to 28' . We will have one tower -- an architectural landmark which would be 35' high. The wall will be scored block, and painted. We wish to address the pylon sign but would like to come back later on the sign. Mr. Soranno: Last week we talked about the roof top units and whether or not they will be screened. Have you considered that? Mr. Boggio: At this time we haven't. The units are back far enough on the Five Mile Road side so that they would not be visible from Five Mile. Mr. Soranno: I am really impressed with what you have done with the property and I would like to see the units screened to put the finishing touch on the project. Mr. Boggio: If the Board feels it is necessary, we will comply. 9995 Mr. Morrow:I; A good portion will be screened but we won't know that until it's done. Is there something that can be placed on the plan about screening if and when it needs to be done? Mr. Nagy: The Commission could make that a condition of approval and if the petitioner knows that, the petitioner can take that into considera- tion and plan for it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-2-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-130-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-5-2-16 by Michael Boggio Associates for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping plaza on the south side of Five Mile Road beterrn Bainbridge and Spanich Court in the Norhtwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-2-16 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan dated 6/12/87, prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan dated 6/12/87, prepared by Michael A. Boggio Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; IL (3) that the Landscape Plan marked LS-1, dated 4/25/87, prepared by Calvin Hall & Associates, Landscape Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and the landscape materials shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (4) that any proposed signage shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit; and (5) that any roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 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 ti surrounding uses in the area. (4) The proposal is well designed taking into account the need to buffer the adjacent residents and to minimize the impact 9996 on adjacent residential areas. 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-131-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Com- mission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 87-5-2-16 by Michael Boggio Associates for waiver use approval to construct a retail shopping plaza on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Spanich Court in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23. 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 87-5-2-17 by John Dinan for waiver use approval to construct an office building for general office uses on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Division states in their letter that they have no objection to this proposal. Ken Czarnomski, Architect, 21999 Farmington Road, Farmington Hills: After studying the site and area, we decided that general office for special services would be the best use for the property. It will have a residential facade. The dumpster has been eliminated and one additional parking space added. Mrs. Sobolewski: Is Mr. Dinan coming back with a sign plan? Mr. Czarnomski: Yes, he will eventually have to do that. Laverne Smith, 37596 Bloomfield: Is there an ordinance that they have to put up a solid wall? Mr. Smith; Yes. Ms. Smith: Then my only request is that they match the wall that is already there. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-2-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #6-132-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 by John Dinan for waiver use approval to construct an office building for general office uses on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does here recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-2-17 be approved subject • 9997 to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan dated 5/87, marked Sheet A-1, prepared by Architectural Resource Associates P.S. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall thereafter be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2, dated 5/87, prepared by Architectural Resource Associates P.C. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that the wall to be constructed on the site shall match the existing wall; and (5) that there shall be no trash dumpsters located on the site; for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to accommdodate the proposed use. (2) The proposed use complies with all of the waiver use standards set forth in Section 9.03 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 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 87-5-2-18 by William Roskelly for waiver use approval to construct an automatic car wash on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan and Yale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division states that there are no City maintained storm sewers readily available to service this site and that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent in this area. William Roskelly, 15126 Beech Daly, Redford: We will be submitting this to the State Highway Department for their permission for a restricted run-off. Be- cause of the size of the area, we have room for on-site retention. The dedication of Plymouth Road will be taken care of at the time of Site Plan approval. We are putting a 152' x 37' building on a 150' x 500' lot with considerable greenbelt as the Commission requests. Mr. Smith: How much greenbelt? Is Mr. Roskelly: In excess of 200' . 9998 Mr. Soranno: Will you recycyle the wash water? tMr. Roskelly: There are retention tanks on the side of the building and it is re- cycled water. It is not the storm run-off water. Guy Smith, 35924 Leon: We have had problems with water from this area flowing down to our land. I had to make an artificial berm to keep it away. I would like to see a plan showing this. Mr. Roskelly showed Mr. Smith a site plan. William McIntyre, 35996 Leon: Are you deadlocking this piece of property? Mr. Smith: I think it would be. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-2-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was #6-133-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-5-2-18 by William Roskelly for waiver use approval to construct an automatic car wash on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan and Yale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Com- missijon does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-2-18 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Revised Site Plan dated 6/16/87, prepared by Basney & Smith, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; t (2) that Building Elevation Plan dated 6/8/87, marked Sheet 2 of 5, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan dated 5/11/87, prepared by Basney & Smith, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscaping installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a health condition; and (4) that any roof-top mechanical units shall be screened from public view; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies in every respect with the waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section 11.03 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 an 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 Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: C 9999 AYES: Sobolewski, Straub, Hildebrandt. Soranno, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Naidow ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, it was #6-134-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Com- mission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven-day period concerning Petition 87-5-2-18 by William Roskelly for waiver use approval to con- struct an automatic car wash on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan and Yale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32. 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 87-5-2-19 by Bob George for waiver use approval to utilize an existing residence located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Angling in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 for general office purposes. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states that it does not appear that the site development is predicated on filling any of the designated floodplain area for the Upper Rouge River. The letter also notes that Angling Road has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (43 feet) west of the centerline in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. Bob George, Mt. Pleasant: This is being used for a residence right now. No extension is planned at the time. It will be used for a home improvement company. No public coming into the building. There will be five employees. I have submitted a site plan to the Commission. Mr. Vyhnalek: The site is being developed but only 2.24 acres. What is the balance going to be used for? Mr. George: I have no plans for the balance. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have plans to put up a building along Eight Mile in the future? Mr. George: No. Mrs. Naidow: How much land is left to build after you take out the flood plain? Mr. Bakewell: About 2/3 of the lot. Mrs. Naidow: You are putting on a new garage door. Why are you keeping the garage if it's going to be office? t Mr. George: The owner would like to keep it for his personal use. He is in a wheel chair. Mr. Soranno: Is there a dumpster on the site? 10,000 Mr. George: We proposed to put a dumpter on the site. Mr. Soranno: Can we modify the site plan to remove the dumpter? Mr. George: I would be happy to. There are only four or five employees there. Mr. Sobolewski: What is the name of your company? Mr. George: Able Products. Resident on Angling: There is ahouse there now and will this bring a flow of traffic? Mr. Smith: There are only four employees and there will not be a problem. Maximum of six cars. There was no on else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-5-2-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was #6-135-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-5-2-19 by Bob George for waiver use approval to utilize an existing residence located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Angling in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 for general office purposes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-5-2-19 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan prepared by Richard A. Zischke, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; t (2) that the Building Elevation Plan prepared by Richard A. Zischke, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that there shall be no outside storage of trash; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with all 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. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing reslution adopted. Mrs. Naidow, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 87-3-3-4 by Doris Batten requesting to vacate a portion of an easement located north of and adjacent to Lot 472 of Supervisors Livonia Plat No. 8, west of Oporto in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Shane: According to a letter in the file from the Engineering Division, the , 10,00 legal description in connection with this petition contains five feet of the original easement area to accommodate an existing sanitray sewer along the southerly limits of the original Pembroke Avenue. , Doris Batten: In 1983, the Council approved the closing of Pembroke. Thirty feet was recorded as being deeded to me. Mr. Nagy: The City vacated the former right-of-way but retained the full width easement over the right-of-way. She is asking that we vacate the easement. The purpose is that the buildable area of her lot would be increased. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you plan on building a house there? Ms. Batten: Yes. Kynis Maynor, 19828 Doris: Is that all you are vacating? We have no objection to this but would like it extended to Doris so we can then put in some greenery. Mr. Nagy: The petitioner is interested only in her lot but the City can vacate it if it is thought to be of benefit to the neighborhood. We will look at it separately in a future petition now that you have requested it. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 87-3-3-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted,it was a #6-136-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 16, 1987 on Petition 87-3-3-4 by Doris Batten requesting to vacate a portion of an easement located north of and adjacent to Lot 472 of Supervisors Livonia Plat No. 8, west of Oporto in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 87-3-3-4 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject easement is no longer required do protect public utilities. (2) By the abandonment of the subject easement, the property is more usable for private purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.08.030 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. Mr. Smith, Chairman, announced the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted it was #6-137-87 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 537th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 2, 1987 are approved. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 1: adopted. 10,002 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was 46-138-87 RESOLVED that, The City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the 1; City Council that the Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 83-9-8-24 for approval of all plans in connection with a propsal to construct a drive-thru convenience window on the existing restaurant located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Middlebelt in Section 12 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Revised Site Plan dated 5/12/87, prepared by Basney & Smith, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that Landscape Plan dated 6/11/87, prepared by Burger King Corporation, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscaping installed shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Hildebrandt, seconded by Mr. Straub and unanimously adopted it was #6-139-87 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 5/15/87 from American Legion Post No. 32, the City Paning ition 84�9i8S34nfores theereby re-affirm construction ofias s previous approval of Pet building on the east side of Newburgh Road between Ann Arbor Trail and Joy Road in Section 32 subject to the same conditions as were imposed on the petition by Planning Commission Resolution #10-217-84, dated October 17, 1984. t: Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #6-140-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Brownie's Sign Company on behalf of The Michigan Group to erect two wall signs on a building located at 17000 S. Laurel Park Drive be approved subject to the follow- ing condition: (1) that the Sign Graphics prepared by Brownie's Sign Company for two 34.5 square-foot wall signs shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Straub, seconded by Mr. Soranno and unanimously adopted, it was #6-141-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning omissi b does herSignrServmicedcto,the City Council that Sign Permit A p Y 41, 10,003 Inc. , on behalf of Waterbed Mart, to erect a wall sign on a building located at 18979 Middlebelt be approved subject to the following con- dition: 144: (1) that the Sign Graphics prepared by A.A.A. Sign Service Co. , Inc. , for a twenty square-foot wall sign shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Straub, it was #6-142-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 87-6-8-18 by Alexander Bogaets & Associates for approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct retail stores on the northwest corner of Joy Road and Newburgh in Section 31 subject to the following conditions: (1) that Revised Site Plan dated 6/12/87, prepared by Alexander V. Bogaets & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Revised Landscape Plan dated 6/12/87, prepared by Ludwig & Associates, Landscape Architects, is hereby approved and the landscape materials shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (3) that Revised Building Elevation Plan dated 6/12/87, prepared by Alexander V. Bogaets & Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Straub, Hildebrandt, Soranno, Sobolewski, Vyhnalek, Smith NAYS: Naidow ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Soranno, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #6-142-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Sign Permit Application by Ed Bezilla, Visual Entities, on behalf of Ameri Center of Livonia to erect a ground sign on property located at 39111 Six Mile Road be approved subject to the following con- dition: (1) that the Sign Graphics prepared by Ameri Center of Livonia for a 3' x 8' , twenty-four square-foot ground sign four feet high shall be adhered to. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 10,004 On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, tit was #6-144-87 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Sunset Park Estates Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Louise Avenue, north of Six Mile Road and west of Middle- belt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 for the following reasons: (1) that all financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor of the Subdivision by the City have been complied with. (2) The City Engineer has no objection to approval of the Final Plat. (3) The Final Plat is drawn in full compliance with the previously approved Preliminary Plat. Mr. Smith, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 539th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 16, 1987 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. CIT/-PLANNING COMMI SION C P(A4.4. 771 Donna J. Nai ow, Secretary ATTEST: C. Russ Smith, Chairman ac