Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1983-07-19 7976 MINUTES OF THE 458th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA • On Tuesday, July 19, 1983, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 458th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, called the meeting to order at 8: 10 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew *Judith Scurto Sue Sobolewski Joseph J, Falk Donna Naidow Donald Vyhnalek Lee R. Morrow Members absent: Herman Kluver **Jerome Zimmer Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, and H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, were also present. Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of rezoning, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold a public hearing and decide the question. If a petition in- volves a waiver of use request and the petition is denied by the Commission, the peti- tioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council . Otherwise, the petition is terminated. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 83-6-2-24 by F b G, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located within the Wonderland Shopping Center at the southwest corner of Plymouth and •Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from the Engineering Division stating that there are no engineering problems in connection with this proposal . There is also a letter in the file from Michael Polsinelli , General Manager of Wonderland Center, stating that this tenant, under the terms of his lease, is not permitted any type of liquor use and that it is not the intent of the new ownership of Wonderland Center to grant any variance or modification in the tenant's current operation that would allow the sale of liquor. *Mrs. Scurto entered the meeting at 8: 13 p.m. Michael Karas, petitioner: I own the restaurant and my lease doesn't say I can't have a liquor license. Mr. Andrew; You are saying that even though Wonderland Center has advised us that you cannot have a liquor license? Mr. Karas: That is not true. My lease doesn't say that. ' 7977 L Mr. Andrew: Are you aware that there are already two licenses within the Wonder- land Center and within 1 ,000 feet of your establishment? • Mr. Karas: I know that. Mr. Andrew: This Commission has a problem because we cannot waive that standard of the Ordinance. Only the City Council can waive it. We have no choice but to deny this because you are in conflict with the require- ment of the Ordinance. The City Council has the authority to waive that. Mr. Karas: How can I do that? Mr. Andrew: When we deny your waiver use request, you can appeal our decision to the City Council for relief and if they want to grant it they can grant it. All you have to do is write a letter to the City Council appealing it within ten days. Michael Polsinelli, Manager, Wonderland Center: On behalf of Schostak Brothers, I would like to reiterate that it is stated in the tenant's lease what he can sell . The content of that lease does not include liquor and it is not the intent of the owner to allow the sale of liquor. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-2-24 closed. lieOn a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #7-137-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 19, 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-24 by F & G. Inc. , requesting waiver use •approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located within the Wonderland Shopping Center at the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the North- east 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-24 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposal fails to comply with Section 11 .03(h) of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a 1 ,000 foot separation between Class C Liquor Licensed establishments. (2) The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the proposed use complies with the general waiver use standards contained in Section 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. (3) The proposal is in conflict with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as detailed in Section 1 .02 of the Zoning • Ordinance which, among other things, is to promote and encourage a balance and appropriate mix of uses and not over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being proposed. 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7978 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-6-2-25 by John Kosinski requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the Taco Bell Restaurant located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads: in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Nagy There is a letter in the file dated 7/14/83 from Michael Madden, Project Coordinator for Taco Bell Restaurants, requesting that this waiver use request for the dining room addition be withdrawn and the request for approval now is the site plan approval for the drive-thru addition only. There is also a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no engineering problems in connection with this request. Mark Kellman, representative of the petitioner: John Kosinski has been transferred to another area and the vacancy has not been filled yet anf I am representing Taco Bell in this matter. Mr. Andrew: You are an employee of Taco Bell International? Mr. Kellman: Yes. Mr. Andrew: You want to add this to your building to allow carry out? Mr. Kellman: Right. Mr. Andrew: Does that require any revision to the parking area? Mr. Nagy: It is not a waiver use in the sense that the dining area represented an addition to the restaurant and the additional seating required a public hearing. Since that has been withdrawn, you are dealing with a request to approve a revised site plan to add the window: We had to proceed with the hearing because we had already sent out notices regarding the waiver use. The revised site plan does alter the parking layout, but does not add to the parking requirement. Mrs. Scurto: What percentage of the business you are now doing do you think will transfer to the window? . Mr. Kellman: Probably 40%. Mrs. Scurto: Are you saying that 40% of the drive-in window will be business you already had or your business will grow 40%? Mr. Kellman: No, already had. The reason for the window instead of the restaurant additic is that the amount of cars on the lot right now will be served better having a service window. The site plan was presented to the Commission members andwas discussed in detail . Mr. Andrew: If a delivery truck comes along at noon, what happens? Mr. Kellman: It comes here the first thing in the morning or between 2:00 and 4:00 in • the afternoon. ILMr. Andrew: Where is the service area and where will he park? Mr. Kellman: Directly behind the restaurant. He will park off to the side. Mr. Andrew: How do you plan to eliminate the existing parking stripes? Mr. Kellman: Paint over them. 7979 Mr. Andrew: Is that indicated on the plan? f Mr. Shane: Yes. - Mrs. Sobolewski : What time does Taco Bell open in the morning? Mr. Kellman: 1x:00,. Mrs. Sobolewski: How much of a stack area will there be between the parking and the landscaped space? Mr. Kellman: Five cars. Mrs. Sobolewski : How late at night are they open? Mr. Kellman: I believe until 2:00 a.m. I would have to ckeck that. Mr. Vyhnalek: Will there be any special kitchens just for your carry out? Mr. Kellman: No. Mr. Vyhnalek: Do you have about 50% carry out now? Mr. Kellman; About that. Mr. Vyhnalek: Peak hourswould be 11 :00 to 1 :00 and 5;00 to 7:00? Mr. Kellman: Yes. Mrs. Scurto: I assume you will add employees. What are you going to do about the employee parking? Mr. Kellman: It will be difficult to Judge any increased volume and we will first service our present employees. Mrs. Scurto: I am amazed how well they operate on such a terribly undersized area. I hope with the drive-in window, it will alleviate some of the con- gestion. Mr. Andrew: Do all Taco Bells have drive-in windows? Mr. Kellman: Not all . Mr. Andrew: What is the criteria for a drive in? Mr. Kellman: The parking area for one thing. of Mr. Morrow: Then this is more/a convenience for your existing customers. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-2-25 closed. ILMrs. Scurto: Is this going to be a brick construction on the outside or adobe like some? Mr. Kellman: We would match the existing material . 7980 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was 17-138-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 19, 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-25 by John Kosinski requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the Taco Bell Restaurant located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and Schooicraft Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-25 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Revised Site Plan dated 7/19/83, prepared by Taco Bell Divisional Office which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the Revised Building Elevation Plan dated 7/19/83, prepared by the Taco Bell Architectural Department, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) The proposal complies with all of the specific and general requirements and waiver use standards contained in Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use, (3) The proposed use represents a minor addition to the existing restaurant. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in • accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk NAYS: Naidow, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver, Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-6-2-26 by William P. Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a one-story veterinary clinic on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Merriman Road in the North- • west 1/4 of Section 23. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no City maintained storm sewer facilities readily available to service the subject site and that it may be necessary for the petitioner to obtain appropriate easements easterly to 1[0 Bainbridge Avenue and the existing open ditch system adjacent to the street. William P. Lindhout, Architect and petitioner: We have a small animal hospital here. Dr. Bloom is anxious to located in Livonia and we have designed this facility for him. The site plan has been developed and I think . 7981 you will find it a very generous one. We have been able to secure an easement from the property to the south to solve the sewer problem. It 3 is our ' intention to maintain the existing woods on the site to the ex= tent possible. The plan also shows some landscaping. The building itself will have a shingle roof with wood siding and scored surface block. The building will take on pretty much a professional character. The plan is such that the facility for any animals that may stay over- night will be in a small area. Mr. Andrew: You have eliminated outside trash? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, Mr. Andrew: Anything on the roof? Mr. Lindhout: Any we will have will be concealed and not seen from Five Mile. Mrs. Scurto: No outside runs whatsoever? Mr. Lindhout: No. Mrs. Scurto: What kind of facilities are there for people bringing in pets? Mr. Lindhout: We have a little walk area for that purpose where somebody could wait outside. II: Mrs. Scurto: That is on the far side of any residential area? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, no residences on that side of the building. Mr. Vyhnalek; What is on the east side between the building and your lot line? Mr. Lindhout; We have no assignment for that space at the moment. Mr. Vyhnalek: Besides the wall there will be just grass? Mr, Lindhout: Yes, there will be grass all around the building. Mr. Vyhnalek: How much greenbelt do you have off Five Mile Raod? Mr. Lindhout: 18 to 20 feet. Mr. Vyhnalek; I don't see any trees along Five Mile. Mr. Lindhout: We had not planned to do much more along that line except lawn. Mr. Vyhnalek: I would like to see the parking eliminated from Five Mile. We try to eliminate parking and have more greenbelt. Mr. Lindhout: We would find that very difficult. I think we have given a lot of greenery.. ILMr. Morrow: What is the parking requirement for this site? Mr. Shane: Ten spaces. Mr. Nagy: Thirteen have been provided, ten are required by Ordinance. Mrs. Scurto: Is there a sprinkler system? 7982 Mr. Lindhout: We have not determined that as yet. i 4 Mrs. Scurto: I would hope that would be a consideration for the Doctor. • 1 Mrs. Sobolewski : Any outdoor lighting? Mr. Lindhout: Only to light the entrances as required by Code. The parking area itself should have plenty of light from what is on the building. Mrs. Naidow: Any signs to be put up? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, we have shown a lawn sign in accordance with the Ordinance. Mr. Andrew: Does the proposed sign meet the Ordinance requirements? Mr. Nagy: He doesn't show the size of the sign. He will have to come back with the sign for approval . William Barlow, 15184 Merriman: I would like to know about the wall . Mr. Andrew: If this Commission approves this petition, he will have to build a wall . Mr. Barlow: Can he appeal the wall? Mr. Andrew: Yes and if you were notified of this meeting, you will be notified if he appeals the wall . IL Mr. Barlow: I would rather have the parking on Five Mile instead of in the back because we have dogs. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-2-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was /7-139-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 19, 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-26 by William P. Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a one-story veterinary clinic on the south side of Five Mile Road between Bainbridge and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-26 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan dated 7/14/83, as revised, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the building elevations shown on the approved Site Plan which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; IL (3) that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (4) that a sprinkler system shall be installed on the site; and 7983 (5) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of a Sign Erection Permit. - for the followirg reasons: (1) The proposal complies with all waiver use requirements of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (3) The proposed use is much less intensive and attracts less traffic than is normally associated with many of the uses permitted in the C-2 Zoning District. (4) The proposed use will provide a transition or buffer between commercial and residential uses. 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-6-2-27 by Roosevelt Reese requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a party store proposed to be located within an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Terrence and Grove in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Nagy:. There is a letter in the file from Engineering stating there are no engineering problems in connection with this petition. Roosevelt Reese, 23705 Inkster Road, Farmington Hills, petitioner, was present. Mr. Andrew: Do you have an ongoing business at this location now? Mr. Reese: We want to open a discount beverage store. Mrs. Scurto: Are you connected with the one on down Middlebelt near Five Mile? Mr. Reese: No. Mrs. Scurto: But it is that kind of business. Mr. Reese: Yes. Mrs. Scurto: Your bottle storage is contained inside, not in back? Mr. Reese: Yes, inside. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-2-27 closed. l[of On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was • 7984 #7-140-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 19, a 1983 on Pet`tion 83-6-2-27 by Roosevelt Reese requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with a party store to be located within an existing building located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Terrence and Grove in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-27 be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that the use of the subject SDM License shall be confined to the portion of the subject building known as 16324 Middlebelt Road, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with the specific and general waiver use standards of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The subject site has the capacity to support the proposed use. (3) The proposed use is in harmony with and compatible to 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-7-2-29 . by James Blain Associates requesting waiver use approval for general office usage of a building proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Service Drive, east of Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence in the file regarding this item. Mr. James Bain: This is a renewal of.a waiver use which was passed about a year and half 799 Stephenson ago. It is for the most part a duplication of the existing building. It will probably be used in the future for an expansion of the office use . of the brokerage house. Mr. Andrew: Does the future brokerage house own the building? Mr. Blain: No, they are leasing this building. Mr. Andrew: Assuming that you receive approval , how soon would you start con- struction. Mr. Blain: In September. Mr. Vyhnalek: One and a half years ago the building was smaller. I thought the IL plans hada group of trees on the north side. I thought you had filled that in with trees and shrubbery. Mr. Blain: This is not a landscape plan. Mr. Vyhnalek: You will be back with that? 7985 1:0Mr. Blain: Yes. 1Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you ever decide what kind of brick you will use? Mr. Blain: The brick on the other building has deteriorated. It had moisture in it. The company will either replace that brick or re-brick to match the existing building. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did you get together with Mr. Shane or Mr. Nagy on the height of the building? Mr. Blain: The height is the same as the existing building. Mr. Andrew: Will you have any exterior lights in the parking lot? Mr. Nagy: They are existing and are shown in the boulevard area. Mr. Andrew: Nothing along the lot lines? Mr. Blain: No. Mr. Andrew: What about the outside storage of trash? Mr. Blain: It will be outside. Mr. Vyhnalek: Fenced in with a gate? We usually require some type of gate on the front. Mrs. Scurto: This is something that could be held in-house. We are encouraging more and more to have storage in the building. Do you see that as possible with this? Mr. Blain: You are talking about overhead doors? Mrs. Scurto: No, a little room where there is a trash compactor. E { Mr. Falk: How much area between the building itself and the wall on the east side? Mr. Blain: Fourteen feet. Mr. Falk: Do you really need 3,500 square feet that you added on to this building. _. Mr. Blain: What we have done is to show it as 3,500 square feet but we actually reduced it. We don't want to make it that big. We want to add 25' . Mr. Falk; Can we get more distance between the wall and the building? Discussion was held regarding the site plan. °- r. Morrow: That dumpster is just too close to the residential area. Other office buildings are building it inside and I would strongly like to see you consider that. eal Keller, 36066 Schoolcraft: At the Council meeting, it was determined there would be a 7' wall along my property line. They piled the dirt on their 7986 side to show a 5' wall . At the time they complained about the cost of the wall . When they poured the wall , the last section was against the sidewalk which was 3' and it is deteriorated and ' falling apart. I questioned the people removing the forms and they said they would take care of it. I also questioned the Pfeister Company and they told me I had to look at it, not them. It is an eye-sore and falling apart. Mr. Andrew: The southerly 8' of the retaining wall? Mr. Keller: Yes. The City Council determined it should be a 7' wall instead of a 6' 4" wall . It was to be graduated down. Eventually this wall will fall down. I am also concerned about the elevation of the building. Will it be the same height as the other building? Mr. Andrew: Will the finished grade of the building match the grade of the exist- ing building? Mr. Blain: I am assuming that it is the same height. Mr. Keller: The Council said it should be a 7' wall . It is only 6'. 4" on my side. Mr. Vyhnalek: You said you would have an 8' wall . Mr. Blain: The wall is already up and we don't plan on doing anything further IIas far as I know. I didn't realize the wall was short. It is done ' and I have a Certificate of Occupancy and everything. j Mr. Vyhnalek; I would be concerned about people working in the office building look- ing over the wall and watching your family. Mrs. Scurto: If they pile dirt up against the wall when they dig for this build- ing, that dirt will have to come down, right? Mr. Blain: The grade will come down, not the building. The building is 14' away. I 'm not sure what the elevation is; I can't tell you that until I go out and take a look. I don 't think even if you stand on a chair that you will see over that wall . Mr. Keller: Will the air conditioning units make it necessary for me to close my windows and close off my air? Mr. Blain: There will be three air units with screening. Mr. Andrew: I don't imagine they will be on after six or seven and not before five or six jn _the morning and not during the week ends. This is to • save on energy. Mr. Keller: The sidewalk in front of my house runs into the field and stops. The sidewalk in front of the building runs into the street. ILMr. Andrew: The Engineering Division will correct the sidewalks some way. Mr. Keller: Will they maintain the wall from further deterioration in the future? Mr. Andrew: Our resolution will say that and the Building Department will enforce it. 7987 r. Lawrence Arbour, 36153 Scone: The weeds in the field are higher than the wall and there is always debris in my yard from buildings around there. li . Ir. Ziemer entered the meeting at 9:30 p.m.om Mrs. Scurto: Everything you have been concerned about will be taken care of by them doing something with that rather than leaving it a field. Mr. Arbour: There will be cars parked twelve feet from that wall? Mr. Andrew: Yes. The Commission discussed the site plan in detail with Mr. Arbour. Mr. Arbour: Can they raise the wall? Mr. Nagy: They are already exceeding the required height. Walter Juras, 36039 Scone: I am backing up my neighbors because of the terrible mess they have left this area in. This man is here trying to get another building. Please get this dumpster out of here. There is a waste carrier here that is a total detriment to the total City. Don't let this stay here. He uses the paved area so much that the truck can't get in to empty the dumpster. Trucks clang all the time. If this is the same office group, fine, but if it isn't, are they going to share parking? How will they get into the area? Ir. Andrew: There is a common driveway. here was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, � hairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-7-2-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #7-141-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 19, 1983 on Petition 83-7-2-29 by James Blain Associates requesting waiver use approval for general office usage of a building proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Service Drive, east of Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-7-2-29 be r' approved subject to the following conditions: k_:_ (1) that the Site Plan prepared by James Blain Associates, i Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan prepared by James Blain R Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; a (3) that a revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the PlanningIL Commission for approval within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution; 1. (4) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to issuance of a Sign Erection Permit; , i v. • 7988 (5) that there be in-house storage of trash, preferably a compactor, in the new building and that the proposed dumpster will be eliminated. - (6) that the south 8' of the existing retaining wall on the east side of the property shall .be demolished and re-built using the same materials; and (7) that the finished grade of the proposed building will match the existing grade of the office building located to the west by 1.5 foot. for the following reasons: (1) The subject site has the capacity to support the proposed use. (2) The proposal complies with all of the waiver use standards and requirements of Zoning Ordinance #543. (3) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the abutting residential neighborhood. 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted, Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-6-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an easement located at the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 . Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that they have no objections to this proposal . There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 83-6-3-3 closed. Qn a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was 17-142-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 19, 1983 on Petition 83-6-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate an easement located at the southwest corner of Ann Arbor Road and Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-3-3 be approved for the following reasons: (1) There are no existing or proposed public utilities located IL within the subject easement. (2) No reporting City department objects to the proposed vacating. (3) No objections to the vacating of the subject easement have been received from the public utility companies. 7989 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance #50 of the City of Livonia, as amended. ' L. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was 18-143-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21, 1983 on Petition 83-6-2-21 by Cary Greenberg Associates requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Levan .Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission doeshereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-2-21 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan dated 6/16/83, prepared by Cary Greenberg Associates, Lt. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the additional 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 requirement that at least fifteen (15) percent of the total area of the lot or parcel , exclusive of public right-of- 1: way as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, be landscaped as required by Section 19.06(j) of Zoning Ordinance #543 shall be waived; and (4) that the Floor Plan and Building Elevation Plans marked #2 and #3, dated 4/11/83 and 4/10/83 respectively, prepared by Cary Greenberg Associates, Ltd. , which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area. (2) The petitioner has satisfied the specific requirements and standards set forth in Sections 11 .03, 18.37, 18.38 and 19.06 of Zoning Ordinance #543. • (3) The proposal represents a minor increase in the seating capacity of the subject restaurant. 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. ILA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer ABSENT; Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7990 On a motion duly made by Mr. Sobolewskl , seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #7-144-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21, 1983 on Petition 83-5-1-13 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543 to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from P to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-5-1-13 be approved as amended to include only that area lying west of the east building line of the Mid-7 Shopping Center, subject property being legally described as: That part of the N. E. 1/4 of Section 11, T. 1S. , R. 9 E., City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, described as beginning at a point distant S. 0°00'45" W. , 659.25 feet and S. 89°45'45" W., 393.20 feet from the N. E. corner of said Section 11 ; proceeding thence S. 89°45'45" W. , 100 feet; thence N. 0°00'45" E. 232 feet thence N. 89°45'45" E. , 190 feet; thence S. 0°00'45" W. , 32 feet; thence S. 89°45'45" W. , 90 feet; thence S. 0°00'45" W., 200 feet to the point of beginning. for the following reasons: (1) The subject P Zoning District serves no useful purpose. (2) The subject rezoning will provide a zoning district that is compatible with the existing and proposed uses within the subject area. (3) The existing P Zoning District includes an area proposed for • a building addition. (4) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having land zoned commensurate with its existing or intended use. 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-1-15 by Howard and Marjorie Anderson to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Weyher and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition IL 83-5-1-15 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The subject site is of such limited area that development cannot occur without approved variances of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to building location. • 7991 (2) A more comprehensive development could be achieved by the rezoning of a major portion of the entire block as opposed to one lot at a time. (3) The rezoning of the subject lot will encourage spot zoning or haphazard development along the Seven Mile Road corridor. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. Qn a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski , it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 21 , 1983 on Petition 83-5-1-15 by Howard and Marjorie Anderson to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Weyher and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 83-5-1-15 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of Seven Mile Road in this area. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are in harmony with and compatible to surrounding uses in the area. (4) The proposed P.S. Professional Service Zoning District will provide for buffer or transition type uses between the established residential neighborhood to the north and a major thoroughfare. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Andrew NAYS: Morrow, Scurto, Falk, Zimmer ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared that Petition 83-5-1-15 is deferred until the Study Meeting to be conducted by the City Planning Commission on July 26, 1983. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski , seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #7-145-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1983 on Petition 83-4-2-15 by Sam Moy requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDM License in connection with an existing restaurant located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Six Mile Road 7992 in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning does hereby 4 recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-4-2-15 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposal complies with all of the specific and general waiver use standards of the Zoning Ordinance as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) The proposed use will have no substantial effect on the current usage of the building or site. (3) No major site or building alterations are proposed. (4) The subject site has the capacity to accommodate the pro- posed use. 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was #7-146-83 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 457th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 21 , 1983 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Andrew I: NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Zimmer ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Qn a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was #7-147-83 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 345th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on June 28, 1983 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Zimmer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Morrow, Falk, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was IL#7-148-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 83-6-8-18 by Eugene Kusluski requesting approval of all plans 7993 required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal + to erect a 75' radio antenna on the north side of Plymouth Road between Haller and Camden in Section 25 be approved subject to the • following conditions: (1) that the proposed antenna tower shall not exceed seventy-five feet in height as measured from the established grade. (2) that the location of the proposed antenna tower shall be as depicted on the site plan dated 6/83 prepared by Northwest Auto Radio which is hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: Naidow ABSTAIN: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was 17-149-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 11 .02 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does 1,5 recommend that Petition 83-6-8- by Robert Primeau requesting approval 1[ of all plans required by Section 11 .02 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a building on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Cardwell and Middlebelt in Section 24 be approve,. sub- ject to the following conditions: (.1) that the Site Plan dated 6/10/83, prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevation Plan dated 6/10/83, prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed on the site prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver ILMr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was 7994 #7-150-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Sign Applic3tion #339 for approval to erect a sign on the Wonder- land Lanes Building located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Harrison in Section 36, subject to the following con- dition: (1) that the Sign Plan prepared by the Accent Sign S Lighting Company as modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Qn d motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, tt was 17-151-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan and Sign Plan submitted in connection with Petition 83-4-8-7 by Chuck Muer requesting approval of all plans required by Section 30.02 of Zoning Ordinance #543 in connection with a proposal to construct a restaurant on the south side of Schoolcraft between Merriman and Farmington Roads in Section 27, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Landscape Plan dated 7/13/83, as revised, prepared by James C. Scott & Associates, Inc., is hereby approved and . all landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently main- tained in a healthy condition, and (2) that the Sign Plan detail dated 7/7/83 which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Qn a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski , it was 17-152-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 83-6-8-17P by Richard Zischke, Architect, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the south side of Ann Arbor Road between Norton Avenue and Newburgh Road in Section 31 , subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Site Plan dated 7/15/83 prepared by Richard A. Zischke, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval within thirty (30) days of the date of this resolution; 7995 (3) that the Building Elevation Plan dated 7/15/83 prepared by Richard A. Zischke, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (4) that any signs proposed to be erected on the site or on the • building shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to issuance of a Sign Erection Permit. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Naidow ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mrs. Naidow, it was 17-153-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from McDonald's Corporation dated June 29, 1983, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the requested revisions to the Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 80-6-2-20 to incorporate a customer service convenience window at the restaurant located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Revised Site Plan dated 7/8/83, prepared by o McDonald's Corporation, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and • (2) that the drive-thru island Landscape Plan dated 6/28/83, prepared by Crimboll Landscape Contractors, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and all landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was 18-154-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from McDonald's Corporation dated June 29, 1983, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the requested revisions to the Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 70-11-2-25 to incorporate a customer service convenience window at the restaurant IL located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Five Mile Road and Wentworth in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, subject to the following conditions: 7996 (1) that the Revised Site Plan dated 7/8/83, prepared by McDonald's Corpor3tion, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that the drive-thru island Landscape Plan dated 6/28/83, prepared by Crimboll Landscape Contractors, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to and all landscaping shall be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Scurto, Naidow, Sobolewski , Vyhnalek, Falk, Zimmer NAYS: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #7-155-83 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 83-7-8-20P by Ramon Eizmendi requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a Tae Kwon Do School on the west side of Middlebelt, north of Six Mile Road in Section 11 subject to approval of Petition 83-1-1-3 by the City Council and to 3 the following additional conditions: (1) that the Site Plan dated 7/12/83, prepared by Ramon Eizmendi, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; • (2) that the Building Elevations Plans dated 6/24/83 and 7/5/83, respectively, prepared by Ramon Eizmendi , Architect, which hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Com- mission for its approval within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution; and (4) that any additional signs proposed to be erected on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its approval prior to issuance of a Sign Erection Permit. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Sobolewski and unanimously adopted, . it was #7-156-83 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to IL determine whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to change the designation of that portion of Pembroke Avenue located between Purlingbrook and Merriman Road in Section 2 from a half-mile collector street to a local residential street. AND THAT, notice of the time and place of said hearing shall be 7997 given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public t Acts of Michigan of 1931 , as amended. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 458th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 19, 1983 was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION / .....!..../_, ,� Jo J. FJ' , rete'.' L ATTEST: /2/ i Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman ac J