Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1996-09-17 15158 MINUTES OF THE 731st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 17, 1996 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 731st Regular Meeting& Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann Jack Engebretson Robert Alanskas William LaPine Patricia Blomberg Daniel Piercecchi Members absent: R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott Miller, Planner II, were also present. Mr. McCann 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 Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing tonight. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-1-17 by Harry DeNoon and Linda O'Neil requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Long Avenue between Inkster Road and Rensellor Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 from C-2 to R-1. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Piercecchi: What about the other four lots? Are they going to stay in the C-2? Mr. Miller They are not part of the zoning petition. They are part of the Garden Party Store. It is part of their parking lot. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. 15159 New Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner in the audience tonight? Harry DeNoon: I am owner of the property at 27432 Long. I am asking you folks to rezone my property to R-1. I have owned this house for 20 years. I don't currently live in it but my mother has lived in it, my daughter, my grandson, and I have lived in it in the past. I have a buyer for the property and would like to sell it but the holdup is that the property is the wrong zoning and non-conforming, so I would ask the Commission to grant my petition. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-7-1-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #9-163-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-7-1-17 by Harry DeNoon and Linda O'Neil requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Long Avenue between Inkster Road and Rensellor Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1 from C-2 to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-7-1-17 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the current residential use of the subject property; 2) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of low density residential land use; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding residential uses and zoning districts 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-1-18 by Leo Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann 15160 Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1B. °r.. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating they note that Ann Arbor Trail has not been dedicated to its fullest extent (60 feet) adjacent to the parcels in question in accordance with the City's Master Thoroughfare Plan. They end by saying their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. We have also received a letter from Maureen E. Hansz, acting as Durable Power of Attorney for Alice M. Johnston, 34200 Ann Arbor Trail, as follows: I would like to deny the requested zoning change. The property involved in this proposed subdivision has been a "greenzone"buffer to insure the privacy and protection of long standing residents from noise, traffic, and public intrusion from the park. The area was also an"unofficial" nature preserve. It was an area known to many people as the way Livonia"used to be." Mr. Soave succeeded in developing his original Ann Arbor Trail parcel and destroying the very resources desired by families wishing to live in Livonia. The land he is currently developing was excavated beyond recognition. Many large and endangered trees were ripped out to make .. way for his own capital gain. The deer, pheasant, fox, and other animals that were living on that property as an undeveloped haven, have vanished. Just last summer, Alice Johnston had five deer in her orchard peacefully grazing, this year there are none. Now, the proposed addition to the Soave subdivision, would reduce the pristine environment even more. This is just the"tip of the iceberg" as Mr. Soave has been pressuring the existing residents to sell their property to him. He fully intends to develop every bit of land he can acquire along Ann Arbor Trail. In the end, he may succeed in acquiring the land, but is that what Livonia needs or wants? More houses crammed together? Bulldozing the hardwoods to pave over every available inch of land? Livonia will look like Detroit; is that the image the Planning Commission desires? Please consider all the aspects of Mr. Soave's development style. He has been harassing at least three very elderly residents for the past eighteen months. The families involved have refused to "give in"to his insistent tactics and he doesn't take "NO"for an answer. If the Livonia Planning Commission does not cater to his greed, maybe Mr. Soave will re-evaluate his "Master Plan". Please leave the zoning as it stands as RUF. Livonia will maintain its image as a quiet, peaceful community that values the natural resources and few beautiful areas that remain. 15161 Mr. McCann: Do you know if that is abutting property? %low Mr. Nagy: I believe it is the adjoining piece. Mr. McCann: It would be the residential house on the west side? Mr. Nagy: Right. Mr. Engebretson: Would that abutting property owner filing that protest, would that constitute a valid protest at the Council level? Mr. Nagy: If it is in fact the adjoining property, it is likely that it would. Since it is more than 20% of the abutting area, I expect it would. Mr. McCann: I know Mr. Soave is not with us tonight. We wish him a happy 25th Wedding Anniversary, however, his son is here. Would you please come forward and give us your name and address. Marco Soave, 34822 Pembroke: I am here on behalf of my father. Mr. McCann: Do we have any questions for Mr. Soave? If not, we are going to go to the audience. Marion Parnell, 34161 Ann Arbor Trail: I live just across the street from the property that you are talking about. My subdivision is Rouge Trail Subdivision. I live on Lot 43, directly across from the Johnsons. The people in my neighborhood are very opposed to this. I don't know if any of them are here or not. I have lived in my home since 1957. I am a widow and I feel this gentleman has already built down here in this little area so the traffic is atrocious. How can they, I am not real familiar with the procedure as far as the rezoning, but the homes that are built in there right now, I would like to know what the intent of this gentleman is if and when this became a reality. Mr. McCann: I think we have a preliminary plat that has not been filed yet. My understanding is there would only be six homes to go in here. Mr. Nagy: Actually there will be nine. The road that you see that has been put in, that road will be extended and as a result of that extension of the road there will be three lots on the north side of that road and three lots on the south side and three lots will face directly on Ann Arbor Trail for a total of nine. Ms. Parcel: How many exits and entrances? 15162 Mr. Nagy: There will be no additional entrances or exits on the Trail. The single family residential road that parallels the parkway will be extended. The Now same driveway, Trillium Drive, the name of the drive that comes out to Ann Arbor Trail, will serve the traffic from those six additional lots. There will be three new driveways with the new homes that will face directly on the Trail but there will be no new residential streets. Ms. Parnell: What are they doing about the traffic flow then? Mr. Nagy: The street will be widened. Additional right-of-way will be acquired so as to allow for the widening of the road. Ms. Parnell: Did I understand you to say that your Engineering Department had already approved this? Mr. Nagy: Only from a zoning standpoint, which is what the question before the Commission is tonight. They have no objection from purely a zoning standpoint. Ms. Parnell: Nothing can be done about this property even though the engineers have acted on it unless this is rezoned and the property that now belongs to the existing homeowners, if that property is not for sale, how can they come in there and do anything with it? This is new to Norme. Mr. McCann: You are going to have to direct your questions to the Chair. This piece of property, we have been told by the petitioner, is under an option to purchase depending on the zoning, and he has made arrangement to purchase this property from the current owner. He has not done anything with any of the other property. Ms. Parnell: As of 6:30 tonight I talked to the daughter of the mother that lives in this home, and this property is not for sale and this gentleman has been barred from their property. Mr. McCann: The property does not extend that far. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-6-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #9-164-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-7-1-18 by Leo 15163 Soave requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Stark and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 33 from RUF to R-1B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-7-1-18 be approved for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with recent zoning changes in the area; 2) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for an extension of existing residential development currently in progress to the east of the subject area; and 3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan designation on the subject property of low density residential land 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-6-1-19 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#163-96, proposing to rezone lands lying east of Stark Road and north of Wadsworth Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to R-2. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. This afternoon we received a fax from the property owner that owns the easterly of the three parcels indicating that he is unable to attend this meeting this evening due to another conflict with another City meeting. The gentleman indicates his name is James Jabara, and gives his address as 496 W. Ann Arbor Trail, and he is requesting that at the conclusion of the hearing the matter be tabled to give him time to contact the other owners of the vacant rear properties subject to this rezoning proposal, as well as other property owners in the area that have vacant land, to potentially develop the entire area for the benefit of all concerned. 15164 Mr. McCann: Since this is a petition brought by the City Planning Commission we will go directly to the audience. Is there anyone wishing to speak for �,. or against this petition? Mr. Householder, 33921 Beacon: I am the one that is stuck right in the middle. I have a copy from the City Planning Commission on how they want to split this property and also how they want to put the road in, which involves this whole section. They have to split up into nine lots now, and they have taken my little 0.99 acre piece and split it into two lots. I have a problem. My house is on those two lots. How are you going to split it when I have a home on it? Mr. Nagy: We are just trying to illustrate the potential development of the area given the proposal for an R-2 zoning classification. We realize it will necessitate the cooperation of all the property owners involved but it was an attempt on our part to illustrate to the benefit of the affected property owners just what likely could happen through the change of zoning to allow 70 foot wide lots as opposed to the 100 foot wide lots that the property is currently zoned. That doesn't mean you have to do it. It is merely an illustration. Mr. Housholder: In other words, you are showing a split of my property but it can't be split? It is not a 70 foot lot so that knocks this lot out so I am opposed *4110wto this, naturally. As I understand lot splits, you are allowed to make one lot split every so many years. You are taking this 2.60 acres, he can make one lot split on this at this point. Next time, which might be five years down the road, he can make another lot split. Correct? Mr. McCann: Sir, we don't deal with lot splits at this level. Here we are just dealing with what is the proper zoning for this property? We are trying to determine what is the best potential use for this property and what would go in there. Mr. Housholder: R-5 zoning is for what, 100 foot lots? Mr. Nagy: The minimum lot size of an R-5 is a lot that is 100 foot wide at the building setback line, and a minimum depth of 150 feet, which requires 15,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Those are the minimum requirements. Mr. Housholder: As R-5 we have approximately three lots at this point. Mr. Nagy: I think you would have more than that. I think you are looking at at least five, in my opinion. Mr. Housholder: There is only 400 feet across the frontage. 15165 Mr. Nagy: I am assuming that all the property owners could get together in a cooperative sort of manner. Mr. Housholder: I am not very cooperative and I am against it. If it does come up then we will have more discussion on it. Phyllis Kivimaki, 33921 Beacon I also live in that little house that you want to divide in half. Mr. McCann: I think we explained we don't want to divide it. We are just showing the possibilities of what could be done if a developer purchased your lot and the other lots and decided to build a subdivision. It is only a possibility. All we are dealing with tonight is what the proper zoning should be. It will have no affect on your property other than what potential use is in that area. Ms. Kivimaki: I too want to set that on the record that I am against this. I don't want this property rezoned. Mr. Holz, 37264 Almont Dr. East, Sterling Heights: I am the owner of the 2.6 acre parcel, the largest and the first one closest to the road. I think the proposal needs to be tabled to allow the property owners in the area to get together to decide what might be best and that is what I am Now supporting this evening. I am against the R-2 zoning. Mr. McCann: We published for a public hearing today so we have to go forward with the public hearing. After it is concluded, it is up to the Commissioners whether they want to table it. Mr. LaPine: John, what is the rationale of going from R-5 to R-2? You have R-5 all around it. Why would we want to change this? Is it because we don't think the size of the lots abutting the industrial property might not sell as easy? Mr. Nagy: We are trying to increase the density from what the current zoning is to try to encourage, through gaining additional lots, four or five, whatever it turns out to be, an economic incentive for a developer to go in and pay for the cost of bringing in a public road and public utilities to improve the area and get a paved street rather than have a private easement to serve that one home, trying to have some economic incentive to make it a worthwhile project for a developer to try to develop the property. Obviously, the current zoning hasn't stimulated any development in that area. We heard about it six months ago when a gentleman brought forward a rezoning petition for multiple family 15166 indicating he thought that he felt that was appropriate zoning in order to make it a viable proposal. That didn't work. The City Council and '410r Planning Commission chose not to support that. They felt it was too high of density. So from our standpoint we thought between the R-5, we knew multiple wasn't an acceptable zoning classification, we thought maybe the mid-ground of something like an R-2 with 70 foot lot size might be a reasonable compromise, but it is only a recommendation. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, Beacon Road doesn't run parallel to the industrial property? Mr. Nagy: That was our thought. Now Mr. Jabara, whom I mentioned earlier, owns a piece on the east as well as I think Mr. Holz indicated if they could have a road of only 50 foot wide right-of-way, they may be able then to bring the road through the middle of the property since it has 289 feet in depth. Then if they brought the road down through the middle of the property with a reduced right of way, they could have lots on both sides of the road, but then again the gentleman who has the home in the middle there, that would be in the way of extending that road the full width but it would certainly open up the larger portion of the property. That is one of the options they are looking at and why at some time it might be a workable plan. Mr. LaPine: If Beacon Road went along now to the industrial property, a wall would not be required. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: If it went in the center, then a wall would be required. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: Exactly. There was no one else in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-7-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #9-165-97 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-7-1-19 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#163-96, proposing to rezone lands lying east of Stark Road and north of Wadsworth Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-5 to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 96-7-1-19 to date 15167 uncertain to permit the property owners and other interested parties to see how they may work this issue out. 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-8-2-23 by Bogart's Billiards Cafe requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C License in connection with an existing billiard hall facility located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating his office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating The Red Lobster restaurant is located `los. within 1000 feet of this establishment therefore the utilization of a Class C license for this site will require the City Council to waive the 1000 foot requirement. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present: Larry Wathen, 36078 Parkhurst: With me is my wife, Marge. We own and operate Bogart's Billiards Cafe. In accordance with our five year business plan we wanted to open up a billiard room in Livonia, which you folks were amenable to. We got the operation up and running. We brought in food, and now it is time in a very competitive market to add the other amenities that people need to have in an establishment like that, which is a Class C Liquor License. The City of Livonia does not have any to issue. There is an existing billiard room at Grand River and Eight Mile Road called House of Billiards. Both partners that own that facility are in ill health. Marge and I are in the process of buying their operation, and what we need from the City of Livonia is cooperation to move the liquor license from the existing Livonia facility to a different existing Livonia facility. Mr. Alanskas: How late are you open? 15168 Mr. Wathen: Until 2:00 a.m. Mr. Alanskas: Every day? Mr. Wathen: Yes. Mr. Alanskas: Seven days a week? Mr. Wathen: Yes sir. Mr. Alanskas: Do you know how late that Kids Town to the west of you is open? Mr. Wathen: It is closed. Mr. Engebretson: Sir, did I understand you to say you were buying the business or buying the liquor license? Mr. Wathen: Business and liquor license. Mr. Engebretson: Will you continue to operate the business up at Eight Mile Road? Mr. Wathen: There are 2 1/2 years remaining on the lease on that facility and the owner of that shopping center has indicated he expects us to continue this lease for the 2 1/2 year duration. I know where you are going with Now that. It puts us in a position that we don't have to make a decision on that for 2 1/2 years. Frankly that is beneficial to us. Mr. Engebretson: I understand that. It is my recollection that the owners of that establishment felt it was essential to have a liquor license, albeit it was restricted to the sale of beer and wine, in order to function in a satisfactory manner there, and I am wondering if you are optimistic that you will be able to continue there without a liquor license, or would you envision coming back for another liquor license at a future date and if so, would you also restrict it to the sale of beer and wine? Mr. Wathen: I would not come back for any kind of alcohol license for the other address now. That is not to exclude that perhaps I will build a new building on the corner of Middlebelt and Plymouth, but for this existing operation, which is called House of Billiards, no we would not want to put in a liquor license. Mr. LaPine: Jack, maybe you can remember because you and I went out there and looked at that location at Eight Mile Road. Was this a new liquor license that the City gave at this location? 15169 Mr. Engebretson: I don't remember. Maybe Mr. Nagy does. �,.. Mr. Nagy: I remember it to be a new license. Mr. LaPine: Now you are buying out this business. I don't know what type of business they do but I know the liquor license, now that we don't have any available in the City of Livonia, can be very, very expensive because we don't have any and everybody wants one, and I guess I have a real problem in the fact that we issued this man this license on the basis that he couldn't make it without the beer and wine and now we are going to eliminate this in two years when that business will go by the wayside, unless business picks up, and apparently it is not going to pick up because you will not be selling beer and wine there. So the people who are going to that establishment if they want to get beer or wine or alcohol, they will either go to the one on Schoolcraft or they will come down to the one at Wonderland. I mean if they want a drink there is no doubt about that. It just kind of irritates me to know that we gave a liquor license to someone and within three or four years it is up for sale. In my way of thinking we are not going to have a billiard parlor there anymore at the end of the 2 1/2 years so maybe you will break the lease because you are better paying off the lease than keeping employees there running the operation, and that creates a real problem to me. 'r.. Mr. Wathen: We may want to continue running that operation. I don't know that at this time. Mr. LaPine: I understand that. I am only going by what the gentleman told us when he came in for his beer and wine license, which we restricted it to beer and wine. He said he would be out of business if he didn't get the license. Mr. Wathen: We are very confident that we can run that operation on Eight Mile Road without a liquor license. Mrs. Wathen: We have been running our operation without one for four years. Mr. Wathen: We have been running a much bigger one on Plymouth Road and much more expensive to operate and handle than the one on Eight Mile Road, very successfully I might add, for the last 4 1/2 years so we can contend with that over there without a liquor license. We haven't decided yet whether we want to or not. Mr. McCann: We will go to the audience now. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against this petition? 15170 Bob Ray: I was one of the original owners of the House of Billiards that you 'try were talking about. The reason why I am getting out of there is I have ill health and my daughter who has been managing the place for me for the last eight years since we got in there, she has gotten married and has a child and she is no longer able to handle it for me, and that is the reason I want out. I would stay there because the business has definitely picked up since we have been there but I can't see why anyone would want us to stay knowing I have ill health. These two people are good business people and I know they are going to do the right thing as far as Livonia is concerned. They have a good record. I have a great record. I have a lot of commendations from the Police Department as far as us running the place clean and checking out the licenses of people coming in as far as the age limit is concerned. We haven't had any problems there at all. Mr. Piercecchi: I wanted to comment on what the gentleman had to say that is doing the petitioning here. He stated, if I heard him correctly, that they have been operating in this Bogart's Cafe very successfully for four years. Is that correct? Mr. Wathen: Yes. Nom. Mr. Piercecchi: Without a Class C, correct? Mr. Wathen: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Why is it so important that you want one now because it is in conflict with our ordinance because of the distance between current Class C licenses? Why do you need it now when you are operating without it? Mr. Wathen: In the tri-county area since we opened four years ago there has been 21 other facilities like this that have opened. Every single one of them offers food, alcohol and billiards. Seven of them are within seven to eight miles of ours. There are just too many choices now for people to make themselves available to the services that we offer that weren't around four years ago. Mr. Piercecchi: I can understand somebody wanting a beer but when you start drinking hard liquor, I would think that would affect your game. Mr. Wathen: Well beer can affect your game too sir. Mr. Piercecchi: Not like the hard stuff. 15171 Mr. Ray: You folks probably know that Ray Abrams just had his license raised for the same reason that he can't be competitive with the people that he is talking about. He has seven places around him and they serve alcohol and Ray Abrams doesn't. I am sure that Ray Abrams is a great business man and he is going to do the same as this fellow is. All he is asking for is the same tools to work with as the people that are around us. Mr. Piercecchi: You say you are going to take it away from the other one and that one can still function. You are confusing me here. You say you need it here but the other one doesn't need it. Mr. Ray: I personally think they both need it, but I know where he is coming from. How can you function and have a place with 25 tables, my place only has 14 tables. When your overhead is as great as his is, he has to keep up with the other people. It is a lot harder, as you all know, to keep up with the other people if your bills are a lot more. Mr. LaPine: When you came in here you told us at that time that you needed a beer and wine license. The beer and wine license moves out of here to his place so there is none there at that location. Now we are back where we were three to four years ago when you got your license. That business can't survive. Is that what you are telling me? Nur Mr. Ray: It is a lot different now than it was at that time. Mr. LaPine: I am saying once he moves the beer and wine license from your establishment into here, and he keeps that operation open, can it operate without a liquor license? Mr. Ray: Absolutely but it won't operate as good without the liquor license. Mr. LaPine: If you did not get a liquor license, you would have to close. I remember that is what you told us because people were asking for beer and wine and you could not serve them. Now once you sell the business and this gentleman takes it over, and I have nothing against this gentleman, I think he probably runs a very good establishment. I am not a pool player. I don't go to his establishment. I know nothing about it. What I am saying is once he moves that liquor license out of there, then we are right back to where we were before you got your liquor license, and going by what you told us, the place cannot operate successfully because they don't have a beer and wine license. Mr. Ray: I said it definitely cannot operate as good. That is exact. If I may say something else. The thing is I don't understand what the problem is 15172 because we bought the liquor license. We didn't get the liquor license out of the City of Livonia and when we started I believe there were 21 `.. liquor licenses available in the City of Livonia. Because we couldn't get a license from the City of Livonia, we did the best we could, we went ahead and bought one, and we are not taking a license from the City of Livonia. We are merely going to transfer it to another place and only because of my health. Otherwise I would stay there, but I can't do it. Mr. McCann: I will give the petitioner the last word. Mr. Wathen: For Mr. LaPine, I know what my cost of operation is on Plymouth Road, and I have a pretty good handle on what the cost of operation will be on Eight Mile Road. My cost of operation on Plymouth Road is about 6 1/2 times what it will be on Eight Mile Road. I know the dollars that Eight Mile Road will generate without the liquor license, and those dollars will pay for that facility and the employees in it. Bob and I are different people and obviously different businessmen and a lot of things change in four or five years and his needs are one thing and mine are something else. Mr. Alanskas: Sir, the one at Eight Mile Road, do you keep that open until two o'clock in the morning also? Ner Mr. Wathen: In accordance with the City of Livonia ordinance yes. Mr. Alanskas: How many employees at that location? Mr. Wathen: Seven. Mr. Alanskas: How many at Bogart's? Mr. Wathen: Twelve to thirteen. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 96-8-2-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Alanskas and unanimously approved, it was #9-166-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-8-2-23 by Bogart's Billiards Cafe requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C License in connection with an existing billiard hall facility located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Tech Center Drive and Sears Avenue 15173 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-8-2-23 be approved '`r subject to the waiving of the 1000 foot separation requirement by the City Council for the following reasons: 1) That with the exception of the 1000 foot separation requirement the proposed use in all other respects is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; 3) That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding uses in the area; and 4) That the subject site is far removed from any existing residential area in the community. 5) That the proposed use is customarily associated with the principal established use of the property and the incidental food service. 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. Mrs. Blomberg: I have a question. When this was granted by the ZBA six years ago, I don't know how this would work, so how do they do this? Mr. McCann: It has to go back to the City Council. Will it have to go back to ZBA again as well Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: At the time when this was first located, the subject site was zoned C-1 so that is why they had to appear for food service in a C-1 zoning classification. Shortly thereafter Mr. Parz sought a zoning change from C-1 to C-2 so therefore the ZBA action is voided because you now have the appropriate zoning rather than the local commercial that it initially was. Mr. Engebretson: Since waiver uses run with the land, as we all have come to learn, and since the Eight Mile location has a proper waiver use to utilize a liquor license, would they have that right on an ongoing basis to use a liquor license should they be able to acquire one either from the City or from some other names, or is there some period at which time the waiver becomes abandoned? 15174 Mr. Nagy: If there is an abandonment of the use pursuant to the Livonia ordinance after one year, after that one year has expired, they have to try to `., obtain another license for that site and would have to have waiver use approval. Mr. Engebretson: I would also like to just add an additional comment that when we dealt with this issue a number of years ago, there was considerable resistance from the neighborhood primarily because this Eight Mile location, that is the one I am referring to at the moment, was located very near residences. One of the reasons that I find this appealing to get rid of it there and move it to Plymouth Road is because on Plymouth Road it is a total commercial or industrial type of area. I think we eliminate a potential problem at Eight Mile Road, although as Mr. Ray indicated they have a complete, clean record, and so while I am interested in seeing the license moved, it is not because they were negligent in any way but I do think it restores the situation at Eight Mile Road back to a more compatible situation relative to the neighborhood and at the same time we are not intruding on a residential neighborhood on Plymouth Road, and I think the proposal makes sense. Mr. Alanskas: I would like to make just one comment. When we had this a few years ago, if Kids Town was still there, I would be against this but this facility is a very clean facility and it is well kept and I think this would be a plus to that area and I see no problem. Mr. McCann: I would just like to say I believe Mr. Engebretson put it in precise and accurate terms, as well as Mr. Alanskas, but I think this transfer of license will be in the best interest for the City of Livonia. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-8-2-24 by TMP Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand existing church and school facilities and to construct a new parish administrative office building on property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received letters from the Traffic Bureau and Fire Marshal stating they have no objections to this proposal. 15175 Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner present? __ Thomas Kowalski, 1191 W. Square Lake Road, Bloomfield Hills: I am an architect employed by TMP Associates. I am representing the owner. Mr. McCann: Can you briefly explain what you are planning on doing. Mr. Kowalski: The plan is to add a multi-purpose room addition next to the existing school for the purpose of providing needed space for a lunch room. There is no facility available for the students at the current time. It will also provide a music room and much needed storage space and also a school office as part of the addition to allow room for a computer instruction program in the school. That is the multi-purpose addition. Then on the south side of the site next to the rectory is planned a new administration building. (He presented his plans) The multi-purpose room will have a basketball court and volley ball court, and a music room is part of that, and school offices for the principal and some storage space and a small kitchen. It is not a full service kitchen. That is this addition which is approximately 15,500 sq. ft. of area. The other part of the plan is to build a new administrative office building, which will go in the location of a building which is currently referred to as the annex. That building will be demolished and this building will go in its place at the same location. This space is needed to provide office space r.. for the administrative function of the parish, which currently takes place in the Pastor's residence. We need to be able to divide those two functions from each other and provide a suitable residence for the Pastor and then the office building right next to it. Mr. Piercecchi: Where is the playground located? (Mr. Kowalski pointed out the current location of the playground on the plan.) Mr. Piercecchi: You are going to wipe out a piece of the playground? Mr. Kowalski: Three pieces of play equipment will have to be relocated. It will be reduced in size. Mr. Piercecchi: I was under the impression you are going to completely wipe it out but that is not the case. Mr. Kowalski: No. We are using some of it but trying to retain as much as we can. Mr. Alanskas: What grade level do they go to? Mr. Kowalski: Grade 8. 15176 (Mr. Kowalski then presented the building elevations) Mr. Kowalski: We are trying to achieve a residential character. We are using residential materials. It will have a character very similar to the houses that are behind it on the residential properties. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Kowalski, I am not an architect but I want to ask you a question relative to your profession. As you view that complex from Newburgh Road, when you look at the proposed multi-purpose building, everything seems to be so symmetrical and flows together until you get to the northernmost wall of the proposed multi-purpose building, where it just drops straight down. Is there any way that can be softened up a little or is that something we shouldn't be concerned about from a professional point of view. Mr. Kowalski: I guess this is a case where form follows function, and that is the multi- purpose room part of the addition. That is where the gym is. We need to have a certain height to be able to play volley ball in there and we have to maintain that height. We really can't expand further in this direction to do anything with those roofs that go beyond because we are limited by the parking and driveway at this point. I don't know. I don't see it as a major problem. We plan on treating the facade by relieving the mass of the facade by having treatment of the brick by having soldier courses and having some glass block on that wall to soften the appearance of the wall. In terms of the massing, we are really limited by the function of the sports that are played inside and the distance we can expand. I suppose if we had more room on this side, we could probably create a slope there. Mr. Engebretson: If you had more room, is that something you would likely have considered? Mr. Kowalski: We might have. Mr. Engebretson: The entire complex, you agree I am sure, is very attractive as it exists now, and I am sure it will be when you are finished here but I am just wondering if that is going to take away in any way. I am just curious from your professional point of view if that was something that had given you pause as well because maybe we are making something out of nothing here. Mr. Kowalski: We certainly are very concerned about designing our projects. All our projects are very design conscious. Since the very early stages of this project, the need to have a compatible building, a building that doesn't 15177 overpower the existing church, has been a driving concern of the owner. We are in the process now of developing a study model of this ver. so we can look at it in three dimension, and study those aspects of it in a little more detail. There could be some evolution of this design before we are through. Mr. Alanskas: I was just wondering if possibly you could put in a false window on that flat part to blend in with the church. It wouldn't need to be a real window. That is just a thought. Mr. Kowalski: I think that facade needs some more study and evaluation. Maybe we can relieve it with brick and shadow lines. Mr. Piercecchi: Can landscaping resolve that? Mr. Kowalski: There is going to be some landscaping in front of it. Mr. Piercecchi: Jack made a good point. He generally does. He is very observing on these matters and you do have a maple there. Mr. Kowalski: This is a relatively narrow strip here and there will be some low plantings but nothing high. Right in front of it are new islands and they will be planted with trees. 'vow There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-8-2-24 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Engebretson and unanimously approved, it was #9-167-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-8-2-24 by TMP Associates, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to expand existing church and school facilities and to construct a new parish administrative office building on property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five Mile Road and Jamison Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-8-2-24 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet S1.1 dated 8/15/96 prepared by TMP Associates, Inc., Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 2) That a fully developed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within 30 days of the approval of this petition; and 15178 3) That the Building Elevation Plans marked Al.l and A3.1 dated 8/15/96 prepared by TMP Associates, Inc., Architects, which are hereby approved, r.. shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 4.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-8-2-25 by Accurate Collision requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing automobile repair facility located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning of the surrounding area. Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating his office has no objections to this proposal. Lastly, we have received a letter from the Inspection Department stating the following problems or deficiencies were found: 1. This proposal will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for: a. Addition to a non-conforming building and (b) Proposed addition has deficient side and rear yard setbacks. 2. The parking space in front of the dumpster enclosure should be eliminated. Mr. McCann: Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your name and address and tell us what you are planning to do. 15179 Dewain Diacono, 12375 Merriman Road, Livonia: I am the owner of Accurate Collision. The purpose for the addition to the building is I am basically running r,w out of space. With the growing amount of vehicles we are getting and our business, we are needing more space to repair the vehicles and the demand I am getting from the insurance companies requires purchasing more equipment to service vehicles in the proper manner and prepare our way for the year 2000 for safety. We are needing more space to bring the equipment in and to be able to work on those vehicles a lot quicker. (Mr. Miller presented the plans.) Mr. Diacono: The approximate addition will be about 2200 sq. ft. The Building Department mentioned about the one parking spot in front of where the dumpsters are going to be located on the south side of the addition. We could eliminate that one parking space with no problem for traffic flow for the dumpster. Mr. McCann: There is sufficient parking without that one spot? Mr. Nagy: Yes there is. Mr. Piercecchi: This addition, there is a wall back there? fir. Mr. Diacono: Yes there is a wall from the other company that is behind me that actually surrounds my whole property. What I would like to do is bring my building right up against that wall. Mr. Piercecchi: That is where you have those junk cars right now. I think it is a good idea to clean up the area. I know you are forced to have sort of a mess back there. I also wondered when you add this new addition, are you going to repaint the building? Mr. Diacono: Everything is going to blend in a little better. The corporate colors have actually changed in the last year and a half. I don't know if you have been noticing the colors on the building. The corporate colors are red, white and blue. The building is going to be blending in a lot better. Mr. Alanskas: In your new addition you are going to be putting equipment in there? Mr. Diacono: There will be some new equipment that will be going inside there. It is in my current building right now. It is just lacking space. Mr. Alanskas: Your original building has the paint booth? • 15180 Mr. Alanskas: When you first came before us a few years ago you said you would not r.. be parking any vehicles outside. They would all be parked inside. Mr. Diacono: As in what? Mr. Alanskas: As in cars waiting to be repaired or junk cars. Mr. Diacono: The cars can only stay there, I think we talked about that, for a maximum of two weeks. Within three days, if they are totaled out, they are towed out of there. Mr. Alanskas: In the summertime are you doing any repairs on the outside? Mr. Diacono: No. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Alanskas asked the questions I was going to ask. I was interested in what was going in the back. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-8-2-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was #9-168-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-8-2-25 by Accurate Collision requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing automobile repair facility located on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-8-2-25 be approved subject to a variance being granted for an addition to a non-conforming building and for deficient building setbacks by the Zoning Board of Appeals and to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 8/13/96 prepared by Sheppard Engineering, Inc., which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and 2) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 3 dated 8/13/96 prepared by Sheppard Engineering, Inc., which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: 15181 1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 16.11 and _, 19.06 of the Zoning ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-8-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for additional control over the placement and size of political signs. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, anything to add. Mr. Nagy: This is is a language amendment to the text of the Zoning Ordinance setting the size limitations for freestanding signs for political purposes. Mr. McCann: Since this is a Planning Commission item, we will go directly to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 96-8-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was #9-169-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1996 on Petition 96-8-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.50D of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for additional control over the placement and size of political signs, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-8-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: 15182 1) That the proposed language will provide more adequate control over the size of political signs; and 2) That the proposed language amendment will limit the visual impact of political signs along major roads in the City. 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. Engebretson: I just wanted to comment briefly for the benefit of the people here in the audience and those at home, I want to assure you that we are not allowing signs to be twice as large as they now are. The purpose of this amendment is to limit them from the present maximum of 32 square feet to 16 as you heard, so rather than 4'x8' signs, the maximum sign in the future, if this amendment is adopted, would be 4'x4' with a maximum of 10 feet in height. Chairman McCann passed the gavel to Vice Chairman Engebretson. Mr. McCann: I would like to make an alternative resolution to table this to date uncertain at this time. I have had some discussions with different property owners in the City and there was some suggested language by the Council regarding the requirement of having written permission on undeveloped land. I would like some further time to discuss this and see if it is in fact feasible and what implications it has. Therefore, I would like to table it to date uncertain. On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a substitute resolution in place of the pending resolution in connection with Petition 96-8-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or no to amend Section 18.50D of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide for additional control over the placement and size of political signs. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Blomberg, LaPine, McCann NAYS: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Engebretson ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Engebretson, Vice Chairman, declared the motion failed. Mr. Engebretson: Back to the original approving motion. 15183 Mr. LaPine: I am not opposed to lowering the square footage of the sign but I have %law a problem. When people ran for election, and I am letting everyone know that I ran and I have 4'x8' signs. I don't know what kind of shape they are in. I haven't seen them since the last election. It doesn't seem to me to be fair to change the rules in the middle of the stream. I would support this motion if we could add the language"does not take effect until January 1, 1998". I would recommend that addition. That way it gives the people who still have the signs, if they are going to run again, and I don't know if I am going to run again, they can utilize those signs. Most politicians utilize their signs for at least two elections, sometimes three. I think it is nothing but fair that those people that have the signs could utilize them for the next election, which is just a year away. I will make that amendment to the motion that it doesn't take effect until January 1, 1998. Mr. Engebretson: To the maker of the motion, is that modification agreeable? Mr. Alanskas: I have no problem with that. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Piercecchi, is that agreeable with you? Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to comment on Bill's point. You know Bill I can understand you having a lot of signs, but the people who go in the next Nfty election are going to have 4'x8' and they are in the same boat. Mr. LaPine: The difference is they know that in January 1998 they cannot use those signs, so if they are running for the first time they have to gamble that they can go with 4'x8' signs to match the other candidates that they are running against or they can go to the 4'x4' or 2'x8' knowing they can use them after 1998. That is all I am saying. Mr. Piercecchi: Don't you think it is important that we clean up some of our corners? Mr. LaPine: I have no objection to the change in the ordinance but I think you have to give the people who bought signs in good faith, the use of those signs. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Piercecchi, if I may I would like to ask you whether or not you are going to accept the modified resolution. Mr. Piercecchi: I will not accept that. Mr. Engebretson: Then that proposal fails. So what we have before us is the original motion to approve the language as discussed earlier. 15184 A roll call on the motion to approve was as follows: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Engebretson, Piercecchi NAYS: LaPine, McCann ABSENT: Morrow Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Vice Chairman Engebretson passed the gavel back to Chairman McCann. Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 96-7-2-22 by Bonnie Scott for St. Michael Catholic School requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing private school located south of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was 'to. #9-170-96 RESOLVED that, Petition 96-7-2-22 by Bonnie Scott for St. Michael Catholic School requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing private school located south of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, be taken from the table. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nagy, do you have any new information on this item? Mr. Nagy: This evening we received a letter from Steven J. Robertson who gives him address as 11034 Fairfield, which reads as follows: "Regarding the expansion of the St. Michael's parochial school located between Fairfield Street, and Hubbard Street,just off of Plymouth Road, to which my residential property is directly adjoining, I wish to make the following statements. "I have been very pleased with the efforts by the management of the school to seek my input regarding the use of the parking lot/playground area. Their `playscape' recreation unit was placed directly opposite our corner of the parking lot/playground after we declined the offer to locate it approximately 25' from our bedroom windows. The 15185 basketball hoop/pole that was approximately 29' from our bedroom was removed, and the basketball hoop/rims have been removed at the end of each school year, which has eliminated the young men driving to the parking lot, turning up the music and playing basketball until after 10:00 p.m., during the summer. "Regarding the school expansion, I have no objections whatsoever, and I am pleased the school is doing so well. My only concern continues to be the balls that go over our adjoining fence. I have no desire to collect balls and will happily return them. My concern is our rather large dog that is often loose in the fenced back yard. I wouldn't want a confrontation between a child and our normally passive dog, nor a gate inadvertently left open, allowing the dog to wander away. If the school could continue to instruct the children (as we have asked) in seeking permission to access the back yard to retrieve their ball, I am sure any members of our household at home would be glad to either grant safe access, or would retrieve their ball for them. "Additionally, I would not be in favor of any additional lighting being installed in the parking lot/playground area as it would attract outside traffic coming in to utilize the asphalt surface for more late-night street hockey tournaments, skateboard competitions, and basketball games. Also, I would not be in favor of installation of any brick wall between ,` our properties, since we are very appreciative of the open space adjoining our property to the north, and are willing to accept minor, occasional noise as a trade-off. "If there are any further issues or questions, please feel free to call. I can be reached at our residence, evenings (313) 422-3348, or at my work number (313) 591-8685." Mr. Engebretson: John, I am curious, the parking lot obviously has just been resealed recently and I wasn't sure whether there are plans to restripe the parking lot. Mr. Nagy: The site plan calls for striping the lot. Mr. McCann: Double stripes? Mr. Nagy: Single stripes. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was 15186 #9-171-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on August 13, 1996 on Petition 96-7-2-22 by Bonnie r., Scott for St. Michael Catholic School requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing private school located south of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 96-7-2-22 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Drawing No. 1 dated 8-29-96, as revised, prepared by Harold H. Fisher& Associates, Inc., Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 2) That the Building Elevation Drawings marked Drawing No. 2, 3 and 4 dated 7-11-96 prepared by Harold H. Fisher& Associates, Inc., Architects, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and 3) That a portion of the asphalt area, extending approximately 122 feet south from Plymouth Road in the westerly portion of the Hubbard Road right-of- way adjacent to the front of the church, shall be removed and replaced with sod (except for a single parking space located immediately in front of the entrance to the church). for the following reasons: 1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Section 4.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543; 2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 3) That 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. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously approved, it was 15187 #9-172-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning 'v.,. Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with Petition 96-7-2-22 by Bonnie Scott for St. Michael Catholic School requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing private school located south of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Road and Fairfield Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 34. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master Fire Station Plan, so as to delete the existing site and relocate to new area. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #9-173-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine `.. whether or not to amend Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the Master Fire Station Plan, so as to delete an existing proposed fire station site and designate a new location. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or railroad within the City of Livonia in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend the Future Land Use Plan so as to change the designation of land located on the east side of Farmington Road south of Eight Mile Road in the West 1/2 of Section 3 from office to medium density residential. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was 15188 #9-174-96 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part VII of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Future Land Use Plan, by changing the designation of property located on the east side of Farmington Road south of Eight Mile Road in the West 1/2 of Section 3 from "Office" to "Medium Density Residential". AND that, notice of the above hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Engebretson, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 729th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held on August 13, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mr. Engebretson, it was #9-175-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 729th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 13, 1996 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Engebretson, Piercecchi NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow ABSTAIN: LaPine, McCann Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of the 730th Regular Meeting held on August 27, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, it was 15189 #9-176-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 730th Regular Meeting held by the City \r. Planning Commission on August 27, 1996 are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Engebretson, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: Morrow ABSTAIN: Blomberg Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 376th Special Meeting held on September 10, 1996. On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #9-177-96 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 376th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on September 10, 1996 are hereby approved. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Sign Permit Application by Gary Mulka, on behalf of Sign Permit Application by Gary Mulka, on behalf of Mr. Pita Sandwich Shop, requesting approval for a wall sign for the restaurant located at 34708 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Miller: This is the Plymouth Place Shopping Center. The easterly most section is where Mr. Pita is presently developing to go in. During July of this year Mr. Pita received waiver use approval for a limited service restaurant within the shopping center and as a condition of that approval it was conditioned that all signs must come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval. This unit is allowed one wall sign at 40 sq. ft., and that is what the petitioner is proposing; therefore, the signage is conforming to the sign ordinance. Gary Mulka, 37161 St. Martins: We hope to be open in about five to six weeks. We made some concessions in the signage without totally sacrificing the corporate identity, and we think we have come up with a pretty good sign and we would like to go ahead and put it up. 15190 Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Mulka, is it safe to assume that your corporate identity does not '41w include encasing the building in neon tubing? Mr. Mulka: That is not the plan right now. I would never say never but I have no plans in using neon. Mr. Engebretson: Please say never. Mr. Mulka: Never. On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #9-178-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Sign Permit Application by Gary Mulka, on behalf of Mr. Pita Sandwich Shop, requesting approval for a wall sign for the restaurant located at 34708 Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the Sign Package for Mr. Pita by Gary Mulka, as received by the Planning Commission on August 27, 1996, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after closing. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Leon Zagornik requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Chairman, while doing the site check at this location, it became clear that the petitioner didn't have a complete package to present. He was dealing with locations that were proximate and he wasn't sure whether the approximation of these locations would be within one or two feet or ten feet because the contractor who was going to install this satellite dish was under the impression he would first get approval from the City, and then they would do the final location. Clearly, the final location may have a bearing on whether or not the approval would be granted. So while there over the weekend, several of us made that observation and encouraged him to contact the Planning Department 15191 contractor do the proper survey and prepare a proper site plan that will show the position of the antenna so we can do our job. I took the risk - of advising him that it would not be necessary for him to appear here tonight because there was no way we could act on the issue because he didn't really know where the antenna would be located. So I will ultimately move to table this item for those reasons. On a motion duly made by Mr. Engebretson, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously approved, it was #9-179-96 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Satellite Dish Antenna Application by Leon Zagornik requesting approval for the installation of a satellite dish antenna for property located at 36204 Whitcomb Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, to such time as the petitioner needs to prepare a complete plan to show the exact location of the proposed satellite dish. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Engebretson: The petitioner was also advised of the consent form to be signed by the neighbors and they were planning to attempt to get those as well. I hope they have been in touch with the department. N" Mr. Nagy: They have. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 731st Regular Meeting & Public Hearings held on September 17, 1996 was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION reek/ d144124 e.- Robert Alanskas, Secretary r . r ATTEST: •(1,( r! �. {.�f�• _ James C. McCann, Chairman jg