HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1991-02-19 11490
MINUTES OF THE 618th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 19, 1991, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 618th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. , with
approximately 25 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: William LaPine Jack Engebretson Herman Kluver
Brenda Lee Fandrei *Conrad Gniewek R. Lee Morrow
Donald Vyhnalek
Members absent: Raymond W. Tent, James C. McCann
Messrs. H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director, and Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner
IV, was also present.
Mr. Engebretson 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 do not become effective until 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.
Ms. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition
91-1-1-1 by William & Alice Kolak and Joseph Durso requesting to
rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road
between Bicentennial Drive and Fitzgerald Avenue in the SW 1/4 of
Section 5 from RUFC (rural urban farm-one family residential) to
R-C (Condominium Residential).
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: First, we have a letter from our Engineering Department stating
that while the preliminary plan attached to the petition is not
clear with respect to the location of a natural water course in
this area, we believe a portion of this ditch traverses the subject
site. Based on our experience in preparing plans for the paving of
Fitzgerald Avenue immediately west of the subject site, the
Department of Natural Resources would not allow any relocation or
alternation of this same water course. The petitioner should
verify this information with the Department of Natural Resources as
it relates to the ultimate layout of the condominium project. A
11491
more extensive review of proposed widening of Seven Mile Road,
etc. , will be completed by this office when a more exact site plan
has been developed. This is signed by Gary D. Clark, Assistant
City Engineer. We also have a letter from the Detroit Edison
*ft. Company stating they have no objection to this petition, however,
we do maintain overhead lines on these properties that would
conflict with any construction. Signed by Robert M. Wrobel,
Service Planner. That is the extent of our correspondence.
Mr. Morrow: I ask Mr. Bakewell, the site of the future fire station is
obviously City owned; is there any property to the west of this
particular petition that is owned by the City?
Mr. Bakewell: Yes, the property you see on the plan over to Fitzgerald Avenue, I
believe there are 5 or 6 properties owned by the City of Livonia.
Mr. Morrow: The 3 properties south of Lot 40?
Mr. Bakewell: Yes.
Mr . Morrow: And on the other side of the street also?
Mr. Bakewell: No, just. those three lots plus the fire station.
Joe Durso, 35345 West Seven Mile Road. I have been hired by Mr. and Mrs. Kolak to
help them rezone this property into something that they could make
more attractive to the area and help come up with a plan that we
feel is acceptable to the City. Right now it is RUF and there is
one house on the property. I am also working in conjunction with
the people next door to work out another plan. We are requesting
to put condominiums in this location due to the fact that I
understand we have a future site for a fire station and normally we
would go for residential homes, but as you can tell, most of the
homes that are being developed in that area are quite large and
expensive and I just don't feel we can market that type of a
product with the fire station next door. We would downsize a
little bit in order to make it palatable, but still make it
attractive and to work out a situation that is acceptable to
everybody.
Mr. LaP..ine: The 2 lots just to the west of there, are they the other 2 lots
that you said you have a client you are negotiating with?
Mr. Durso: Yes. That property belongs to a client of mine and we are in the
process to ask the City to sell the property to us and in doing
that, the intention is to bring in residential homes on the
Fitzgerald side and along where the yellow dot is and where the
City property is (pointing to map) . This parcel is what I am
referring to. We are making a request to purchase this property,
turn it into residential homes as a buffer for properties here on
Fitzgerald. We felt it was smart to use this property for less
expensive homes in order to offset the fact of the higher homes.
ti.►
11492
Mr. LaPine: If you were successful in buying those 5 lots from the City,
wouldn't it make it more sense to square off the property and those
lots could be single family lots. As you have said, most of the
homes in that area are $175,000 and up. When you tell me you are
— going to downsize, what price are we talking about?
Mr. Durso: Approximately $125-140,000.
Mr. LaPine: I look at that and I find that abutting the golf course is prime
land for residential homes. I don't think you would have any
problem building $175,000 homes there and being successful. People
would like that because they don't have to worry about having
neighbors behind them.
Mr. Durso: I totally agree if the fire station weren't there. If that were
eliminated, I would agree 100%.
Mr. Morrow: If the City were to decide there might be another place within the
area, would you be interested in acquiring that property?
Mr. Durso: I think it would be very feasible to make that whole parcel very
attractive to put residential. homes on it.
Mr. Morrow: I see here we have an opportunity to develop a much larger parcel
into one large residential area as opposed to a reserved space for
a fire station and condos where in one fell swoop you could put a
very nice plat of low density residential on the tax rolls on a
very prime location backing up to the golf course.
Mr. Durso: I feel that would be very acceptable if we could work that out with
the City and that would clear off the whole section of Fitzgerald
and make that all residential.
Mr. Morrow: I would certainly support investigating that with the City to see
if there would he an alternative site for the fire station. I
think it bears investigating.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, wasn't there a site on Newburgh north of Seven Mile for
a fire station?
Mr. Shane: That is correct. The City did have a site on Newburgh Road north
of Seven Mile Road for a number of years, but they disposed of that
and bought this particular piece instead. They also owned a piece
south of Six Mile Road on Newburgh and that also was disposed of
because it was felt that this location was the best location in
respect to fire fighting abilities of the City. As to whether the
City would dispose of it, it is hard for me to say except that I
know that a lot of thought went into this particular location.
Mr. Vyhnalek: That property goes into Cagie' s?
Mr. Shane: : All of the property east of there is owned by the City already
because it is part of Fox Creek Golf Course .
11493
Mr. Morrow: I was on the Planning Commission when we acquired that. property for
the fire station. A lot of effort went into that decision and we
felt that is where it should be, but we should be open to the
'Nor possibility of another location. We have some space between the
Celani Park and the entrance to Bicentennial that might work in
that location. It is City property a very short distance to the
east of that. I only say that as an alternative.
*Conrad Gniewek arrived at 7:45 pm.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Durso, I would like to say that I am somewhat concerned
,bout the proposition that this zoning should be moved into the
higher density rezoning just because there might be a fire station
located on the adjacent property. What if it. isn't?
Mr. Durso: I would he glad to change it.
Mr. Engebretson: But if we change the zoning there on the premise that we might
have a fire station and then we don't have a fire station, and then
following the same logic, I wonder what the concern is relative to
the construction of single family homes on that property, most of
whom would be located further away from the fire station. I am not
sure that the fire station is all. that big an obstacle from the
standpoint of proper development of that land.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Durso, you heard Mr. Shane mention the DNR, have you been in
contact with the DNR with any problems with water or anything?
Mr. Durso: At this point, I have not. It is a concern of ours also. That
`�.
will be attended to.
Mr. LaPine: No matter if it is residential or condos, you will have to clear up
that situation.
Mr. Engebretson: That' s not a trivial situation. If you go look at Fitzgerald
Avenue and look at that ditch along the new house being constructed
even a number of days after a rain, I suspect that water is 3, 4
and maybe 5 feet deep.
Mr. Durso: We will have an engineering crew and the DNR involved with this as
we go through the process.
Jim McClain, 18226 Middlebelt. I am the person referred to currently building the
new house at 19208 Fitzgerald where the DNR creek is in question.
There are several things involved in this that you are correct, and
I believe Mr. Durso realizes the problems he will incur with the
DNR being that. I went through this the past year. For a single
family residence it is one thing, for a multi family it will be
totally different. Beyond that situation, I think aesthetically
and for tax reasons (1 am lot 43 which abuts the southeast corner
of Mr. Kolak's property) , I really don't think it would be
conducive aesthetically to have a multi family situation in that
area, not only for appearance sake, but the traffic problem on
11 494
Seven Mile would be catastrophic. I believe there are 7 or 8
buildings planned there with 2 or 3 to each one. Single family
residences along that area. I don't think I would have any problem
with that.. When I was planning our location there, I spoke with
Now
all my neighbors around the area to let them know what my
intentions were prior to coming to Council or even dealing with the
DNR. The area is not conducive to that type of situation. I don't
think it would be good aesthetically because of the golf course.
The surrounding area is not meant to be a multi dwelling situation.
I would not be in favor of this. I would be receptive to any other
situations that Mr. Kolak would want to present. I don't believe
rezoning this property to condominiums is the right approach at
this time.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. McClain, how much water is in that ditch today?
Mr. McClain: Quite a bit.
Mr. Engebretson: I am concerned that with the high density development of this
parcel. where there would be more runoff and less capability to
absorb that water - I don't know where that ditch leads to - but I
have the feeling that there is a possibility that you could drown
in there.
Mr. McClain: It backs up once it gets into Mr. Kolak's property. It is not the
proper width and depth for adequate drainage at that point. It
goes under Seven Mile Road after that. Where it dissipates at that.
point, I have no idea. I know I had pretty stringent requirements
from the DNR and it is not 100% completed yet. Right now it is
twice the width and depth then it ever was and it still retains a
lot of water.
Chris Heck, 19188 Fitzgerald. I have lots 41 and 42, so both of my lots back
right up to this property. There is quite a problem with the creek
which we have had for years. As far as the rezoning, I am really
against it. I would like to see it go residential like everything
else in this area. I don't see why the fire station would make a
difference.
John Sevakis: I resided on this property for approximately 8 years. There was an
old farm building on that site and the creek crossed that. In the
8 years, I did have considerable problems with the creek. The
creek passes under Seven Mile Road. On the other side of Seven
Mile Road is a culvert that is below ground and continues for
200'-300' back into the subdivision at which point it goes into a
concrete-coated spillway. At the head is a dam that restricts the
amount of water flow to 18". It is an inverted dam so that the
flow must flow up to it and must flow under that obstruction in
order to pass through. Most of the backup from that obstruction is
what backs the water up. In the past year there has been
considerable drainage work in that area and much of the water flow
has been diverted along Seven Mile Road from the Fitzgerald Drain.
That creek originates in the 22 acres to the west of the Fitzgerald
development which is now being converted into residential homes.
11495
Much of that drainage is now being controlled by the drain that was
put in along Seven Mile Road. The water course has been reduced
from what it once was. The correction would be to increase the
water flow on the south side of Seven Mile Road by altering the
spillway. That is where part of the problem is.
Mr. Morrow: From what we have heard here tonight, there might be an opportunity
to explore a residential classification on that. Would it require
a new petition if this petition were to be expanded to include
properties either east or. west?
Mr. Engebretson: It certainly is my opinion that it would be. We would have to
act on this one on its own merits. If Mr. Durso would want to
modify this plan, he would have to file a new petition.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-1-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-25-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Petition 91-1--1-1 by William & Alice KoLak and
Joseph Durso requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Seven Mile Road between Bicentennial Drive and Fitzgerald
Avenue in the SW 1/4 of Section 5 from RUFC to R-C, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 91-1--1-1 be denied for the following reasons:
1) That. the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future
"41111. Land Use Plan which designates the subject land as low density
residential.
2) That the proposed change of zoning is incompatible to and not in
harmony with the surrounding single family residential uses in
the area.
3) That the proposed change of zoning would constitute spot zoning
in the area which is contrary to good zoning and planning
principals.
4) That this area of the City is already well served with land
areas which are developed for condominiums or which are zoned in
a category similar to what is being proposed.
5) That the subject property is more suited to be developed for
additional high quality single family residential land use
particularly since the amount of vacant land available for such
use is very limited.
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.
11496
Mr. E.ngebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Morrow: Not to be too redundant, but. I would encourage Mr. Durso to pursue
some of the avenues that he's heard tonight.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-1-2-1 by Louis G. Redstone Assoc. , Inc. requesting waiver use
approval to construct an Amoco service station and food shop on
property located on the northeast corner of Six Mile Road and
Haggerty. in the SW 1/4 of Section 7.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating
that the following deficiencies or problems were found: 1)
Deficient Frontage (Six Mile Road side) . Required is 150' -
Proposed is 141.19' - Deficient 8.81' . Zoning Board approval will
be required. 2) The proposed ground sign is oversize for the
setback. A sign of the size proposed will require at least a 26'
setback. Zoning Board approval will also be required. A complete
sign package should be submitted for review. 3) the Landscape
Plan does not indicate underground sprinklers. 4) The plans
submitted to this department did not indicate the overall height of
the canopy, which may not exceed 18' , or if screening will be
necessary for roof top equipment.
We also have a letter from the Department of Public Safety stating
1) A gasoline service station will increase the congestion and
err. traffic friction existing at this corner. 2) Assuming the use is
approved, it is recommended that the drive radii be increased to
24-25 feet to expedite the ingress-egress of vehicles. 3) That
extreme care be taken in the approval and maintenance of plantings
so pedestrians are not obstructed from the view of motorists. A
"clear zone" between 30 inches to 96 inches above the
drive-sidewalk grade and extending about 20 feet from the sidewalk
needs to be established. 4) It is noted that the plan calls for
the installation of "No Left Turn" into, and "Turn Right Only"
signs on the Six Mile drive. It may be necessary to impose a
similar restriction on the Haggerty Road side, at least during
certain hours, in the near future. That is signed by Robert E.
Thorne, Sr. Lieutenant, Traffic Bureau.
We have a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have no
objection to this proposal contingent upon hydrant(s) being
provided and so located that access to closest hydrant will not
exceed 350 ft. in travel distance to the proposed building. Signed
by Rockney L. Whitehead, Sr. Inspector.
We have a letter from the Engineering Department stating they have
no objections to the petition however it will be noted that there
are no sanitary sewers or public water mains readily available to
11497
service the site. This is signed by Gary Clark, Assistant City
Engineer.
And finally we have a letter from the Detroit Edison Company
,` stating they have no objections to this proposal.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. Shane, what does the bank do for sewer?
Mr. Shane: I think there is a storm sewer available in the area. It would
have to be brought to this site from quite a distance. The
Engineering Department was no more specific than that, storm or
sanitary.
Daniel Redstone, president of Redstone Associates, Inc. , 3347 Bloomfield Shore
Drive, West Bloomfield. I have been involved with this
intersection for almost 9 years when Manufacturers Bank decided to
locate an operation center at this intersection. It's been a long
struggle. It's a beautiful intersection and we feel that the
proposal tonight. will make it even better both for the citizens and
to keep the aesthetic image of that corner. I would like to show
you a couple of slides. As you can see, it's a nice clean site.
The facility is a four pump station. We have a ground monument
sign. We have landscaping. The intersection will remain
relatively clean and uncluttered. All in all, we have complied and
we will address some of the issues of Mr. MacDonald's letter. I
would like to now present to you the 3 boards that I have. We are
dealing with the west boundary of the City of Livonia along
Haggerty Road. Manufacturers Bank has one access point on Six Mile
and two on Haggerty. The proposed facility would have one curb cut
on Six Mile and one on Haggerty. One of the Goals of Amoco is to
firr maintain the extensive landscaping that we began with Manufacturers
which we would continue to fill in with the Amoco station. This is
the site plan with the landscape over it. The comments from Wayne
County Public Service have been incorporated which have the No Left
Turn coming out and No Left Turn coming in off Six Mile Road, a
wider radius for the curb. The landscaping meets the comments of
the Traffic Department in that most of the vegetation is low, 18"
to 24" . There are a few trees. The landscaping would be
spri.nkiered. With regards to the comment of traffic that it would
be more congested, the site is currently vacant, so any use would
be more busy than it is currently. As I understand it, the
Planning Commission previously approved a party store for this
corner. I would like to pass out these brochures to the
commissioners. Basically what I passed out is 2 letters from
Manufacturers Bank. The first letter says the following:
Dear Mr. Redstone: We have reviewed your presentation for the
establishment of an Amoco gas station on the parcel adjacent to
our property at the northeast corner of Six Mile and Haggerty.
We have no problem with locating this facility as our neighbor,
and are pleased with the positive approach for this use.
11498
The second letter deals with the Wayne County Public Service's
requirement that approval be given because we have encroached on
the radius of the curb cut at Six Mile.
fir. With regard to the Engineering report, we have the engineer for
this project here, Mr. Roskelly. We serve Manufacturers Bank with
sanitary sewers. In order to serve this facility, we have to
extend the sanitary sewer. Water can be acquired from across the
street about 300' away. We did meet with the Planning Department
staff and were told that we do comply in that only one of the roads
has to be considered a front road and we did meet that. 150'
requirement with Haggerty and, therefore, we did riot have to have
150' on Six Mile and we complied with all the setbacks. I believe
we have a difference of opinion with Mr. MacDonald. The monument
sign would be similar to what Amoco has put in at both Farmington
and Schoolcraft and Farmington and Eight Mile. The canopy height
is 16-1/2' , which is well within the height limitations. With
regard to what the facility means for Livonia, it means 10
employees, it means serving the community, it means Amoco is adding
another facility to the 7 facilities currently serving the City. I
think they do an admirable job in maintaining them. I encourage
you to approve this and send it on to the Council with a positive
vote. It is a good use to the corner. It does not add to the
congestion both aesthetically or with traffic.
Mrs. Fandrei: Will you have underground sprinklers on the site?
Mr. Redstone: It was not on the drawings, it would be in the facility.
Everything in Livonia that has landscaping has to be maintained.
`,`„ Mr. LaPine: Who owns the property, Manufacturers Bank?
Mr. Redstone: No. Manufacturers Bank never owned the property. It's always been
owned by one individual and Amoco has the property under option, I
believe.
Mr. LaPine: How many stations does Amoco have in Livonia?
Mr. Redstone: Seven.
Mr. LaPine: Of those seven, how many are full service stations?
Mr. Redstone: Five.
Mr. LaPine: This will be a self-service with a food market, correct?
Mr. Redstone: This is a retail gasoline operation only and a food market which is
minor, I think 5%.
Mr. LaPine: Did you build the Manufacturers Bank?
Mr. Redstone: Yes, I did.
11499
Mr. LaPine: I don't know how you could make a statement., being an architect,
that a gas station in front of that beautiful building is going to
enhance the beauty of that area.
Mr. Redstone: If we look at the options for that location, what we are trying to
do is maintain the look.
Mr. LaPine: In my opinion the zoning is wrong. The Planning Commission wanted
to rezone that location to OS. It is not a C-2 location,
especially for a gas station. I think that is the worse use of the
property.
Mr 'vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, when we tried to make that OS, what did the Council do?
Mr. Shane: The Council turned it down. The property owner did protest the
petition which required a 6 to 1 vote of the council and they were
not able to.
Mr. Redstone: I know that this corner has been under discussion for many, many
years. It is a relatively small parcel, 140'x185' and given the
requirements of the setbacks, landscaping and so on, not a very
large building could be built on it. Given everything in the whole
package under consideration, we feel that it is a good use of the
corner.
Mr. Gniewek: What is the percentage of landscaping on that site?
Mr. Redstone: Over 15%.
Mr. Shane: Our notes indicated 16.3%.
sow
Mr. Engebretson: I think Mr. LaPine was addressing your reference to the
beautiful intersection being made more beautiful by a gas station.
This is a first. I am more concerned, however, with the traffic
flow. With all of the development in that area, I am concerned
with some of the health, safety and welfare issues from a traffic
point of view.
Mr. Redstone: We had the option of coming in here and having the Commission study
and giving facts and figures. The traffic anticipated, I believe
currently there's about 20,000 cars a day along Haggerty and about
the same along Six Mile Road. We could always give you a traffic
study that I think would confirm that. The anticipated traffic at
the station over a 24 hour period is 600 cars a day. Even allowing
for a very few cars in the evening, it is still not a large
quantity per hour during the hours of 7:00 am to 10:00 pm.
Averages 30-40 cars an hour. I think it' s been proven at other
intersections that a service station contributes an additional 1%
or 2% to the traffic count. They really just serve the people
using that intersection.
Mr. Engebretson: They may well be, but the traffic is somewhat dense now and
there are a lot of plans for that corridor. There are a number of
studies that indicate the traffic is going to swell substantially
11500
in the next 10 years. If your percentage of 1% of people using the
facility is right, then 600 cars per day is correct. There will be
considerably more than that. On other intersections that are
similar to this, the gas stations on real busy intersections do
Irmy cause problems. I do want to go on record that I am concerned
about the traffic because we have looked in great detail a number
of other issues planned for that corridor.
Mr. Kluver: Just to follow up on the traffic issue, you alluded that you went
through your presentation about no left hand turns, but when you
look at that type of situation, it just doesn't really happen. You
have people make those illegal turns. I am just amplifying what
Jack has said, that there is a real serious problem with traffic
and it. will be further amplified by those close radius access to
what we have there,
Mrs. Fandrei: I am sure that Amoco is planning on the increase in traffic for
their future business which, as we have all expressed, is one of
our concerns.
Mr. Redstone: That's what we are trying to get approved here because Amoco has
determined that it is a good location. It obviously has a traffic
count, it is in a growing area, in a growing community, it is on a
desirable corner, and Amoco has acquired the option to purchase it
and utilize it for a retail gasoline outlet if we get your approval
and the Council's approval. It is a choice piece of property.
Mrs. Frandrei: Exactly. Being a choice piece of property and the entrance into
the community from Northville is, as my fellow commissioners have
referred to, the beauty. We don't feel a gas station has quite the
'rr.. beauty that we are looking for in that area.
Mr. Redstone: We try to embellish and put in additional landscaping. The initial
planting is well over $20,000. Most of the plantings are annuals
which would be done on a yearly basis. Yes, there are dispensing
tanks and we all have to fill up and it has to be somewhere and
this we feel is a real good location, not only for the people who
live around the area, but those who work there.
Mr. Morrow: I'm coming from a zoning standpoint. We certainly don't want to
give Amoco a bad impression here about their facilities because I
think service stations have come a long way, however, I've been a
part of the Commission in our attempts to get it to an office
service compatible with the area. I don't feel a service station
in that area fits. Certainly the owner had the option of
protesting that. It is a C-2 zoning, however, going to the waiver
we are escalating that use and for all the reasons we have heard
prior to this, I don't want to escalate it. I think service
stations are attractive in certain areas, but not in this area.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, on the C-2, what could go in there?
11501
Mr. Shane: Almost any kind of retail store, in addition to the opportunity for
several waiver uses. There are at least three dozen or more
different kinds of commercial uses.
`�. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-2-1 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Lapine and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was
#2-26-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Petition 91-•1--2-1 by Louis G. Redstone Assoc. ,
Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct an Amoco Service
Station and food shop on property located on the northeast corner
of Six Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
7, the Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 91-1-2-1 for
the following reasons:
1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the general waiver use
standards and requirements set forth in Section 19.06 of the
Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use would be detrimental to and incompatible
with the adjoining uses of the area.
3) That the proposed use is contrary to the spirit and intent of
the zoning ordinance which, among other things, is to promote
and encourage a balanced and appropriate mix of uses and not
over saturate an area with similar type uses as is being
proposed.
oler
4) That the proposed use is contrary to the Future Land Use Plan
which designates the subject land area for office land use.
5) That the proposed use will be detrimental to the area because of
the additional traffic movements to and from the site which the
use will generate added to existing and future traffic expected
when all of the proposed development in the area is realized.
6) That the proposed use is contrary to the comprehensive plan of
the Zoning Ordinance which is to promote the public health,
safety and general welfare of the community by facilitating
adequate provisions for increased safety in traffic and for
transportation, vehicular parking, parks, parkways, recreation,
schools, public buildings, housing, light, air, water supply,
sewerage, sanitation, and other public requirements that lessen
congestion, disorder and danger which often occur in unregulated
municipal development.
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:
11502
AYES: Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Fandrei
NAYS: Gniewek, Vyhnalek, Engebretson
ABSENT: Tent, McCann
`\r
Mr. Gniewek: Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote against the denying motion only
because this property is presently zoned commercial. Knowing what
other operations could be utilized, I feel that the proposed use as
presented by Mr. Redstone would be more compatible to that area
than any other commercial development. Due to the fact that the
extensive landscaping, the type of building that is being put up,
the fact that the bank itself has indicated that it is in favor of
this particular development on this corner. If anyone would be
objecting to this particular use as to how it would look, it would
be the bank. I think we would have a lot of denials as far as the
bank is concerned had a party store, a 7-11, a veterinarian, a pet
shop gone there. I think this is the best thing that we could get
out of the commercial.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Shane, does that golden corridor control zone come down to
include this area?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: So whereas normally a waiver use that may be denied would need
to be appealed, this would automatically go on to the City Council.
Mr. Shane: No, that is riot correct. Since it's a waiver use, if it's denied
by the Commission it is terminated unless it is appealed. The
control zone only has to do with site plan approval.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I feel the same way as Mr. Gniewek, that this is the best for that
site. I have been here 10 years and seen all kinds of proposals
and I feel it is the best.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Ms. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-1-2-•2 by Richard George requesting Waiver use approval to
utilize SDD and SDM licenses in connection with an existing retail
building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Middlebelt and Milburn in the NE 1/4 of Section 35.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from William J. MacDonald, Supervisor of
the Ordinance Enforcement Division stating that the following
deficiencies or problems were found: I) Deficient Landscape Area.
Required is 15% (3834 s.f. ) - Proposed is 2.6% (685 s.f. ) -
Deficient 12.4% (3149 s.f. ) . 2) Provided that the areas
designated as storage are used for that purpose only the parking is
adequate. If the storage areas are used to calculate occupancy
11503
load, there is an eighteen ( 18) space deficiency and will. require
Zoning Board of Appeal approval. 3) A complete sign package
should be submitted for review.
*u. We also have a letter from the Division of Fire stating they have
no objection to this proposal. There is a letter from the
Engineering Department stating they have no objections to the
petition, but noting, however, that Plymouth Road has not been
dedicated to its fullest extent in accordance with the Master
Thoroughfare Plan.
Next is a letter from the Department of Public Safety. After
reviewing the proposal, the following recommendations are submitted
for your consideration: I) Provide pedestrian walkways along the
east and west side of the building. The entrance to the party
;tore is from the drive on the east side while the west side office
has only an entrance on the Plymouth Road side of the building. if
it is impractical to construct the walks then a painted pedestrian
way with appropriate "Watch for Pedestrians" signs must be
provided. 2) Limited view signs should be posted on north end of
both driveways due to heavy pedestrian traffic along Plymouth Road.
3) Posts are needed at the southeast door exiting onto the east
driveway. Signed by Lt. Thorne of the Traffic Bureau.
A letter from the Engineering Department states we have no
objections to this petition. We note, however, that Plymouth Road
has not been dedicated to its fullest extent in accordance with the
Master Thoroughfare Plan.
Lastly is a letter from Detroit Edison stating they have no
Vr. objection to this petition.
Richard George, 5565 Shore Drive, Orchard Lake. The reason I am before the
Planning Commission is to relocate my present location 30805
Plymouth Road to the location presented in front of you. We feel
it is a better location than the location we are in right now. We
have been there for five years and the visibility is very poor and
the struggle we have had there has been very great. It's been a
money loser for five years, so we are trying to turn that around.
Mr. Engebretson: It hasn't been long since we went through this before and you
have made quite a few changes in your approach this time.
Mr. George: We have tried to comply with most of the recommendations from the
Planning Commission. We have eliminated the addition. We have
totally eliminated the elevation of the building, and we have tried
to supply walkways and more parking spaces by not putting on the
addition. I think you are all very familiar with this situation.
There is one situation where we have equipment located on top of
the roof and I have not furnished an enclosure for the equipment,
but that will be done as per your request.
Mr. Gniewek: What is the present square footage of your present building as far
as operating area, selling area?
11504
Mr. George: in our present location, we have approximately 3900 square feet
retail.
Mr. Gniewek: How much square footage of retail will you have at this location?
\r. Mr. George: Approximately 2200.
Mr. Gniewek: You are loosing quite a bit of retail space.
Mr. George: Almost half.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, what was this about the storage and parking in Mr.
MacDonald' s letter?
Mr. Shane: What he was indicating was that on Mr. George's plan, the area he
wishes to locate for retail space is noted on the plan and there is
another significantly large space next to him which he wants to use
as storage only, and north of that is a small leased space which
won't include Mr. George's operation, but would be leased to
another party. So what Mr. MacDonald is saying is that if that
storage space continues to be storage and is not counted for
parking purposes, then his parking requirements are met. If he
should expand, or someone else should expand in that storage area,
then the parking requirement would be different.
Mr. Vyhnalek: You are taking about 2/3 of the entire building? 1/3 would be
storage for your own products?
Mr. George: Yes. The storage would probably be used for empties and supplies
rather than general merchandise.
``. Mr. Vyhnalek: If you expanded in that, you would be in trouble in parking.
Sidewalks; are you going to put those in?
Mr. George: Yes, we will furnish the sidewalk in the front and we would prefer
to stripe the sides.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Your entrance is on the east side. You should have a sidewalk from
the back parking lot to your door.
Mr. George: We could supply a concrete walk.
Mr. Vyhnalek: I believe we recommend a sidewalk on the east side.
Mr. Shane: The Traffic Bureau did indicate that a stripping in lieu of a
sidewalk would be fine.
Mr. Vyhnalek: In the back you have very little space to maneuver a semi truck.
You also have a garbage container in the corner, don't you?
Mr. George: What we have supplied is one garbage container on the south end of
the building in the center which both I and my tenant would use.
11505
Mr. Vyhnalek: Can a semi truck make the turnaround or back in there without
blocking the driveway so no one could go around the building?
Mr. George: We have supplied the proper footage to bring in a semi and turn it
around and it would park on the side of the building and not in the
8tor' rear. There would be room for a car to go around, but I think we
have designated it as one way. There is plenty of room for a car
to go around there. The car could also circle the lot and go out
the west exit onto Plymouth Road.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, is there enough room?
Mr. Shane: Yes. You may recall at the study meeting that the staff had
indicated to you that it felt that if the delivery occurred at the
rear of the building that it might be well to consider a one way
drive into the site on the west side, and a one way out on the east
side. But when I talked to Mr. George, he indicated to me that his
deliveries would occur at the side door and the truck would be
parked in the easterly drive, so I then felt that the two-way drive
on the west side would be the better move to keep the two-way drive
for customers in and out, and the easterly one-way drive would be
for service purposes. That's another reason for not having a
sidewalk per se along the west side of the building in order to
keep a 22' drive on that side. We suggested in the notes that in
place of a sidewalk, it be properly signed to watch out for
pedestrians.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Are you going to put a whole new canopy across the entire front?
Mr. George: We would keep the frame that is there and just extend it to the end
`o. of the building. A whole new canopy.
Mrs. Fandrei: Mr. George, just to make sure, we had looked at the asphalt at the
front of the building and that is going to be removed?
Mr. George: Yes. We are going to put in a concrete driveway.
Mrs. Fandrei: What we are looking for is some kind of green.
Mr. George: To supply any landscaping except in the front of the building would
prohibit the driveway. In the rear we would be happy to supply
more greenery, but then it would take away the parking. We will
supply a greenbelt in the front of the building with some small
bushes and a Japanese willow.
Mr. LaPine: In the rear of your building, you have an overhead door, correct?
Mr. George: Yes, that will be eliminated.
Mr. LaPine: So there is no reason for any semi's to back into that door to
unload. The trucks are going to come in on the west side of the
building, go around the building, then pull into the east drive
going north, park and unload their stuff and bring it into your
building. What are you objections to having a one-way on the west
11506
side of the building, come into the building and then exit on the
east side?
Mr. George: This driveway is not large enough. If we made this a one-way and
the other a one-way, I think there would be congestion. Our
delivery days are Tuesday and Thursday in the morning. We open at
7:00 am.
Mr. LaPine: Are you doing any renovations to the front of the building?
Mr. George: There is glass in front of the building now. We are going to make
a display window out of that. There is some glass that needs to be
replaced and some brick work to be done and then put a coat of
paint on it to uniform it all one color.
Mr. LaPine: Is all this incorporated into the plan now?
Mr. George: No.
Mr. LaPine: Until we can get all this down on the plan, all you are willing to
do, I don't see how we can really move on this.
Mr. Morrow: You mentioned the display window. Is it your intent to put paper
signs? What would be in the display window?
Mr. George: We would display bottles of wine, maybe a mannequin holding a
bottle. There would be signs some times, but not in more than 25%
of the window. We will hire a window man who will come in during
holidays and set up the window like you would see at Hudson's. We
have been working with someone very closely. We have a store in
the Renaissance Center where they have been. doing the windows as
such.
Mr. Vhynalek: Last time you were here you said you had some very expensive wines
and you were going to build a cellar down below. What happened to
that?
Mr. George: If you will look at the plans, you will see there are provisions
for storage only. We buy wines in advance for the future. Three
years down the line we bought $50,000 worth of wine and it is still
coming. We will store it in that basement and there will be
vibrations and we will hurt the wine.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-2-2 closed.
Mr. LaPine: Do we have any problem here with any other liquor license within
500' ?
Mr. Shane: Yes, there is an SDM license at Kmart's which violates the 500'
operation rule, but it can be waived by the City Council. If you
should approve the petition it would have to be subject to the
waiver of that.
11507
Mr. Gniewek: I think there is sufficient room for more modification of the plan
;s we discussed this evening. For example, the two way drive on
one side of the building, as well as the facia of the building, and
there was also an indication of a sign package. I think I would
like to table this at this time until we have these plans a little
more concise and complete.
Mr. Engebretson: Table until the next study meeting?
Mr. Gniewek: That would be fine.
Ms. Fandrei: Also the screening of the roof top.
On a. motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mrs. Fandrei and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-27-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Petition 91-1-2-2 by Richard George requesting
waiver use approval to utilize SDD and SDM licenses in connection
with an existing retail building located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Milburn in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to table Petition 91-1-2•-2 until the Study Meeting of February 26,
1991.
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: Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei,
Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Tent, McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. George, we have tabled the petition to the meeting of
February 26th and I encourage you to work with the staff to get
these issues resolved because I think there is a lot of support
here for what you are doing, but we need to get these issues
ironed out. We need to see it on these prints. Please work these
details out and attend the meeting so that we can then act on
this.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91- 1-•2-3 by Shell Oil Co. , Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
add an auto-wash facility to an existing service station located
on the southeast corner of Five Mile and Merriman Roads in the NW
1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
11508
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Ordinance Enforcement Division citing
the following deficiencies or problems found: 1) The site does
not provide space for the required 20 vehicle stacking. 2) The
'41ur vacuum/vehicle cleaning area proposed to be in the required front
yard set back may cause a traffic flow problem. 3) The signage
on this site is non-conforming and is governed by several
variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
We also have a letter from Robert Thorne, Sr. Lieutenant of the
Traffic Bureau stating the following recommendations for
consideration: 1) Per the print, there is 41.5" between the rear
of the building and the south curb line. Owing to the fact that
all three bays (one wash and two lube bays) must enter from the
south side, this may riot be enough room for vehicles to make a 90
degree left turn into each of the bays. 2) Right turn only signs
may be needed at all four driveways. This is due to heavy traffic
on Five Mile and Merriman and the heavy use of the left turn lane.
0) Parking may be a problem. When I checked the site, six
vehicles were parked on the property and the site plan shows eight
spaces, one being a handicapped space. 4) There is concern with
water tracking in the winter. 5) Painting lanes for the lube bay
and wash bay lines may be needed on the south side of the building
to avoid congestion.
Next is a letter from the Detroit Edison Company. I have reviewed
the above captioned petition with respect to our land needs and
the location of Detroit Edison overhead or underground facilities
in the general area. The Detroit Edison Company has no objection
to this petition, however, we do maintain overhead lines on this
property that would conflict with any construction. Please inform
the developer that we will need a site plan as soon as possible.
The Detroit Edison Company will need eight to ten weeks to
relocate our equipment, provided all necessary permits and rights
of way can be secured. If I can be of further assistance, please
call me on 397-4034. That's signed by the Service Planner, Robert
Wrobel.
Finally, we have a letter from the Department of Public Safety,
Division of Fire stating they have no objection to this proposal.
John Carney, 36142 Roycroft, on behalf of Shell Oil. As you know, Mr. Bucalo has
serviced this area for 20 years. There are two lube bays on the
premises. The car wash will be located directly east of those 2
bays. We have gone over the letters from the Police Department
and have no quarrel with anything they say. We think we can live
with all the recommendations. As to the stacking, the
contemplated 20 car stacking provision that was being considered
was something other than what is here now. We have a Mobil
station at Eight Mile and Merriman which is a drive thru car wash.
That is what we have here. There is a 75' strip from exit of the
car wash to the street. The Mobil station has a heat drip pad
during the winter time. They are somewhat closer to the
11509
intersection than we are. However, they don't have blowers and we
do,. The people that come into the car wash, this is not a
promotional gimmick, probably do what I do. If I am filling up
with gas, and I have a need to wash my car, I will probably wash
it. These are not the kind of facilities that attract a great
deal of traffic. The traffic you have is basically what you are
going to have. That is all that is intended. I have checked with
the building department, Mr. Nagy, Mr. Shane, and there have been
no complaints about stacking.
Mr. LaPine: You say the ordinance is wrong about the 20 car stacking?
Mr. Carney: No. I don't think the ordinance contemplated at the time it was
written the type of facility we have here.
Mr. LaPine: This isn't the type of car wash where people are going to just
come in and get a car wash?
Mr. Carney: No.
Mr. LaPine: Are they going to have attendants there or is this a coin operated
car wash?
Mr. Carney: There will be attendants because next door you have a lube.
Mr. LaPine: I mean full time attendants to take care of the car wash.
Mr. Carney: No.
Mr. LaPine: So people go in and fill up for gas. Now I want a car wash. How
fir. do I pay?
Mr. Carney: Go around to the rear of the building and there will be a coin
operated facility.
Mr. LaPine: So it is coin operated?
Mr. Carney: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: You have pumps both in the front of the building fronting east and
west, and then on the side fronting north and south. You have to
go around that to get in the back. I have been to this facility
and sometimes there are two cars stacked up to get an oil change.
If there is a line up to get a car wash, it will interfere with
the cars going into the lube bays.
Mr. Carney: We discussed lining the lanes going into both the lube bays and an
outside line for the car wash.
Mr. LaPine: Is the new bay going to go on the slab on the east side of the
building?
Mr. Carney: It would be at the same level as the other overhead doors.
11510
Mr. Morrow: I think the Mobil station is at Eight Mile and Middlebelt. It
doesn't have any lube bays.
Mr. Carney: The new plan enhances the greenbelt.
hn• Mr. Shane: It. does provide additional landscaping. About 7 .2% of the site is
now landscaped which is still short of the 15%, but it's
considerably more than the original.
Mr. Engebretson: Now to address your comments regarding the traffic flow Mr.
Carney, I don't see anything platted on that board.
Mr. Carney: What we are trying to do is substantially enhance the landscaping
area. It is riot in there. I think the concern of the Mobil
station at the time of the ordinance was the 20 car stacking
provision. The same argument was put forth then as I am making
tonight. I. don't go into a gas station to get a car wash; I go to
get gas. If I can get a car wash without a great deal of
inconvenience, I will do it.
Mr. Engebretson: Having said that, show me the pattern that you would have to
follow.
Mr. Carney: You have to go around the islands. I would attempt to go through
the Merriman side.
Mr. Engebretson: I guess the concern is, if there were cars stacked in the rear
to enter the lube bays, are we going to have congestion back
there? You indicated you were going to mitigate that by striping.
Mr. Carney: Pursuant to the request by the Police Department, I thought it was
`w a good idea.
Mr. Morrow: Do you know what the cost of the car wash would be?
Mr. Carney: $2.00.
Mr. Morrow: The reason I ask is because there is a lot of correlation between
the cost of the car wash and the amount of traffic. The $2.00 car
wash on Middlebelt and Five Mile has a 30 car stack up and you
can't get in there.
Mr. Carney: Is that a gas station?
Mr. Morrow: No, it is a car wash.
Mr. Carney: This is our point. This is not a car wash, it is an adjunct to a
gas station. I have checked with the Planning Department as to
what the problems are at Eight Mile and Middlebelt, and I didn't
find any complaints, and it is close to what we have here.
Mr. Vyhnalek: With this Michigan weather we have, nice and then snow, every car
wash in town, the day after it's nice, is stacked up out into the
11511
street. If this is a $2.00 car wash, it is going to take more
than 7 or 8 spaces to handle that. You don't have enough space.
Mr. Carney: I have never had a problem at Bingham's on Five Mile and Levan.
`�r► Mr. Vyhnalek: I am saying that for $2.00, people will stack up to get their car
washed.
Mr. LaPine: You are probably right. During the summer months, you will not
have a problem with stacking. People wash their cars outside.
During the winter I go to a cheaper car wash just to wash the salt
off and they are the ones stacked. The cost of the car wash is
very important. The other problem I have with your site, it is a
small site. You have to go around the other islands, not only
:hat you have to go through the driveway that people are coming
in, then you have to turn around. You will have cars coming in to
get gas, cars coming in to get into a line for either the lube
bays or the car wash. It is just a bad situation.
Mr. Carney: These are underground tanks.
Mr. LaPine: I am not concerned about that. I am concerned that they have to
go through an island where people are gasing up and some people
are coming in. I see problems.
Mrs. Fandrei: In defense of your car wash, it is the length of two cars, isn't
it?
Mr. Carney: Yes.
Mrs. Fandrei: I have been through. the Middlebelt and Eight Mile and I have been
through the Rainbow. It is a hazard, but I think we are talking
two different things. This is not the kind of car wash most
people go out of their way to get the salt off or anything else.
It is simply a squirt compared to a good car wash. I don't have a
problem with the car wash itself. the stacking, the drive through
area, that is a problem.
Mr. Carney: We'll have to work on it.
Mr. Gniewek: You compared this with the Eight Mile and Middlebelt car wash.
There is really no comparison. Number one, we do have capacity
for stacking 20 cars at that particular location, and number two,
the only facility at that location is the car wash. There are not
two bays for oil changes. You also have the additional traffic
that goes into the oil changes. I have a hunch that if a car wash
did go in there, the oil facility might suffer some of its use. I
think that this particular site is considerably smaller, there is
considerably more congestion, I think the traffic pattern at this
location is a lot more dangerous and there really is no comparison
between the two.
11512
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91-1-2-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-28-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Petition 91.-1-2-3 by Shell Oil Co. requesting
waiver use approval to add an auto wash facility to the Shell
service station located at the southeast corner of Five Mile and
Merriman Roads in the NW 1/4 of Section 23, the Planning
Commission does hereby deny Petition 91-1-2-3 for the following
reasons:
1) That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the
proposed use is in compliance with the special and general
waiver use standards and requirements set forth in Section
11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
2) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section
11 .03(d)(3) which requires that off-street parking areas are
to be provided for automobiles waiting to be serviced
sufficient to park no less than twenty (20) vehicles.
3) That the proposed use fails to comply with Section 19.06(j)
which requires that no less than fifteen (15) percent of the
total area of the lot exclusive of public right-of-way as
shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan be landscaped.
4) That the site lacks the capacity to accommodate the proposed
ta use.
5) That the proposed use is detrimental to and incompatible 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. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Ms. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition
91-1-2-4 by Shaw Construction & Management Co. requesting waiver
use approval to utilize property located on the east side of
Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road and Vargo Avenue in the SW
1/4 of Section 8 for real estate office purposes.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Traffic Bureau submitting the following
11513
recommendations for consideration: 1) As per the site plan, a
Right Turn Only or a No Left Turn sign is needed for the south
driveway. 2) Check on the clear vision area at the sidewalk
approach reference the seasonal color area, max. of 30" to a min.
of 96" so a driver may see 20' either side of the driveway.
Provide a "clear zone." We also have a letter from the Ordinance
Enforcement Division stating that no deficiencies were found and
they have no objections to the proposal. There is also a letter
from Arnold Klinger, Fire Marshal stating they have no objections
to this proposal, however, if any portion of the proposed building
is sprinklered and fire department connection is provided, an
on--site hydrant should be required. Next we have a letter from
the Detroit Edison Company by Robert Wrobel who has indicated that
they have no objections to the petition.
Richard Barker, 13980 Farmington Road, Livonia. We are requesting waiver use for
the location of a commercial real estate firm, specifically
Ventura Properties to occupy approximately 3500 square feet of our
proposed building.
Mr. Engebretson: Exactly which 3500 square feet?
Mr. Barker: The southwest corner of the building.
Mr. Gniewek: This would be how much of the total square footage?
Mr. Barker: The building is an 18,000 square foot building. 20%.
Mr. Gniewek: Would it be agreeable to you that we limit that waiver use to only
35% of the building?
``" Mr. Barker: In all honesty, we have been negotiating with another tenant, who
is also a realtor, a residential realtor.
Mr. Gniewek: So you are looking for more than 3500 square feet as far as real
estate area is concerned. About half the building?
Mr. Barker: Something less than half the building. There is a large tenant,
who is also the owner of the building, who is going to occupy
approximately 8000 square feet.
Mr. Gniewek: So the remaining square footage would then be delegated as real
estate?
Mr. Barker: No, I wouldn't anticipate that it would. I would anticipate that
the maximum devoted to real estate would be about 7000 square
feet. But I would like to add that the other realtor is only a
potential.
Mr. Gniewek: What you are basically asking then is for 7000 square feet
designated as real estate?
Mr. Barker: Yes, that would be fair.
11514
Mr. Griiewek: The reason I am asking this is that we are allowing a waiver use.
We can condition this waiver use to be only a partial part of that
building, 7000 square feet, then we could be guaranteed that there
would never be more than that as far as the traffic is concerned
and we would limit that. If we did so approve it, I would like to
`. see it conditioned to be no more than 7000 square feet. at that
location.
Mr. Engebretson: I would go further and suggest that it would be limited
strictly to the 3500 square feet of the southwest corner which is
the commercial type of operation that they are proposing, and if
they want to bring another one in, let them go through the process
again. Approving real estate operations in that building as
:speculative troubles me because when this issue came up for
toning, to begin with it was presented that the principal occupant
would be the owner who operates an accounting firm and that it was
going to be a very low profile, low traffic type of operation. In
my way of thinking, real estate operations are high traffic. That
is probably one of the reasons that the ordinance isolates real
estate offices as a special use within this zoning district.
Mr. Barker: I think you can differentiate between a commercial and a
residential real estate office. A commercial real estate office
is definitely a straight office use as opposed to a residential
where you do get some walk-in traffic. I have no trouble coming
before this body for different issues if that is agreeable.
Mr. Engebretson: I think the point you make is well taken. The commercial is
going to be less obtrusive than the residential type, but what
troubles me is what we see in some of these office buildings and
strip malls. We come in with low profile, low density kind of
operation and we click it up a notch several steps along the way
where we end up with a real intense kind of use, and in some
cases, we have facilities that are over-used. I am very concerned
that you are already considering a residential-type real estate.
Mr. Vyhnalek: The CPA firmis 8,000 square feet?
Mr. Barker: Yes.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What will be in the remaining part?
Mr. . Barker: It looks like an accounting firm. I think it is important to
point out the cost of this particular building as it relates to
rents and the use of the building. It's a rather expensive
building and it's not going to be easy to have an undesirable use
with rents like this.
Mr. Vyhnalek: Mr. Shane, will they have enough parking with the proposed type of
use?
Mr. Shane: Yes, they will. All of those uses are under general
classification.
11515
Mr. LaPine: You were in to us about three weeks ago and we approved your
building and 1 was under the impression that we had a CPA firm
oming in and the rest of the building was just going to be low
office complex. A week later we get another proposal before us
for a waiver use. The individual who was going to move into the
waiver use was in the audience that night. Did you know at that
Lime he was going to ask you for a waiver use?
Mr. Barker: We were in error. We thought it was a permitted use. There was
110 intent to deceive you.
Father Joseph Ferens, pastor of St. Colette. We are adjacent to the property in
question. I have no objections to the building. I have seen the
plans. I commended the engineering for it. It is not a
conventional rectangular building. It will be a very beautiful
building. I did talk with them. On the landscape plan, there was
a little error. There was a line of trees on our property that
was shown on their property. I understand that that correction
has been made, so I have no more objections.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 91--1-2-4 closed.
On a motion made by Mrs. Fandrei and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it. was
#2-29-91 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Petition 91-1-2-4 by Shaw Construction &
Management Co. requesting waiver use approval to utilize property
located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Seven Mile Road
and Vargo Avenue in the Southwest 1./4 of Section 8 for real estate
office purposes, the City Planning Commission does hereby
`or recommend to the City Council that Petition 91-1-2-4 be approved
subject to compliance with all conditions attached to the
previously approved site plan for the subject office building, and
with the condition that the approval be restricted to the 3500
square feet of the southwest corner, for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all waiver use
standards and requirements as set forth. in Section 9.03 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.
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:
11516
AYES: Gniewek, Kluver, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei
NAYS: LaPine, Engebretson
ABSENT: Tent., McCann
%ow Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mrs. Fandrei, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary
Plat approval for Fargo Woods Subdivision proposed to he located
on the southeast corner of Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the
NW 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: The Engineering Department states in their letter that they have
no objections to the proposed layout. Lot No. 7 should be
restricted to access to Fargo Avenue only. Further, on--site
driveway turn around areas should be required for Lots No. 1
through 6 fronting Merriman Road. Finally, it is our
understanding that the Master Thoroughfare Plan has recently been
revised so as to delete the requirement for any further public
right-of-way for Pembroke Avenue associated with this plat.
The Traffic Bureau has the following comments: 1) Provide
sidewalks along the frontage of all. lots. 2) Require the
driveway for Lot 7 to use Fargo Avenue. 3) Have a turnaround
bay installed. on Lots 1 through 6 to eliminate the need to back
into Merriman. 4) The Wayne County Public Service Division
recently issued a Parking Control Order (P82-34-89, of 9/11/90)
banning parking within the entire right-of-way of Merriman Road.
Therefore, the use of the right-of-way for parking must be
discouraged, even though the "No Parking" signs have not yet been
erected. 5) There is no doubt that at some future time Merriman
Road will be widened to five lanes. Therefore, the turnarounds
should. he east of the sidewalks. A service drive would take care
of the problem but, with the small number of lots involved, it may
he too costly.
Rockney L. Whitehead, Sr. Inspector of the Division of Fire,
states in his letter that their office has no objections to this
development.
The Superintendent of Parks and Recreation has reviewed the
preliminary plot and sees no problems or discrepancies with the
plan as submitted.
Bill Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft. You have in front of you a plan I reviewed
with the Planning Department. With regard to the comments just
read by Mr. Shane, you will notice in the bottom left hand side of
your plan we have a note that says "No vehicular access to
Merriman Road from Lot 7." This, of course, will be put on the
final plat. My second notation is that Lots 1 through 6 shall
have looped drive or T turnaround. Most people prefer a T
11517
turnaround so there would be no one backing into Merriman Road. 1:
would like to point out that this is R-3 but because of the dense
woods in the majority of property, and with the neighbors to the
east, we have agreed, and you will note on the plat, there is a
*or 50' easement that will remain in a natural state that will
preserve all these natural trees. Along with this, we will
certainly have to get the blessing of the Council that the 20'
easement that we show for drainage and also underground. phone and
electric will have to be waived from the rear property line to
this 50' line, but I suspect we should have no problem. The lots
are very large in size which allows us to have an adequate setback
and to permit the loop driveway. I think it is a well developed
piece and I hope you will find it the same way.
Mr. Vyhnalek: What are the houses setback?
Mr. Roskelly: The ordinance calls for 35' , but in this case we will put them
back further because our plan is to cut the traffic by putting a
moderate berm, perhaps 2' --3' . Nothing to obstruct the traffic
site, but something to deaden the sound so I suspect we will. go
back to 50' or 60' .
Mr. Vyhnalek: Would that take in the proposed widening of Merriman?
Mr. Roskelly: You will notice that Merriman has already been dedicated 60' , so
there will be no necessary increase in the right-of-way.
Mr. Vyhnalek: So when they widen Merriman, that won't have to be disturbed.
Mr. Roskelly: No, Sir.
stow
Mr. LaPine: Are you going to be building these homes or selling the lots off?
Mr. Roskelly: Presently, I am the petitioner for Owen-Cummings. I suspect that
with the reaction we've had down on Inkster Road south of Five
Mile by Lyndon, it will be likely we will be building these 8
houses in tandem with the others because there are quite a few
people that are looking for an upgrade from the $125,000-130,000.
I believe this area would merit a home somewhere in the area of
$150,000, expanding one of our proposed 3 models. That is not a
firm commitment,.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval
for Fargo Woods Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Lee Morrow, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
approved, it was
#2-30-91 RESOLVED that pursuant to a. Public Hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Preliminary Plat approval for Fargo Woods
Subdivision proposed to be located on the southeast corner of
Fargo Avenue and Merriman Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
11518
Council that the Preliminary Plat be approved for Fargo Woods
Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1) That access to Lot No. 7 shall be restricted to Fargo Avenue
Nor only.
2) That on-site driveway turn around areas shall be required for
Lots No. 1 through 6 fronting on Merriman Road.
for the following reasons:
1) That all of the standards and requirements set forth in
Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations have been complied with.
2) That no reporting City Department objects to the approval of
the Preliminary Plat.
3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
solution to development of the subject land area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed
in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the
notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent
of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Nor.
Mr. Gniewek: Does the plat plan indicate that sidewalks be installed?
Mr. , Shane: That would normally not be a subject that would be on a
Preliminary Plat. That would turn up on the Engineering drawings.
Mr. Gniewek: I would like to be sure that that is in there.
Ms. Fandre.i, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat
approval for Crystal Pond Subdivision proposed to be located on
the north side of Joy Road between Newburgh Road and Hix Road in
the SE 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Bakewell presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Shane: We have received a letter from Robert E. Thorne of the Traffic
Bureau stating that the plat has been reviewed and it appears to
present no unusual problems. the Right--Of-Way should be 60 feet
(as proposed) . The street should be paved to a 31 foot width and
sidewalks provided. No street names were indicated on the plat.
It is recommended that the names conform to existing street names
already in use in the City. This reduces confusion when dealing
with emergencies and also for delivery persons.
11519
A letter from Rockney L. Whitehead.. Sr. Inspector of the Division
of Fire, states they have reviewed. the preliminary plat and have
no objections to this development. The Department of Parks and
Recreation has reviewed the preliminary plot and sees no problems
tire. or discrepancies with the plan as presented provided the developer
take all possible precautions and comply with all state and local
statutes as they would pertain to the proposed pond. A letter
from the Engineering Department states they have no objections to
the proposed layout. It is assumed, however, that the areas east
of the proposed plat will be developed as residential and thereby
provide for the appropriate street extension and/or cul--de-sac
area at a future date. A storm water detention area is indicated
on the preliminary plat in accordance with a Westland-Livonia
drainage agreement. We will require that Stonehouse Avenue be
improved as an Alternate IV type improvement consistent with the
adjoining streets within the Golden Ridge Subdivision area. That
is signed. by Gary D. Clark, Assistant City Engineer.
Mr. Engebretson: Would you please go back to Mr. Clark's letter and comment on
his point relative to the paper street?
Mr. Shane: What he is saying is that, you will notice abutting the plat. on
the west is a street called Stonehouse Avenue which is actually
not there. It is a paper street not ever developed. Because this
development will. utilize Stonehouse Avenue for access, Stonehouse
Avenue should be developed in a manner in which Stonehouse Avenue
has been developed and paved north of this point. He mentioned
Alternate type IV improvement which is an asphalt surface without
curb and gutter and will probably have ditches.
Mr. Engebretson: Is that really a consideration for this proceeding here
tonight considering the fact that that involves a very complex
Council procedure?
Mr. Shane: Not really. It's a point of information.
Bill Roskelly, 16211 Ryland, Redford. Again, I believe since last week we had
instructions to make some changes and I do believe that the
commissioners have the updated plan that showed. a couple of
things. If we relate to lots 13 and 39, There were some problems
I believe as to the area. in lot 13. We originally had the road
coming in a T from Joy Road going north without the little curve
that we have now placed. We had a couple of sites that were tight
and the homes would have been put in with a shoehorn. We have
revamped that area to make a little more usable, buildable lots.
I would like to address this area of the pond which is fronting on
Joy Road just east of the proposed road. I believe that that
should become part of Lot 43 rather than a separate island by
itself, simply because under the State Plat Act, it would be very
difficult to treat and take care of. If it becomes part of Lot 43
encumbered by the pond with a proper easement, it will then be the
chore of the owner of 43 to maintain it. When we see pond, I
think we begin to look at a deep hole with a cyclone fence. Not
true. This is not a retention pond, but a detention area for
11520
runoff water that will occur when we have a 30 year storm, etc.
At that time, there will be a certain amount of water in this
pond. At the deepest point, it will be 3-1/2 feet. It will have
slopes on the side of l' to 5' , which makes it easier to manicure.
°gm. It will he, for all practical purposes, a dry pond because we do
have a direct access storm sewer with a choker which in turn
during rains will detain water in this, as well as some of the
back swale. This is not an ugly hole or pit. I would like to say
it is a sodded, gentle swale that will hold plain rain water on
rare occasions. As far as the Stonehouse improvement, I have the
fortune to also be doing the development on the west side of
Stonehouse for Mr. Pink. At that time, in tandem, the development
of Stonehouse will take place. The proposed outlet to the east is
for the future exit to what I believe will eventually be a
residential zoning. Further with Stonehouse, very shortly we will
be coming up with another development to the north of this which,
I
believe, I have already submitted for rezoning, so Stonehouse
will eventually be fully improved further north and what is now
public lands.
Mr. LaPine: You are talking about Lot 43 where the retention pond is going to
be. The home owner will own that property?
Mr. Roskelly: 1: am relating to one of two possibilities. Lot 43 should be
expanded to include the pond as a portion of the lot rather than a
separate portion of land. I suspect by virtue of the
restrictions, the developers will take this as a cannon area with
Association dues because I do not believe that the owner of Lot 43
should bear the expense, but perhaps he wouldn't mind maintaining
it if he were reimbursed the fees.
*ft.
Mr. Gniewek: For clarification, the pond itself will only retain rainwater and
no other type of water?
Mr. Roskelly: That is correct. It would be over an overflow of the detaining
areas that we have in these 20' swales that are mandated by your
Engineering Department. If you will recall all the problems we
went through to put this big sewer down on Joy Road, we are still
restricted to a certain runoff into that sewer. As a result, we
must have this detention area rather than retention.
Mr. Gniewek: This is not the same type of situation that is up on Inkster.
This is strictly a rain water. runoff.
Mr. Roskelly: It is a surface runoff storm water drainage detention area.
Mrs. Fandrei: Would you clarify for us how the water would get into this area if
we have a street and we have lots that are landscaped and so on.
How is it going to come into this subdivision into that particular
spot?
Mr. Roskelly: We have 2 catch basins on your north and south streets coming off
of Joy Road. From there they go underground into a sewer pipe.
That drains into that pond. It will go into the internal pipes.
11521
Mr. Engebretson: I see a discrepancy between your plan here and the written
notes that we have. You indicated you will have a 1 to 5 slope,
the staff notes indicate it will be 1 to 3. Does this represent a
change?
Mr. Shane: No. That was meant to indicate it will be no steeper than 1 to 3.
Mr. Roskelly: What Engineering mandates is that they will. not allow a slope of
any greater degree than ]. to 3, 1 to 4, 1 to 5. We think this is
the most desirable.
Mr. Engebretson: As I read it more carefully, I see that it indicates it will be
no steeper than that. I guess I still wonder if 3-1/2' of water
still doesn' t represent some potential hazard to young children in
the neighborhood.
Mr. Roskelly: I suspect that with a 1 to 5 slope (for every 5' horizontal, 1
down) number 1, there will not be 3-1/2' of water in this pond
perhaps only during and maybe 20 minutes after a rain storm. Most
children aren't out at that time. More often than not, there will
be no water in this. It may occur a few times a year. Never over
3-1/2 'and chances are never over 3' .
Tim Bumpus, 37760 Joy Road. I would like to say that I support residential homes
as a land usage, however, as a resident of one of the homes in our
sector where my driveway faces Joy Road, the concern I have is
with Westwood Village Apartments on the south side of Joy Road is
the traffic flow. Right now it is difficult for me to get on to
Joy Road. You will have situations where people are backing up
and right now it is pretty congested.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Preliminary Plat approval
for Crystal Pond Subdivision closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
adopted, it. was
#2-31-91 RESOLVED that pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
February 19, 1991 on Preliminary Plat approval for Crystal Pond
Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Joy Road
between Newburgh Road and Hix Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the Preliminary Plat be approved for Crystal Pond
Subdivision subject to the waiving of the open space requirement
as set forth in the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and to the
following additional conditions:
1) That. the proposed detention pond be made a. part of Lot 43 and
designed in accordance with the recommendations of the
Engineering Department.
2) That a landscape plan showing the proposed landscape
treatment of the detention pond and the greenbelt located on
11522
Lot 8 shall be submitted to the Planning Commission prior to
approval of the Final Plat.
3) That a site plan for the proposed subdivision entrance marker
`om as required by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations be
submitted to the Planning Commission prior to approval of the
Final Plat .
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
2) That no reporting City Department objects to the approvalof
he Preliminary Plat.,
3) That the proposed Preliminary Plat represents a good land use
proposal for development of the subject property.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent
to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments
as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat:
together with the notices have been sent to the Building
Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department,
Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, announced that the public hearing portion of the
meeting is concluded and the commission would proceed with items pending before
it.
On a motion made by Mr. Gniewek, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously adopted,
it was
#2-32-91 RESOLVED that, Petition 90-12-2-34 by Raymond Praedel requesting
waiver use approval to operate a full service restaurant in the
Livonia Plaza Shopping Center located on the south side of Five
Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 23 be taken from the table.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-33-91 . RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
January 15, 1991 on Petition 90-12-2-34 by Raymond Praedel
requesting waiver use approval to operate a full service
restaurant in the Livonia Plaza Shopping Center located on the
south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman Road and Henry Ruff
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table Petition 91-12-2-34 for further
study.
11523
tl.r. Eucjebret:son. Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On -1 motion made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Gniewiek and unanimously adopted,
'„r, it was
#2-34-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council
Resolution #46-91 , and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether
or not Lots 447a, 447b and 448a located on the northeast corner of
Bretton Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1
should be rezoned from OS, office services to RUF, rural urban farm.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in
Section 23.05 of Ordinance 4543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and
recommendation submitted to the City Council.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
##2--35-91 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 617th Regular Meeting & Public
Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 5, 1991 are
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
— AYES: Gniewek, Kluver, LaPine, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fandrei
ABSENT: Tent, McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted,
it was
42-36-91 RESOLVED that, Landscape Plans submitted in connection with Petition
90--9-2-32 by Vicki Castaneda requesting waiver use approval to remodel
and expand an existing restaurant (Old Mexico Restaurant) located on
the southwest corner. of Five Mile Road and Harrison Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 24 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the landscape plan for Old Mexico Restaurant as shown on
Sheet 1 of the drawing prepared by Franco DiMattia Architect is
hereby approved and shall be adhere to.
2) That the landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall always be
maintained in a healthy condition.
11524
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion made by Mr. LaPine and seconded by Mr. Gniewek, it was
ff2-37-91 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Permit
Application. by John D. Monte for a Satellite Disc Antenna on property
located at 9348 Hartel in Section 36 subject to the following
conditions:
I) Phut the site plan and specifications submitted by John. D. Monte
for a satellite disc antenna at 9348 Hartel are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to.
2) That Mr. Monte agrees to add landscaping along the fence adjacent
to his home to shield the disc from the street.
3) That Mr. Monte agrees that if he should move or sell his home, the
dish will be removed.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Gniewek, LaPine, Morrow, Vyhnalek, Fandrei, Engebretson
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: Tent, McCann
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 618th Regular
0111. Meeting and Public Hearings held on February 19, 1991 was adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
, a' i
i Brenda Lee Fandrei, Secretaryel( 1/1/1ATTEST: lel( �'�7)-L at
Jac Engebretson, Chairman
du.