Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1971-10-19 i_ 9281 MINUTES OF THE 234th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF (If' LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 19, 1971, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 234th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearings and 234th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 8:10 p.m. with approximately 70 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Charles Pinto Suzanne Taylor Joseph Falk Francis Hand Joseph Talbot Herman Kluver H. Dow Tunis Daniel Andrew Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Planner IV; Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney; Frank Gaal, Industrial Development Commission, and Donald C. Pollock, Industrial Development Commission, were also present. Mr. Hand, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 71-8-1-54 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road, west of Shadyside' / l in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, from C-2 and R-3 to P. tMr. Clarence Charest, Attorney, was present and wanted to know why the Commission was bothering his client's property and just why did the Commission seek this re- zoning. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, advised Mr. Charest that the Commission was interested in the land being zoned to reflect the land use. Mr. Andrew stated that the land at this time was being used for parking and they wished to see the zoning be in compliance with the use. Mr. Charest advised that his client had a definite plan for this land. The use his client hed in mind was the building of an office on this property. Mr. Charest further stated that they felt the Commission's action was unfair and that his client felt it was objectionable . Mr. Hand clarified that Mr. Charest's client had proposed to build an office build- ing and asked Mr. Charest when this was to take place . Mr. Charest verified that it was his client's intention to build an office building but did not know exactly when because things were not too good for the tool and die at this time. Mr. Hand asked whether Mr. Charest would object to a P.S. zoning. NJ Mr. Charest advised that he would have to discuss it with his client before he could give an answer. 9282 Mr. Andrew asked Mr. Charest what their intention was for the south part of the lot. Mr. Charest advised that they had no intention for that land, and why doesn't the Commission zone that portion for parking. There was no one else present wishing to be heard and the Chairman declared the public hearing on this item closed. Mr. Andrew invited Mr. Charest and his client to the next study meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 1971. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis , seconded by Mr. Pinto and unanimously adopted, it was #10-272-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-8-1-54 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion requesting to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road, west of Shadyside in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, from C-2 and R-3 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item for further study. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-4-1-16, as amended, by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer, requesting 1111. to rezone property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-1 and P.S. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #10-273-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 9/29/71 from William N. Ponder, Attorney for E. David Auer, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 68-4-1-16, as amended, as submitted by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer, requesting to rezone property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-1 and P.S. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 71-8-1-55 by William N. Ponder, Attorney for E. David Auer, requesting to rezone property located south of Ann Arbor Trail and east of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from C-1 and RUF to C-2. Mr. Ponder was present and advised the Commission that the petition is for a shop- ping center complex. There are no definite stores committed as yet. He also A advised that the petitioners were open to suggestion such as apartment sites and they would be willing if the Commission thought they could work out something better to study this with the Commission and proceed further. J 9283 Mr. Andrew asked if this would be agreeable to the developer. Mr. Ponder stated that yes it would be agreeable to the developer. Mr. Kluver stated that he noted that the site plans that were submitted were dated 1968. Mr. Ponder stated that he was aware of the date and that he sent them because they were already made up and that he wrote to Mr. Nagy telling him not to hold them to these plans. Mr. Falk asked Mr. Ponder whether the people in the area need additional commercial and will those same people sustain it. Mr. Ponder stated that they felt so and actually they were only talking about a small complex. He stated that it would not be as large as Livonia Mall, but some- thing like the Jahn shopping center. Mr. Tunis asked how far from this site is J. L. Hudson. Someone from the audience verified it was 9/10 of a mile. Mr. Tunis asked Mr. Ponder whether this center would offer people something different than this center less than 9/10 of a mile can offer them. Mr. Ponder felt that the convenience factor was present. Mr. Andrew asked Mr. Ponder what his feelings would be toward excluding some parts of the land from C-2 zoning. Mr. Ponder stated he would check with his client, Mr. Hand stated that he felt that Mr. Auer should decide what the best use of this land is in order to give the Commission a basis to judge this land. Mr. Ponder stated that maybe they could sit down with Mr. Nagy and his client and see whether they could work out something agreeable. Mr. Tunis stated that it was the place of the petitioner to show the Commission what he's got. It is not Mr. Nagy's job to sit down with the petitioner. Mr. McKalirski, 34299 Dover, was present and stated he had not received a notice of the public hearing. Mr. Andrew stated that notices were sent from the tax roll and if he had not received a notice that possibly the tax roll had not been changed as yet. Mr. McKalirski advised that they notify him when it is time to pay his taxes . He also stated that they do not want any apartments there because enough noise exists l with the prople and kids using the holiday parkway. 0 Mr. McKalirski also stated that if the petitioner had nothing concrete to show for 440 this land that this petition should be thrown out as completely out of order. 9284 Mr. Jerry Poplar, 9024 Laurel, representative of Cherokee Trail Civic Association, was present and stated that they were opposed to the "blanket order" of zoning. I He also stated that there is a traffic problem in the area and that Ann Arbor Trail IL; cannot handle this traffic. He further advised that subdivision streets are being used as through streets to beat traffic lights. He further stated that exits and entrances to proposed center would invite accidents and that the shopping center would cause more dirt and pollution. Further points the Association thought were relevant were that the center would pose a threat to their children and that the area is firmly established with resi- dential property owners . Mrs. Maureen Klyber, 8195 Norwich, was present and wanted to know if there was a law stating that the petitioner must set down the plans before a rezoning is allowed. Mr. Andrew advised her that this was not so and that the Commission does not have the authority to ask what the petitioner wants to do with the property after it is rezoned. Mrs. Klyber then stated that she felt the petitioners were trying to get in by the back door. Mr. Ponder, at this point, responded that they were not trying to get into the back door and that they would have to come through this office again with site plans. Mr. Daryl Smith, 9030 Hammond, wanted to know what a C-2 zoning would allow to be 1 developed. 1; Mr. Andrew gave him a general idea by calling off, retail sales, recreation faci- lities, art museum, bakery, catering establishments, food locker, meeting halls, reducing salon, wholesale business and bowling alley. Diane McKeon, 3434 Dover, stated the the people in the area would like to keep it as a park. Mrs. Klyber wanted to know why the owner did not use the land for more residences. Mr. Tunis stated that if you have 15 acres you propose a use and if its denied, then you come up with another. Mr. Pinto stated that the question of land use goes back twelve to fifteen years and if the petitioner, people and Commission do not get together on the question then Circuit Court will very likely judge on this because it will ultimately be developed. Mr. Andrew stated that although he did not concur with the petition as presented it is important that the property owners and petitioner get together with some solution for this land because it cannot lay vacant. Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing closed on this item. tio On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #10-274-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-8-1-55 as submitted by William N. 9285 Ponder, Attorney for E. David Auer, requesting to rezone property located south of Ann Arbor Trail and east of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from C-1 and RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-8-1-55 be denied for the following reasons: (1) A development of this intensity in this sector of the City would adversely affect the stability of the adjacent residential development. (2) The condition of Wayne Road and Ann Arbor Trail is such that the development of a highly intensified commercial center could over-burden the existing hazardous traffic conditions. (3) The need for shopping facilities in this sector of the City has already been adequately met and there is no need to provide a large amount of additional shopping facilities. (4) The proposed zoning classification would be detri- mental to and discourage the orderly and appropriate development of the surrounding area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 29, 1971 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake $ Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service . A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kluver, Pinto, Talbot, Taylor, Tunis, Hand NAYS: Andrew ABSENT: None The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 71-9-1-56 by Clarence R. Charest and Frank A. Clancy requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Fairfield and Hubbard Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22, from R-7 to P. Mr. Charest was present and wanted to know how many feet were involved. He was advised 112 feet by Mr. Nagy. 1E110# Mr. Charest wanted to know whether this was net. Mr. Nagy said it was. Mr. Charest wanted to know whether that included part of the building. 9286 Mr. Nagy stated that it included no part of the building. Mr. Charest advised that this R-7 piece was to be used for an extension of the parking lot. Mr. Andrew stated that he would hope that Mr. Charest would plant some screening materials. Mr. Charest said there would be only asphalt, no greenbelt, because they plan on building there . Mr. Tunis inquired what was on the other side of the property. Mr. Charest advised there were parking enclosures (carports) . There was no one else present wishing to be heard and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously adopted) it was #10-275-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-9-1-56 as submitted by Clarence R. Charest and Frank A. Clancy requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Fairfield and Hubbard Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22, from R-7 to P, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-9-1-56 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning classification and parking uses are compatible to the surrounding uses of the area. (2) This will allow for a modest and reasonable extension of the existing use. (3) Provisions for parking when well-screened will not adversely affect the stability of the adjacent areas. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper., the Livonia Observer, under date of September 29, 1971 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeke $ Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 71-9-1-58 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, east ;L.I of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from C-2 to RUF. emm 9287 Ar Mr. Penell, the owner of the property, was present and advised the Commission that it was his intent to put a retail outlet on this portion of land in the . spring of 1972. Mr. Andrew wanted the minutes of the meeting to show that by the owner's statement Mr. Penell will construct a florist facility on the most eastern portion of the property in the spring of 1972. Mr. Talbot asked Mr. Penell whether he was selling a portion of the property. Mr. Penell said it would be sold or leased to someone who will put up a building that will/bcomplementing to his own operation. There was no one else wishing to be heard and the Chairman declared the public hearing on this item closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mrs. Taylor and unanimously adopted, it was #10-276-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-9-1-58 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from C-2 to RUF, and having received clarification from the owner of this property regard- (1111Ping his intent to build on the property in the Spring of 1972, j the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 71-9-1-58. The Chairman delcared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 71-9-6-6 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 16.11, Waiver Uses, of Ordinance #543 by adding a new subsection (c) so as to make accessory retail outlets developed in connection with warehousing and related storage buildings a waiver use in the M-1 District. Mr. Hand stated that he understood the basic function of these warehousing facili- ties would be distribution with some retail facilities available to the public. Mr. Daniel Gilmartin, Industrial Development Coordinator, was present and stated that one will be an entity to itself. Mr. Hand asked how far the two entities will be separated. Mr. Gilmartin stated 1,000 feet. Mr. Kluver stated that he understood the second site was not a distribution center as such but rather would be an operation by which retail sales would function in the atmosphere of warehouse-to-you type of sale to the public. Mr. Gilmartin stated that the products will be handled by rail by the distribution center and 99% of what comes in the back door will go out the front door outlet. 9288 Mr. Pinto wanted to know of Mr. O'Keefe (C.€, 0 Railroad) that if both of these companies were going to use rail facilities, does a side rail line to the C & 0 represent a likelihood or availability of the lines for use by adjacent or abut- ting properties also. Mr. O'Keefe stated that users of side rails are usually very generous to their neighbors principally to share in the cost of construction. Mr. Andrew stated however that he does not have to allow the use of these tracks if the owner pays for the entire installation of the side track. Mr. Pinto wondered whether these prospective property owners have right of way to construct side tracks. Mr. O'Keefe stated that their feelings were that Livonia is fast running out of parcels that can be served by rail and when we can find an area that can be served by an existing track, this is most valuable. They are bringing 250 feet of track that is going to open up land to the north. It will also be more valuable after track is constructed. Mr. Gaal stated that the Industrial Development Commission was not at first sold on this enterprise but that the potential users had thoroughly sold them on the unique and worthwhileness of the project. Mr. Andrew asked whether they had seen the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Gilmartin stated they had and are in agreement with it. Mr. Falk asked Mr. Gilmartin that does he, as the Industrial Coordinator, feel that they will hurt the rest of the industrial complex on Schoolcraft and further if this was going to be for the benefit of the City. Mr. Gilmartin said that he honestly believed it would be good or they would have discouraged these people. He stated further that they have discouraged people in the past if they felt that it would not benefit the rest of the industrial complex. Mr. Pinto asked whether this ordinance could be abused by such use as is not now presently allowed. Mr. Gilmartin stated in answer to Mr. Pinto that there could be a "hole" but he could not see it. If there is a "hole" somewhere that they cannot see, they just cannot predict it. Mr. Falk asked Mr. Feinberg whether retail sales in new furniture could mean retail something other than new furniture. Mr. Feinberg stated that no, he thinks they have the right to specify the nature of the thing. And further if it says new furniture it is not discriminating. Any- one that wants to sell new furniture can and he did not think it discriminating. Mr. Falk stated that if we say new furniture that is all they can use. Mr. Feinberg stated yes, that is all that can be considered. 9289 Mr. Pinto stated at the present time a warehouse facility is a legitimate use for lethe industrial development and while we are waiting..these are two birds in one. While waiting for equipment you can get a warehouse. There was no one else wishing to be heard on this item and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mr. Talbot, it was #10-277-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-9-6-6 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 16.11, Waiver Uses, of Ordinance #543 by adding a new subsection (c) so as to make accessory retail outlets developed in connection with warehousing and related storage buildings a waiver use in the M-1 District, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-9-6-6 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This Ordinance amendment will provide for the control, use and regulation of a compatible accessory use in conjunction with warehousing or storage buildings . (2) This is a desirable tool for controlling and regulating development within the industrial corridor. (3) The Industrial Development Commission recommends the adoption of this Ordinance amendment. L FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 29, 1971 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake $ Ohio Rail- way Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYFS: Falk, Kluver, Pinto, Talbot, Taylor, Hand NAYS: Tunis ABSTAIN: Andrew The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petiiton 71-9-1-57 by John Dooley, Attorney for Warren M. Strong, requesting to rezone property located north of Five Mile Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2. Mr. Dooley, Attorney for the petitioner, Dr. Strong, was present and asked that the Commission do away with spot zoning. The front of this property is presently , tii zoned C-2. This petition is to rezone the rear 100 feet to C-2 to conform to the 1 9290 Sirl front of the property. The property to the west is C-2 and the property to the east is C-2. To make it appropriate for use the entire parcel of land should be C-2 and not just the front. It is inconceivable that this property will ever be developed RUF. We are talking about 100 feet of land which is not evident from the land you are looking at that the parcel of land that we are seeking to rezone does not go back to Lancaster Road. I am not asking you to rezone property to C-2 that backs up to Lancaster. My client does not own those twenty feet. We have a waiver from the Zoning Board of Appeals of fifty feet and we are asking for an extension of zoning now. Mr. Andrew asked for clarification of the twenty feet that his client did not own that backed up to Lancaster Road. Mr. Dooley stated that it was confusing to him; someone had an idea to put an alley to the back of the property. Someone made an aborted effort to make an alley with the twenty feet of property back there and he is sure there is ten feet of RUF property back there. Mr. Andrew asked if he knew who owned the property. Mr. Nagy said the tax records show one and the same owner. Mr. Dooley stated that they researched the title and that his client's property definitely did not go back to the road. Mr. Andrew stated that he noticed that the property is for sale . Is this to put the value of the property up? Mr. Dooley stated that they could not sell if it is zoned RUF. Mr. Hopkins of Paderewski was present and stated he was in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Hand asked what the setback requirement for a C-2 was . Mr. Nagy stated 60 ft. Mr. Talbot asked if Dr. Strong were going to develop the property. Mr. Dooley stated that they had a sale pending on the rezoning. Mr. Andrew asked what out plans show. Mr. Nagy stated that it is planned for parking use only and that the buildings would be located on the front portion only. Mr. Andrew asked what if the Commission asked that the petitioner ask for a variance. . Mr. Dooley stated that it was too much property to ask for all parking they will ask for a waiver of variance to put the building on the front of the lot and the parking in the rear. 1111 Mr. Hand asked how they proposed to get over the 20 ft. Mr. Dooley stated they do not have access to Lancaster and were intending to use a side drive. 9291 Mr. Hand asked what Dr. Strong intended this land for when he purchased it. Mr. Dooley stated that he was going to build a veterinary clinic on this property but he does not intend to do this anymore . There was no one else wishing to be heard and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-278-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-9-1-57 as submitted by John Dooley, Attorney for Warren M. Strong, requesting to rezone property located north of Five Mile Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-9-1-57 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning classification is inconsistent with the recommended land use as shown on the Five Mile Land Use Study. (2) There is a greater need to provide for additional parking in this location than to expand the commercial development. (3) A development of the intensity permitted under C-2 zoning in this location could adversely affect the stability of the adjacent development. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 29, 1971 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake $ Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 71-8-2-29 by Carlyle Harrington requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to operate a light auto repair and tune-up service (import and sports cars) on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Cardwell in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36. There is a letter on file from Kenneth Oesterle, Jr., 11395 Cardwell, objecting to the petition. The Engineering Division indicates there appears to be no engineering problem. Mr. Harrington was present and stated the h buk ilding i. 20ft.asallththere easements3xhax 00 ft. with 148 ft. frontage by 114 ft. and in has been closed up. He further stated they want to gravel the existing land and paint the building. They also want to put on a mason roof and landscape the land. Mr. Andrew wanted to know if road to the south is a vacated alley. 9292 Mr. Nagy stated it was not. tfMr. Andrew stated it was his understanding that a parking area in a commercial district required it to be paved. Mr. Nagy stated that that proposed ordinance amendment was as yet not approved. Mr. Andrew stated that the storage of vehicles is his primary concern and accord- ing to his site plan he was proposing a greenbelt along the south property line however, the area to the east and to the north will be cemented or gravel only. Mr. Harrington advised that there is a doctor's office there and there are some bushes there now, and just south of the property is the alley we intend to gravel. Mr. Andrew asked if the parking area would be fenced. Mr. Harrington stated they would fence it if the Commission desires. Mr. Andrew asked Mr. Harrington what he was proposing. Mr. Harrington stated there are 65 ft. width of the building and the doctor's office that we propose to place vehicles waiting for repair facing Plymouth in that area. We will put cement there so cars will not roll off. Mr. Andrew asked whether this is non-conforming. LMr. Nagy stated yes, that the building is in non-compliance with the setback requirements. Mr. Hand asked whether he was actively engaged in this business. Mr. Harrington stated no, his partner has 12 years experience and that he had been working on this part time for seven years . Mr. Hand stated you are proposing to gravel this area. Mr. Harrington stated he was aware that he would eventually have to blacktop this . Mr. Hand asked whether he anticipated any resale of cars that his mechanics have a lien on. Mr. Harrington said it would not become a used car lot. Mr. Pinto asked whether he would be storing cars on the premises before and after the repair. Mr. Harrington stated he would. Mr. Pinto asked whether Mr. Harrington intended to put in any fencing to protect cars that will sit there overnight. Mr. Harrington stated he was depending on police force to get them back. Mr. Pinto asked the hours of operation. Mr. Harrington stated five days,. 8 to 8. There would be no body work just engine, suspension, tuneup, valve adjustment. 9293 Mr. Andrew asked how many employees . Mr. Harrington stated himself) partner and one other and in the future no more than five. Mr. Stan Novak, Southgate, Mr. Harrington's partner, was present and stated they want to make a showplace for Livonia. Mr. Falk asked if they knew how many sports car owners there were in Livonia. Mr. Novak stated there are 5,000 in southeastern Michigan. He also stated there nearest competitior west is Overseas Motors and Vokswagen. He further stated there were no services for Japanese or English cars and they intend to service this class. There was no one else wishing to be heard on this item and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs . Taylor and adopted it was #10-279-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-8-2-9 as submitted by Carlyle Harrington requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to operate a light auto repair and tune-up service (import and sports cars) on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Cardwell in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City I Council that Petition 71-8-2-9 be denied for the following reasons : (1) The proposed use would not be in harmony and appropriate with the orderly development of the surrounding area. (2) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of principal use and the accessory uses, the site layout and its relationship to streets giving access, shall be such that the traffic to and from the use will be hazardous and inconvenient and will unduly conflict with the normal traffic-carrying capacity of the abutting roads . (3) The location of the building and its accessories will be such that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring property and the neighboring area in general. It may impair the value of the neighboring property and dis- courage the appropriate development and use of the adjacent land or buildings . (4) The proposed use and its relationship to the main traffic thoroughfares and to the streets and road intersections, and the vehicular turning movements will be hazardous and inconvenient and will conflict with the traffic-carrying capacity of the main thoroughfare. (5) The location, size, intensity, site layout and periods of operation of the proposed use could cause a nuisance by reason of dust, noise fumes, vibration, smoke and/or lights . 9294 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the' foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kluver, Pinto, Talbot, Taylor, Hand, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Tunis (prejudice) The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew advised the petitioner, Mr. Harrington, that he had 10 days to appeal the decision to the Council. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 71-10-2-31 by Reverend D. H. Krist requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to place a KDF Modular Relocatable building for temporary usage on property located on the south side of Van Court Avenue between Parkdale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Engineering Department reports no problems connected with development of this site. Rev. Krist was present and stated that his church's seating capacity was 160 to 180 and that they did not have proper facility for classroom and they want to extend facilities for classroom activities and a place for children to hold their religion classes . Kaiser Fraser is selling these units . Mr. Andrew asked whether this would increase his parishioners. Rev. Krist stated it would. Mr. Andrew asked whether this would present a parking problem. Rev. Krist stated no it would not because they have property across the street that has not been used. Mr. Pinto asked what he meant by temporary. Rev. Krist stated that he was the first full-time pastor and they are in a quandry and they do not know which way to go. This would be a temporary relief for them. Mr. Hand asked how long was temporary. Rev. Krist stated 3 years . Mr. Falk asked how many families . Rev. Krist stated three years ago there were 100 and right now 130 to 160 people. Mr. Andr ew asked whether he would be agreeable to a 3 year limit. Rev. Krist stated he would. There was no one else wishing to be heard and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed. 9295 ft; Mr. Falk made a motion to deny the petition. There being no second to Mr. Falk's motion, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Hand it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-10-2-31 as submitted by Reverend D. H. Krist requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to place a KDF Modular Relocatable building for temporary usage on property located on the south side of Van Court Avenue between Parkdale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-10-2-31 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Notice went out to property owners and it is evident there are no dissenters . with the following conditions: (1) The waiver use granted herein shall expire within 3 years from date of this resolution or upon the sale of the property or whichever occurs first. (2) The property is to be restored to its original condition including removal of the foundation. A substitute tabling motion was made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #10-280-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-10-2-31 as submitted by Rev. D. H. Krist requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to place a KDF Modular Relocatable building for temporary usage on property located on the south side of Van Court Avenue between Parkdale Avenue and Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item to the October 26, 1971 study meeting. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kluver, Tunis, Hand, Andrew NAYS: Pinto, Talbot, Taylor ABSENT: None The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The Chairman declared a brief recess at 11:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at approximately 11:35 p.m. with all members present as were present for the initial roll call. 411,0 Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 71-8-1-51 by Robert C. Horvath for Livonia Associates requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the 9296 Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to R-8. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Kluver and adopted it was, RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-8-1-51 by Robert C. Horvath for Livonia Associates requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to R-8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-8-1-51 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The intrusion of multi-family development in this area could adversely affect the stability of the existing residential development. (2) Multi-family zoning in this sector of the City is in conflict with the Planning Commission's Master Plan for development of this area. (3) The demands on public utilities and public facilities in this sector of the City could be over-burdened by the inclu- sion of high residential density. (4) With the I-275 expressway being developed west of property being important for this condition the land uses within the corridor of the expressway will substantially affect the logical use and development of the property in question. Until a land use study is obtained relative to this express- way, it is not felt that a judgement should be made on this property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 4, 1971 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vete on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kluver, Tunis, Hand NAYS: Pinto, Talbot, Taylor ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Andrew Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution failed for lack of support. The Chairman read the Rules of Procedure of the Planning Commission and ruled that there are eight members of the Commission present and the motion to pass needed five votes . IL/10 On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Pinto and adopted it was, RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 19, 1971 on Petition 71-8-1-51 by Robert C. Horvath for Livonia Associates requesting to rezone property located on the 9297 east side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to R,8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-8-1-51 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This is an area that can accommodate an increase in population density. (2) The proposed development is related to two major thoroughfares and abuts a half-mile road which are capable of handling the increased quantity of traffic generated by this project. (3) The site has good physical amenities of trees and topography and the open space of the flood plain to lend it self to good quality multi-family development. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 4, 1971 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Pinto, Talbot, Taylor NAYS: Falk, Kluver, Tunis, Hand ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Andrew The Chairman declared the resolution failed for lack of support . On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Falk and adopted it was #10-281-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 21, 1971 on Petition 71-8-1-51 by Robert C. Horvath for Livonia Associates requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Gill Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the North- east 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to R-8, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item to the next regularly scheduled study session. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kluver, Taylor, Tunis, Hand NAYS: Pinto, Talbot, Andrew ABSENT: None • The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 71-8-1-52 by Robert C. ;Lr Horvath for Livonia Associates requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to C-4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Falk and adopted it was 9298 #1Q-281a-,71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 21, 1971 on Petition 71-8-1-52 by Robert C. Horvath o for Livonia Associates requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington Road and Gill Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to C-4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item to the nextregulariy scheduled study session. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kluver, Pinto, Talbot, Taylor, Tunis, Hand NAYS: Andrew ABSENT: None The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Horvath, in answer to question by Mr. Hand stated they are in the process of a comprehensive study whether multiple dwelling is the best use for this land, and whether the number of units we are asking is too much, then how many should we have. This study will give us the answer. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #629-71, to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 25.04 and Section 26.04 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for designation of minimum and maximum height and story limitations for buildings located in the C-4 and P.O. Zoning Districts . On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-282-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and pursuant to Council Resolution #629-71, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 25.04 and Section 26.04 of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for designation of minimum and maximum height and story limitations for buildings located in the C-4 and P.0 Zoning Districts . FURTHER RESOLVED that, a hearing be held and notice be given as pro- vided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, motion by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 6.02 of the Subdivision Rules $ Regulations, Part III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, by adding sub- section (8) so as to provide for entrance markers at appropriate locations leading into subdivisions . On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was 9299 #10-283-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 6.02 of the Subdivision Rules & Regulations, Part III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, by adding subsection (8) so as to provide for entrance markers at appropriate locations leading into subdivisions . FURTHER RESOLVED that, a hearing be held and notice be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, motion by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #783-70, to hold a public hearing on its own motion to determine whether or not to rezone lands located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Ingram Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, from P. RUF and C-2 to P.S. and P. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted it was #10-284-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and pursuant to Council Resolution #783-70, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone lands located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Hubbard Road and Ingram Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 15, from P, RUF and C-2 to P.S. and P. FURTHER RESOLVED that, a hearing be held and notice be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, motion bythe City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #903-71, to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to rezone the rear 230 feet of Lots 1 and 2 of Livrance Estates Subdivision located south of Six Mile Road, west of Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P. 9300 #10-285-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01. of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and pursuant to Council Resolution #903-,71, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone the rear 230 ft. of Lots 1 and 2 of Livrance Estates Subdivision located south of Six Mile Road, west of Middle- belt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P. FURTHER RESOLVED that, a hearing be held and notice be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of theCity of Livonia, as amended, and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, requesting approval of Land- scape Plan submitted by Clarence Durbin in connection with Petition 71-4-8-5 requesting Site Plan approval of proposed medical-dental office complex located on Farmington Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis in Section 10. • On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Talbot and unanimously adopted it was #10-286-71 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Landscape Plan dated 7/27/71 submitted by Clarence Durbin in connection with Petition 71-4-8-5 requesting Site Plan approval of proposed medical-dental office complex located on Farmington Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis in Section 10, subject to the following conditions: (1) That all landscape material as shown on the approved plan shall be installed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (2) That all landscape material installed shall be permanently maintained. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 71-10-8-15 by Charles Granader requesting' approval to operate an exercise salon within an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously adopted it was • #10-287-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.55 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #787, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 71-10-8-15 as submitted by Charles Granader requesting approval of a Site Plan in connection with a change of use, such use being an exercise salon, within an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Middlebelt Road in the North- west 1/4 of Section 36, until the next regularly scheduled study meeting of the Planning Commission. 9301 The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 110 Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, approval of the minutes of the meetings held by the City Planning Commission on September 21, 1971 and October 4, 1971, On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Tunis, it wa.t #10-288-71 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meeting held by the City Planning Commission on September 21, 1971 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kiuver, Pinto, Talbot, Taylor, Tunis, Hand, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew declared the lotion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. #10-289-71 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 4, 1971 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Kiuver, Pinto, Talbot, Taylor, Tunis, Hand, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 71-10-8-16 by Lindhout Associates for Pritchard Heating requesting Site Plan approval for building proposed to be constructed on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Mayfield and Brookfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, as required by Ordinance #784, Civic Center Control Ordinance. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously adopted #10-290-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #784, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-10-8-16 by Lindhout Associates for Pritchard Heating requesting Site Plan approval for building proposed to be constructed on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Mayfield and Brookfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That site and Building Plan #7123, dated 10/13/71, prepared by Lindhout Associates, be adhered to. (2) This approval of the Site Plan is conditioned upon the petitioner obtaining a variance of the front yard setback from the Zoning Board of Appeals as the encroachment into the front yard is the result of granting additional right-of-way for the boulevarding of Five Mile Road. 9302 (3) The petitioner is required to submit a landscape plan for Planning Commission approval prior to obtaining a building permit. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development represents a significant architectural improvement in comparison to the existing structure on the site. (2) The intended use is compatible with the existing uses of surrounding area. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 19, 1971 was adjourned at approximately 12:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Francis M. Hand, Secretary to: ATTESTED: t Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman