Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1975-04-29 5779 MINUTES OF THE 294th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 29, 1975 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held 1[440 its 294th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia. Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting to order at approximately 8:05 p.m. with approximately 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph R. Talbot Charles Pinto Herman H. Kluver Suzanne Wisler Esther Friedrichs Joseph J. Falk William Scruggs Members absent: Francis M. Hand (Company business) Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV; H G Shane, Planner IV; and Robert B. Brzezinski , Assistant City Attorney, were also present. a Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on this evening's agenda involves a question of rezoning or vacating, this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Council and the City Council after holding a public hearing makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. If a petition for a waiver of use request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision of the Commission to the City Council . teI Mr. Joseph J. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 74-10-2-20 by Architecutral Engineering Services, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a Wendy's of Livonia Restaurant on the west side of Merriman Road between Five Mile Road and Myrna in the East 1/2 of Section 15. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division indicating there are no apparent engineering problems associated with the proposal ; a letter from Consumers Power Company stating they have no reason to object to the request, and a letter dated April 17, 1975 from Spoon Builders, Inc. , stating they feel this would not be very practical and would create a traffic problem at the corner of Five Mile Road with regard to ingress and egress. (Mr. Nagy read the letter for the record) . There is also a letter dated 4/28/75 from the Livonia Church of Christ stating they have no objection to the petition as outlined. Donald C. Alles, petitioner: I believe you all have plans before you. Mr. Andrew: We have everything but a site plan. Mr. Alles furnished the members of the Commission with new site plans. Mr. Alles: This function is on the west side of Merriman Road with parking to the north. It is well over the required number of parking spaces for the square footage and the number of people going in to use the facility on the basis of seats. The building is 14' high, 2100 square feet, with 5780 kitchen and serving quarters and seating for 92 persons. There is storage area to the rear and lighted area for parking. The southern driveway is exit only allowing for all traffic to egress back onto Merriman Road. Mr. Andrew: The south is an exit only driveway? Mr. Alles: Yes. I believe there is also space for one truck to unload in the rear of the building and there is also the handicapped spaces required. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, have you had an opportunity to review the site plan? Mr. Nagy: This is a new site plan with some changes by way of revised parking bay sizes. We have not had an opportunity to review it. Mr. Alles: This plan you have answers the questions relative to Mr. Nagy's letter concerning the site plan submitted previously relative to the 220 square foot spaces for parking and the widths which was a matter of interpreta- tion. The other item was yard lighting and we have 'indicated some poles. I did not expect a site plan review tonight. Mr. Andrew: Site plan review is generally a part of the waiver use approval . Is that an underground or overhead transformer? Mr. Alles: Underground. Mr. Andrew: Is it of any particular significance that all the elevations and floor plans meet the requirements of the City of Colombus, Ohio? I Mr. Alles: No. This particular structure has been used there as well but this will meet all the requirements of the State of Michigan as well as the Michi- gan Health Department. Mr. Andrew: Would you attempt to substitute elevation drawings if you are approved? Mr. Alles: No. This is a franchised situation where the identity of the developed structure is important. Mr. Andrew: Is this land owned by Marathon Oil Company. Associate of Mr. Alles : Part of the land is owned by Marathon Oil Company who has leases, the other land is owned by Mr. Showerman. Mr. Andrew: What is the length of the lease as it affects this development? Associate: I believe the lease has been in effect for four years of a ten year lease with two ten-year options. Mr. Andrew: Has the Wayne County Road Commission had an opportunity to review the proposed deceleration lane? Mr. Alles: Not at this point but prior to permit, they would. '„ Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Alles, I notice you have a menu and speaker in the parking area; what is the purpose of this? 5781 Mr. Alles: This is a convenience item for the people who wish to pick up some items and would not have to get out of their car. Mr. Scruggs: Would they eat in the car? Mr. Alles: No. There is no facility for eating in the car after the pick-up point. Mr. Scruggs: Would that still come under a drive-in service which I believe is contrary to our Ordinance? Mr. Nagy: We have been advised by the Bureau of Inspection that because of the in- car service, they would qualify it as a drive-in under the Ordinance and in order to seek approval they would have to comply with standards related to drive-ins rather than conventional , sit-down restaurants. Mr. Alles: As shown on the plan, there is a window wherein they serve directly to the car and it is primarily a convenience item for people to pick up and take it out, possibly to the office. Mrs. Friedrichs: No carhops? Mr. Alles: No, only maintenance and travel pick-up. Mr. Kluver: Has there been any preliminary work done on the site such as staking out or surveying? Mr. Alles: At this time, no actual surveying has been done on the site. I believe the adjacent proprietor is expanding that lot. Mr. Kluver: Who is the adjacent proprietor to the north? • Mr. Alles: That would be the Church. Mr. Kluver: No, I am referring to your property right next to the exit directly on the north of the Marathon gas station. I am curious about what I saw going on there but at the time, I could not exit. Mr. Alles: I just noticed that driving over here. Mr. Nagy: My assistant advises me that the construction activity is associated with a storm sewer Mr. Showerman is constructing for expanding his business operation. Mr. Andrew: Will there be a physical encroachment of additional parking on this property? Mr. Nagy: Without knowing precisely what Mr. Showerman's parking is, I can't say whether there would or would not. Mr. Alles: Our facility is independent of any other facilities. Mr. Andrew: My only concern in asking is whether or not we are facing a situation . t about a portion of this property being controlled by Mr. Showerman. Will there be a portion of this parking area used by Mr. Showerman's business? 5782 Mr. Alles: There is a greenbelt between the areas. Mr. Falk: I have an aversion about people bringing in plans the night of the public hearing and I don't sympathize with or accept these plans this evening. This is an important corner and I have questions about the parking. also don' t like a restaurant within 200' of the existing restaurant and one rule applies to all restaurants and businesses. Furthermore, we have a restaurant, a quick service, a Roman Chariot trying to survive, and Vargos. It seems like the gas stations stopped and restaurants started in Livonia. Until I see where the parking will be and a clarification from the Law Department regarding the type of facility this is, I am for tabling the petition. I don't think all the questions have been answered. Mr. Kluver: In regard to the traffic situation on which is obviously one of the major intersections in the City which carries numerous vehicles, I had a very difficult time trying to make a left hand turn on Merriman at about 1 :00 p.m on a Saturday. Your restaurant is actually at the very beginning of the deceleration lane where there is a back-up which goes all the way past the Church. Mr. Andrew: I heard discussion relative to the possibility of customeis driving up to a so-called drive-in window and getting a hamburger and driving out; has Mr. Kerby made a ruling as to whether or not this constitutes a drive- in restaurant? Mr. Nagy: He has made a ruling that that constitutes a drive-in restaurant because you can be served while sitting in your car. te Mr. Andrew: So, if that is the ruling of the Building Inspector, this is in violation, is that correct? Mr. Nagy: That is correct, and it is a requirement that no drive-in restaurant shall be situated within 200' of a church, public or parochial school or play- ground. This is closer than 200' to the Church and is in violation. There are two options: one is to withdraw the petition and the other is to modify the petition to make it a conventional , sit-down restaurant. Mr. Andrew: As the application stands, it is in violation of the Ordinance. Mr. Alles: Can this be tabled until we can have consultation with the Building Department? Mr. Andrew: If the Board is so inclined. Louis Pavlichek, 31480 Five Mile Road : I would object to a drive-in type restaurant strongly. We get enough garbage from Burger Chef. A sit-down is okay but not a drive-in. George J. Parsons, 15500 Auburndale: My objections are the same. Right across the street you have three restaurants. I don't think it is necessary for another on the other side. Richard Gennick, 16916 Canterbury: I live near Six Mile and Merriman. I frequent the shopping center on the other side and I am concerned about the traffic problem we have there. I also feel we do have enough restaurants in the immediate area and don't need another. 5783 Henry M. Leland, 15440 Auburndale: I live next to the Church. I object strongly to a t0restaurant going in there because of the noise and odors. 4 Mr. Alles: I do believe that my previous comments should be considered that it be tabled and that we be given an opportunity to meet with this group or any other group. Mr. Falk: If this is in violation and you know it can't go through, what would be the purpose of a meeting? Mr. Alles: If that is the interpretation. Mr. Falk: Is that a fact, Mr. Brzezinski? Mr. Brzezinski : I agree with what Mr. Kerby related to Mr. Nagy. Mr. Falk: So this is a fact of life. Tabling and talking won't do anything about it unless you say it isn't a drive-in. Are you saying that? That is what has to be considered by the principals of the property. Mr. Alles: Yes. 4 Mr. Falk: You knew before you came here that you were in violation. . .too bad the principals aren't here. Mr. Alles: I wasn't aware of that until speaking with Mr. Nagy. Mrs. Wisler: The two people in the audience. . . is it the drive-in they are objecting to or a restaurant? Mr. Parsons: I just don't want any more. drive-ins. The fact is we have enough restaurants in the area and I don't think it should be next to the Church. Mr. Andrew: I believe you indicated you were opposed to the restaurant because of the smell? Mr. Leland: Yes. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 74-10-2-20 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-76-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 74-10-2-20 as submitted by Architectural Engineering Services, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a Wendy's of Livonia Restaurant on the west side of Merriman Road between Five Mile Road and Myrna in the East 1/2 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 74-10-2-20 be denied for the following reasons: (1) the proposed use is in conflict with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11 .03(2) , subparagraph c, which states that "Suitable lighting shall be provided and so arranged as to reflect away 0 5784 from any adjacent or abutting residential district and toward 1: the commercial area"; and subparagraph g, which states that "No drive-in restaurant shall be located nearer than 200' as measured from any point on the property to any point on the property of either a residence, church, public or parochial school or playground"; (2) the proposed development is in conflict with Zoning Ordinance, Section 2.09, subparagraph (2) , Parking Space. 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. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Talbot: Disregarding the drive-in aspect , I think there is a surplus of restaurants in the area especially in relation to the traffic congestion at the corner. Mr. Andrew: This petition has been denied by this Commission and I wouli like to advise the petitioner that he has ten days within which to appeal the decision to the City Council . Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-3-2-6 by L. G. Redstone Associates requesting waiver use approval to remodel the existing auto service building located on the southwest corner of lePlymouth and Middlebelt Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence in the file relating to this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from the Engineering Division and a letter from the Fire Marshall indicating no objections to the proposal and a letter from the Chief Building Inspector stating that there are no apparent deficiencies. Also, a letter from Consumers Power Company indicating no reasons to object; a letter from the Traffic Bureau stating there are no problems or conflicts relative to traffic matters, and a letter dated April 28, 1975 from Mr. Goodman, Resident Manager of Wonderland Center, requesting approval of the petition. Mr. Andrew: One of the concerns of the Commission in the past has been the outside storage to the west of the existing TBA facility. I presume the proposed addition will eliminate that? Mr. Bernard Colton, representing the petitioner: Yes, it will . Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Colton, basically you are following the same architectural design with the same basic materials? Mr. Colton: Yes, the materials. . .everything is a continuation of the existing building. Mr. Kluver: How many square feet for storage? Mr. Colton: 4,000 square feet of storage and we are adding eight more people. Mr. Kluver: Will that be sufficient without additional outside storage? 1 5785 Mr. Colton: There is no outside storage comtemplated. 1: Mr. Talbot: By adding this storage area, will that eliminate all of the trailers that are normally parked on the east side of the building? Mr. Colton: Yes. This is primarily the purpose of this addition. . .to eliminate that situation. Representative of Wonderland: We have reviewed the plans and support it. We have given the plans to the merchants of the Center and have received approval of 59 of those merchants. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, with the loss in parking spaces, there is no problem? Mr. Nagy: No, there is surplus parking on the site. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-3-2-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Wisler and unanimously adoted, it was a #4-77-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 75-3-2-6 as submitted by L. G. Redstone Associates requesting waiver use approval to remodel the existing auto service building located on the southwest corner of Plymouth and Middlbelt 1[ 4110 Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-3-2-6 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #1317-35, Sheet A-1 , dated 1/24/75, prepared by Louis G. Redstone Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #1317-35, Sheet A-4, dated 1/24/75, prepared by Louis G. Redstone Associates , Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) the proposed use conforms to Zoning Ordinance #543 requirements and the special waiver requirement related to auto service centers; (2) the proposed use and related plans will provide for an upgrading of the existing development by way of the elimination of the truck trailers that are presently used for storage purposes. 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. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. a . 5786 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-2-3-1 IL by Hyman Shier requesting the vacating of a portion of an easement located on the east side of Westbrooke (Lot 150) , north of Roycroft, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence in the file concerning this petition? Mr. Nagy: There are letters in the file from the City Engineering Division, Consumers Power Company and Detroit Edison Company indicating no objections to the vacating and a letter from Michigan Bell Telephone Company indicating their wish to retain an easement for future use but no objection to the encroachmen Mr. Andrew: As a matter of information, is there overhead service in this area or under- ground? Hyman Shier, petitioner: Overhead. Mr. Andrew: You are the petitioner and it is your desire to build a family room? Mr. Shier: Yes, we want to enlarge our family room and existing porch. The porch has footings already. 4 Mr. Andrew: I was going to ask that. The footings have been poured? Mr. Shier: Yes. te Mr. Andrew: In view of the comment from Michigan Bell , is there any reason why we have to vacate the north two feet of the entire easement? Why can't we just vacate the easement where he has a problem? Mr. Nagy: I suppose you could but I think the reason two feet was taken off the six foot easement was to facilitate the description. Mr. Andrew: In view of the objection from the Michigan Bell Telephone Company, is this the right thing to do? Mr. Nagy: It appears six feet is a generous easement and there are no other City main- tained utilities so it seems that four feet is adequate to maintain what facilities there are. Mr. Shier: There is another six feet so it is really twelve feet. Mr. Pinto: The petition is requesting the City to vacate the City's interest in the portion of the easement. It always remains a puzzlement to me because obviously the City can do that but it remains a puzzle how the City can affect the interest of Detroit Edison. Suppose we vacate it. . .that is to say that as far as the City is concerned, we relinquish its interest, but does that affect the interest of Detroit Edison or Michigan Bell? I have always wondered because the interest is tri-fold and the petition is actually between the petitioner and the City. Mr. Andrew: That is an interesting question and I certainly would like some opinion on it. 5787 Mr. Pinto: My thought is that, technically, you would have to get a Quit Claim Deed as to the northerly two feet. When one of the utilities says they want the easement but doesn't mind the encroachment, that letter then is better off in your hands than in ours so that if any difficulty comes up in the future at least you have the letter saying they have no objection to the encroachment. Mr. Brzezinski : I have to agree with Mr. Pinto and I think he would agree with me that anytime anyone builds on an easement, he does it at his own risk and the petitioner should have a copy of the letter. Mr. Pinto: If the answer is that the City's action can't affect the utilities' easement rights, we have petitioners leaving City Hall every week thinking that when we vacate a portion of an easement, that easement is vanished but there is a reservation in my mind that that is the case when one of the parties who has an interest in the easement has vacated its interest. I think these plats are worded private easement for public utilities, not public easement for private utilities. I record this comment for the future when petitioners leaving after we vacate an easement should be informed that they are okay with the City but I don't know about Detroit Edison and Michigan Bell . a Mr. Scruggs: From a building construction standpoint, did you consider moving the pro- posed addition in a direction two feet just to avoid this whole thing? Mr. Shier: Yes, but we wanted the walls to conform. We could never do this job if we had to build it over there. 10 Mr. Kluver: How long has your porch been there? Mr. Shier: We have been in the house for three years. We have checked the footings and we know they are there and our neighbors saw the footings poured. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-2-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Wisler and unanimously adopted, it was #4-78-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 75-2-3-1 as submitted by Hyman Shier requesting the vacating of a portion of an easement located on the east side of Westbrook (Lot 150) , north of Roycroft, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-2-3-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Detroit Edison Company, by letter dated 4/17/75, indicates no objection to the vacating; (2) Consumers Power Company, by letter dated 4/17/75, indicates no objection to the vacating; (3) Michigan Bell Telephone Company, while it objects to the vacating, has no objection to the encroachment into the easement by a distance not to exceed two feet (2' ) . 4 5788 (4) The Engineering Division, by letter dated 4/2/75, indicates they have no objection to the vacating of the northerly 21 of the easement for the reason that the City maintains no utilities within the subject easement. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer/Eccentric, under date of April 10, 1975 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Consumers Power Company, City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-4-2-8 by Kal A. Jabara, J-P Properties, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a Bill Knapps Restaurant on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8. a Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated April 19, 1975 from the Division of Engineering stating that since the parcel does not have direct frontage on Six Mile Road, public utilities would have to be extended through easement areas across Parcel A to accommodate the site development of Parcel B, and that, assuming the petitioner is aware of the impending improvment of Six Mile Road with a boulevard type pavement, this pavement configuration. will essentially fix the driveway location to the site along the westerly property line of the parcels•. A letter from the Fire Marshall dated April 18, 1975 states that the City would require a standard City of Livonia fire hydrant on an 8" main to be located within 300 feet of the rear of the restaurant inasmuch as the distance to a fire hydrant from the restaurant will exceed the 300' max- imum distance between fire hydrants in commercial and industrial zones; the only available hydrants being located on the south side of Six Mile Road. There is a letter from the Chief Building Inspector dated April 18, 1975 indicating there are no deficiencies of the Ordinance noted and a letter dated April 22, 1975 from the Traffic Bureau stating that there are no particular problems with respect to traffic pattern and flow to and from the proposed site as related to Six Mile Road. A letter dated April 29, 1975 has been received from the Wayne County Road Commission stating the proposed drives to Six Mile Road are acceptable in relation to the boulevard design and "The intersection of the westerly drive and the 'drive in window' drive may require some sort of traffic control to avoid an accident potential created by the bank building blocking site distance. Every effort should be made by the restaurant to encourage cars leaving the restaurant to use the easterly drive. The U-turn movement through the Six Mile Road median would be made easier if the egress from the westerly drive is at a minimum." 4 5789 Kal A. Jabara, J-P Properties: I am representing myself and David Phipps on behalf of ILJ-P Properties and we are the proposed landlords of the Bill Knapps at this location and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Andrew: A question relative to the proposed development on the rear of the property and also, in the absence of that development, what type of landscaping will be installed? Mr. Jabara: We are, at the request of First Federal , purchasing the parcel with the stipulation that we will not develop the rear parcel . Mr. Jabara: We will , in fact, install the 8" line and the fire hydrant to service this area. Mr. Nagy: Water main sizes and fire hydrants. . .those requirements are normally imposed upon builders during the building permit application stage. I think the Fire Marshall is going on record and putting these people on notice that they will have to put in the 8" main and fire hydrant. Mr. Falk: The recommendation of the Wayne County Road Commission is based on what they think the road will ultimately look like. Since they suggest that cars leaving the restaurant should use the easterly drive, is there any way we can do that? Would that be in conflict with the bank? Mr. Keith Milam, representing First Federal Savings and Loan Association: The site plan has been developed jointly with First Federal and to strictly limit and liesay that all traffic must exit from the easterly drive. . .yes, I would object 4 to that and I think the restaurant would also. Mr. Jabara: I think we could overcome this problem by encouraging people by using signs to exit from the east but if you are saying we must force them all out of one drive, I think it would be wrong. Mr. Milam: I think we will have to have internal directional signs on both parcels. We do have a question regarding the drive-in window and we will have to have a stop sign one way or the other as the traffic leaves the drive-in window and if there is a concern regardirg the island on the westerly, we are in agreement with the Road Commission and feel that it could be a problem with snow removal but we thought it was desirable as a traffic director to separate both ingress and egress. If it is a problem, we will take that out. Mr. Andrew: I also think it would be good for landscaping. Mr. Nagy: Their design shows it strictly as a direction for traffic; no landscaping. Mr. Andrew: What is the relationship of the restaurant to the garage of the funeral home? John Carton, representative of Bill Knapps: Basically, it is right outside in the rear of the garage. Mr. Kluver: What is the proposed treatment for the rear portion of this particular parcel? 5790 Mr. Andrew: They have indicated that this will be landscaped. 4 Mr. Kluver: Will it be so identified on the landscape plan? i Mr. Carton: Yes. Mr. Kluver: Have we basically reached a conclusion regarding the ingress and egress and internal traffic flow of this development? Mr. Andrew: I guess as far as the Police Department and the Wayne County Road Commission people are concerned, there is no problem with the traffic. Mr. Pinto: Relative to that point, what are the present days and hours of operation of the Savings and Loan? Mr. Milam: The present hours of operation are 9:30 to 4:00 Monday through Thursday; 6:00 on Friday. The drive-in window is open the same hours. No Saturdays or evenings. Mr. Pinto: That can change of course, but at the present moment then the traffic sit- uation to the extent that it may or may not be a problem, will be confined to those hours. In other words, Sunday is no problem. It is only when both businesses are in operation that you will have the real problem to the extent that there are problems. As I look at the plan, it looks like, essentially, it is designed to enter from the east and leave from the west. It seems that a person parking at the restaurant will most likely leave by 140 the west because the parking is closest to the west driveway. Mr. Milam: The westerly drive is somewhat fixed by the proposed boulevard. This would be the only entrance into the site coming from the west. The development plan now gives us both exposure. Mr. Andrew: I assume the Wayne County Road Commission has no objection to the island? Mr. Nagy: That is right. Mr. Scruggs: The thing I see as a problem is that people coming into the restaurant or bank on a Friday afternoon when you really get some cars backed up. I am sure there will be a traffic problem in getting into the restaurant. How many lanes of traffic can be set aside? Mr. Milam: One of the reasons for making the drives extra large was to anticipate this problem and provide room. Restaurant traffic can enter from the west, go to the back and continue onto the parking area and not pose a problem for the bank. Anything coming from the east would be less of a problem because they would not have to use the service drive at all . We have 170 lineal feet of stack up area for one drive-in window. We will soon have 340' of stack up area with a second window. We feel 340 or even 170 at this time is adequate for stack up. Mr. Falk: I am not against restaurants although I was opposed to Bill Knapps on Farming- ton Road. I think Bill Knapps is a good restaurant and I am glad you people chose this location rather than on Farmington Road. . Mr. Andrew: Does this line up with the Newburgh Plaza or the Big Boy? 4110 Mr. Nagy: This lines up with the cross-over of the median section. 5791 Mr. Milam: The site plan shows the proposed boulevard for Six Mile Road. . .could be the drive on the lower left hand corner is a drive from the shopping center. Mr. Kluver: Is this petition just for Bill Knapps? i Mr. Andrew: Yes. Do you have a standard as far as lighting is concerned for the parking area? Mr. Jabara: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Is it possible for you to furnish the Commission a cut? Is there to be alcohol served? Mr. Jabara: We can furnish a cut. The restaurant will close at 11 :00 p.m. during the week and 12:00 on Friday and Saturday and there is no alcohol served. Mario Tartaglia, owner of Lot J1a2: All the land is zoned C-2. Mine was C-2. I was approached by a few restaurants and I went to the office of the Planning Commission and they always turned me down and said I can' t put a restaurant there and yet the whole section is all C-2. You turned down my C-2. 4 Mr. Andrew: We turned down a zoning of that land? We initated a petition to down-grade the zoning, I remember that. Mr. Tartaglia: This is like spot zoning to me. Mine was a C-2 zoning too, now it is C-1 . Mr. Andrew: This is not a question of zoning tonight. Mr. Tartaglia: But you turned mine down. Mr. Andrew: What did we turn down?lit: . Mr. Tartaglia: You turned downmy zoning from C-2 to C-1 . All the land around here is C-2. You turned mine to C-1 . I paid a lot of money for that land as C-2 and you people just turned down my land and this is C-2 in the surrounding area. Mr. Andrew: Are you objecting to the restaurant on this piece of property? Mr. Tartaglia: Mine was C-2; that doesn't prove anything to me. Merlin Heidelmeyer, 17271 Fitzgerald: I am more or less against the funeral home and now we have a restaurant coming in here. To me, this looks like land-locked property back there with the bank in front of it. Mr. Andrew: But there is access provided both on the east and west to provide access to the rear. 30' drives both on the east and west. Mr. Milam: We hope to cure traffic problems with internal signs. Mr. Heidelmeyer: They will probably have signs out there. toMr. Andrew: There will be one sign set behind Wills Funeral Home. Mr. Heidelmeyer: How high? 46, Mr. Carton: 15 feet and less than 50 square feet. 5792 Mr. Milam: Two signs are shown on the site plan. IL Mr. Heidelmeyer: I object. I think we are getting saturated with the uses we have around there now with the funeral home, racquet club and Laurel Park. Mr. Falk: The signs get to be another thing that irritates me. People always say they will honor the sign. The Zoning Board of Appeals okays all kinds of signs. Can I have some indication that you will live with the sign shown here? Mr. Carton: We will as we have in the other thirty-five restaurants. This will be the same sign. Mr. Falk: You won' t be running to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Carton: No. George Hansen, 37147 Bennett: I strongly oppose it and I live right behind this site. I have two small children and we get lights from the Newburgh Shopping Center that keep my children awake at night. We also have a problem from the shop- ping center with teen-agers jumping our fence. 4 James Battaglia, 37115 Bennett: I object. I called City Hall three years ago when I bought my house and they told me this was P.S. In a matter of months, we have a monster, the racquet club, and a funeral home. I accepted that but nobody said anything about changing the ordinance to accommodate a restaurant My back yard is illuminated now and I have five kids. If this goes in there, I will move from Livonia completely and totally. Mr. Talbot: I sympathize with people. . .the lights from Newburgh Plaza shining, but you must realize this property is zoned C-2 and could be used for a number of things. If the bank wanted another use back there, they could build practically back to the homes. They have agreed that 120' will be sodded. You are getting a buffered zone that you might not get if something else went back there. Mrs. Wisler: To support Mr. Talbot; I sympathize with you about the lights but I think distance has something to be said about it. I can't think of anything else that would give you the distance between your homes and the commercial property and there will be no parking there. When we see the landscape plan, I hope we see a better job than what was done at the racquet club. Richard Miller, 37181 Bennett: I am concerned with the lights from Newburgh Plaza and we are wondering about screening the lights in their parking lots and the lights of cars shining in our windows and we are concerned about trash, the truck and the other activity on the site. We will get the smell directly from their kitchen. I am opposed to this restaurant. My $57,000 home will be devaluated if this restaurant goes in. Mr. Andrew: Is it possible to shield the lights so they do not shine in a northerly direction? Mr. Carton: Yes, it is. We could screen the northerly side of those fixtures. They are very low intensity lights. 5793 Mr. Andrew: Is the lamp exposed or contained within the housing? Mr. Carton: It is contained within the housing. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Miller, would you be satisfied if you could see a cut of the fixture? Mr. Miller: That would be of some help but what about the car lights? Mr. Andrew: It is my understanding that that is the purpose of the protective wall . It is a 6' high masonry wall . Mr. Miller: Not when you look from my patio. Mr. Andrew: What would your suggestion be? Mr. Miller: That is what I am asking you. Mr. Andrew: I don' t have one. Mr. Miller: What about a greenbelt? a Mr. Andrew: They are proposing to the south of the 6' high masonry wall 120' of green- belt, but you want that to be deeper? Mr. Scruggs: With 120' of greenbelt perhaps the gentleman would consider a tree addition. It would take time to get going but in time it would do a job of screening. Mr. Hansen : What if additional parking were needed? Would that come from the greenbelt? Mr. Andrew: We could restrict that so they couldn't use it for parking. 1164 ► Mrs. Hansen: Would you? Mr. Andrew: That is a matter for the Board. Mr. Miller: Will there be something to screen the trash and loading truck? Mr. Carton: All garbage is stored inside in a refrigerated room until disposed of. There is only one truck a day that arrives at 8:30 a.m. , is there for one-half hour and leaves. Once a day seven days a week. Mr. Miller: What about the odors from the restaurant? Mr. Carton: The only thing I can say is that we use the most modern and expensive filter- ing equipment available today to eliminate odors. We have never had that kind of problem before or after opening a restaurant. All trash is stored inside the building. Mr. Hansen: Why didn't they put the restaurant in front and the bank behind? Mr. Carton: The bank owns the property and basically from the restaurant standpoint, we want maximum exposure and we would like to have been in the front but the bank owns the property and this turned out to be acceptable to us. 5794 Mr. Jabara: I don't think there are very many restaurants that would go to the rear of ILproperty like this except Bill Knapps. We think sitting back from the main street will not hurt Bill Knapps. Mr. Battaglia: How long has this been C-2? Mr. Nagy: It was zoned in 1968. Mr. Battaglia: City Hall told me three years ago it was zoned for professional service. Carol Gibbons, 37084 Bennett: I am opposed to this restaurant going in here. Jerry Gibbons, 37084 Bennett: I am opposed but I am afraid we will get it anyway. Is there anything we could do about the lighting? I would like to make sure the lighting is recessed and that they will be turned off at closing hour. Mr. Carton: They are recessed and will be turned off at closing. I will be happy to supply you with a picture of the lighting. This is a different fixture and offers less lighting than the one in Plymouth. Mr. Gibbons: As far as 120' of grass goes, you know what that is worth. a Our homes set above the 6' wall so that is of no value. I would like some guarantee of some tall evergreens there. I think that would help considerably. Mr. Andrew: The landscape plan will be taken up at a later date and we will be happy to notify you when the Commission takes it up. taMr. Miller: The civic association is still considering a law suit against the racquet club because the people abutting have a problem with car lights even with the wall . I think if we could get some tall evergreens, that would help. 460 Mr. Andrew: We will be happy to discuss it in detail when we discuss the landscape plan. Mr. Mi lam: In regard to the wall , I think all the property owners along Six Mile Road who helped pay for the wall don't really think it is worthless and First Federal as a property owner has rights too. Mrs. Gibbons: But we mean by worthless that we don' t get 6' of benefit out of the wall because we can see right over the top because our homes are high. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-4-2-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs and seconded by Mr. Pinto, it was RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 75-4-2-8 as submitted by Kal A. Jabara, J-P Properties, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operat a Bill Knapps Restaurant on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 75-4-2-8 until the Planning Com- mission Study Meeting of May 6, 1975. . 1:: 4 5795 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following; IL AYES: Wisler, Scruggs, Pinto NAYS: Talbot, Friedrichs, Kluver, Falk, Andrew ABSENT: Hand Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails for lack of support. Mr. Pinto: The comments from some of the Commission members as well as from the public relative to problems that may possibly exist in relation to this proposed restaurant do not entirely seem insoluble. In other words, we have a proprietor willing to make every reasonable accommodation to alleviate problems raised and discussed during the course of this meeting; problems that might be solved by a landscaped greenbelt, character of the lights, etc. The reason I supported the tabling motion was to accommodate the solution of those problems to the greatest extent possible. I thought there would be in the interim time of one week, time to allow the petitioner to arrive as closely as possible to lighting and landcaping plans to solve those possible problems that have been raised during the course of this discussion. That is the reason for supporting Mr. Scruggs' tabling motion and leaves me now in a dilemma because I don't know what th$ main motion will be right now. I thought seven days would not create any problems but might solve some. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot and seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, it was 11110 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 75-4-2-8 as submitted by Kal A. Jabara, J-P Properties, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a Bill Knapps Restaurant on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-4-2-8 be approved. Mr. Andrew: The Chair would recommend that the approval be subject to several things;. (1) that a landscape plan be submitted within thirty days. Can you tell me where you stand on the landscape plan? Mr. Milam: We submitted a landscape plan. Mr. Pinto: Perhaps to the majority of people a landscape plan is viewed in an aesthetic manner. The landscape plan we are talking about in connection with this use may well be viewed to accomplish those purposes but from the comments made we are not concerned in this case with a landscape plan along those lines. It seems to me, in this case, that the focus will be on the land less in view of the public because it is to accomplish a different purpose. Mr. Andrew: I suggest that a condition be attached to the approval too that no building shall be erected on the north 120' of this property and that prior to the installaticn of any lighting fixtures in the parking lots, the petitioner be required to submit a cut of that fixture to this Commission for approval . liMr. Talbot: I agree with those conditions. . Mr. Andrew: Any objections from the supporter? tro Mrs. Friedrichs: No. 5796 The resolution proposed for adoption was read by Mr. Falk, Secretary: #4-79-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 75-4-2-8 as submitted by Kal A. Jabara, J-P Properties, requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a Bill Knapps Restaurant on the north side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in the Southwest 1/4 of Sectio 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-4-2-8 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that a landscape plan showing the landscape materials proposed to be installed on the site be submitted to the Planning Com- mission for approval within thirty (30) days; (2) that no building shall be erected on the north 120' of the site of the restaurant as described as Parcel B; (3) that prior to the installation of any lighting fixture in the parking lots, the petitioner shall submit to the Planning Com- mission for approval an example of that proposed fixture; a for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11 .03(c) Special Waiver Use Standards. (2) The proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding uses of the area as it is adequately separated from the abutting neighborhood area by the provision of a greenbelt area of 120' , which greenbelt is proposed to be landscaped, in addition to the screen wall that already occurs at the property line. (3) The site has excess capacity to support the proposed use by reason of setting aside a site area of 120' and developing same as a landscaped greenbelt. (4) All responding City Departments, Traffic Bureau of the Police Department, Fire Department, Bureau of Inspection and Engineering Division, have indicated no objections to the proposed development. 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: Friedrichs, Talbot, Kluver, Scruggs, Wisler, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Pinto ABSENT: Hand Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ii adopted. 5797 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-4-2-7 by Dr. William Westcott requesting waiver use approval to operate a IL veterinary out-patient clinic within an existing building located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Roycroft in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Andrew: We will proceed with the public hearing on this petition, however, the petitioner, Dr. Westcott, is represented by Counsel and the attorney cannot be present this evening. The Chair will recommend a tabling motion at the conclusion of the public hearing, but we will be glad to hear any comments pro or con. Winifred Christ, 15486 Surrey: I represent the Coventry Gardens Improvement Association and I have a letter to submit which concerns this petition. A letter (not dated) was submitted. Mr. Nagy read the letter for the record. Mr. Andrew: It is the concern of this Commission as to exactly what is to transpire in this operation. These are the questions we will be addressing to the attorney for the petitioner and you will certainly be invited to the study meeting so that you can hear the answers. The petitioner, Dr. William Westcott, announced his presence at the hearing and requested, in the absence of his attorney, to be heard in his own behalf. Mr. Andrew: It puts us in an awkward position when your Counsel has indicated he cannot be present. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Mr. Ponder, your Attorney. (Mr. Nagy read the letter) . Mr. Andrew: Since you are paying the fee•, I have no objection to listening to you. Mr. Talbot: After all , this is a public hearing and he can say anything he wants to say. Dr. Westcott: I find that people I am concerned with are moving to Livonia. This is a relatively new concept. We run a prophylactic animal hospital program, not only by virtue of equipment but by staff, which is an eight-man staff. We have just completed negotiating with a Professor of Purdue to care for the dermotology cases. We run an emergency room and are open twenty-four hours a day on Grand River, east of Seven Mile Road. I am involved now only in administration. Many of our clients have moved from the Rosedale Park area and we have a very fair sized clientele in Livonia. We look at this as an extension of the examination rooms and we cannot conceive doing surgery here. There may be one, or no, AHA member in this community that complies with our standards. We will meet by appointment with our clients and under no circum- stances will we house animals. Our present toal staff is 25 people, eight doctors and 17 nurses. We will have here a maximum of one doctor and one nurse who will meet with patients by appointment. Mr. Andrew: This will not be a twenty-four hour operation? Dr. Westcott: No. Mr. Andrew: What are normal working hours? 5798 Dr. Westcott: 9:00 to 5:00 or 6:00, by appointment. Mr. Andrew: Animals would not be housed? Dr. Westcott: Only if an animal came in on an emergency situation; and post-surgery care. I would like to invite you to survey what we have done in our present situation and I think I could find you some letters from civic associations in support of our profession. Mrs. Friedrichs: You do plan to use the building as it is now and the finance company would stay on the other side? It seems a very small area. Dr. Westcott: Yes. We need only a small area and the refuse would be very small also and would probably go back to our other facility with records each day. Mrs. Friedrichs: That is a twenty-four hour service. Would you have that here? Dr. Westcott: No, there is no way we can staff another service like that. Mrs. Friedrichs: This is a very particular area because it is our Civic Center area. 4 Dr. Westcott: We do only medical , surgical things; we do not board animals. Mrs. Friedrichs: When a dog is operated on, it must remain overnight. Dr. Westcott: But that wouldn't be here, it would be at our other facility. Mrs. Friedrichs: How many parking spaces would be required for an operation such as this? Mr. Nagy: This qualifies as a professional use and under the provisions of the Ordinanu complies with the offstreet parking. Mrs. Friedrichs: Would you do routine animal check-ups? Dr. Westcott: No, because we wouldn't have the equipment. I don't even think we will be doing dental work here. Mrs. Friedrichs: Specifically, what would a dog be brought to you for? Dr. Westcott: Immunizations. Rabies, heart worm tests, stool tests. Mr. Andrew: Where is your present facility located? Dr. Westcott: It is the Westcott Hospital , Inc. , on Grand River about four blocks east of Seven Mile Road. Mrs. Christ: The building is almost all windows. What will you do architecturally to cover the windows? Dr. Westcott: Why would we cover them. We will use that room for reception. We will partition the building into two examination rooms. Mrs. Christ: How about the lighting in the rear. And, you will have drugs of some sort. ' Dr. Westcott: The federal government administration was in to see me yesterday. They are fussy about how you handle drugs. I would come under somebody's gun in 5799 the handling of drugs. It is my responsibility and my license. I didn't know there was a problem with lighting. 3 Mrs. Christ: It is a commercial corner and it is right in my backyard. So, you have no idea what you would do about this? Dr. Westcott: I haven't recognized the problems. You point them out to me and I will take care of it. Mrs. Christ: How about the trash? You are giving me no guarantee. Dr. Westcott: If you come to our present facility, you will be totally reassured about the care of the trash. Mrs. Christ: Will this facility really meet your needs or within a few months will you move out and Mr. Domini will be left with an empty building again? Dr. Westcott: We will be spending money on this building and I certainly don't intend to vacate it. Mrs. Christ: How about water? There is only one sink and one toilet. 4 Dr. Westcott: There are two and I think that is adequate. My picture right now is an examination, inspection room and pharmacy. Mr. Andrew: As far as the plumbing facilities are concerned, the City will tell the Doctor what he has to do. Dr. Westcott: I would like again to invite all of you to look at our present facility to ILsee what it is all about. Mrs. Christ: That lot is probably set by standards that the City sets up but it is a very small lot and most of the time to leave the lot the people drive through the alley. Is there a barrier that could be put up to keep people from backing into my fence. Mr. Andrew: My personal opinion is that this Commission has no authority to meet that request. Mr. Nagy: This pre-dates our Zoning Ordinance #543. We now discourage alleys and in the eight years I have been associated with the City we have not provided alleys. This existing building pre-dates our Zoning Ordinance and to that extent, it doesn't comply with our standards but it does comply regarding parking requirements. Mrs. Christ: What about the dog run area? Dr. Westcott: We will not have one. Mr. Falk: When I first heard about this , I was set to vote against it because you would have dogs and noise and barking. For that reason, I couldn't think why you would pick that particular area. Now that you have explained that it is like an emergency ward in a hospital , you have relieved my apprehension. Do we have your word that this is going to be- trictly what .you say. . .an emergency ' t facility so that these people do not have to worry about that? 5800 Dr. Westcott: I think we will probably have four stainless steel kennels to hold an animal until we can accomplish whatever the problem is that day, but they will never be left there overnight. We also do referral work for the four hospita t in the area. Mrs. Friedrichs: I assume that the people on both sides including the Chamber of Commerce were all notified. Mr. Nagy: We notified everyone within a 500' radius of this site. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-4-2-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs , it was #4-80-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 29, 1975 on Petition 75-4-2-7 as submitted by Dr. William Westcott request- ing waiver use approval to operate a veterinary out-patient clinic within an existing building located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road and Roycroft in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item until the Planning Commission study meeting of May 6, 1975• A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Scruggs , Pinto, Talbot, Kluver NAYS: Wisler, Falk, Andrew ABSENT: Hand Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion •is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared a recess at 10:40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:50 p.m. with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated April 8, 1975 from McNeely, Lincoln & Schrader, Inc. , requesting a one- year extension of preliminary plat approval for Sheffield Subdivison proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Wayne Road and Curtis Road in Section 9. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-81-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated April 8, 1975 from McNeely, Lincoln & Schrader, Inc. , the City Planning Commission does hereby grant an extension of preliminary plat approval for Sheffield Subdivision proposed to be located at the northeast corner of Wayne Road and Curtis Road in Section 9, for a period of, one year. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 5801 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated April 10, 1975 from Richard G. Sullivan requesting an extension of time regarding the installation of landscaping in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 74-9-2-13 by Helen M. Kavanaugh requesting waiver use approval to locate a real estate office within an existing building located on the east side of Farmington Road between Curtis and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-82-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated April 10, 1975 from Richard G. Sullivan requesting an extension of time regarding the installation of landscaping in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 74-9-2-13 by Helen M. Kavanaugh requesting waiver use approval to locate a real estate office within an existing building located on the east side of Farmington Road between Curtis and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to grant a sixty (60) day extension; from April 15, 1975 to July 15, 1975. a Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the minutes of the 291st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 11 , 1975. 1,, On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #4-83-75 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 291st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 11 , 1975 are approved. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, delcared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-2-1-8 by Emerson Building Company to rezone property located on the west side of Alexander between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-1 . Resident: I attended the public hearing on this matter and the questions brought up at that meeting regarding the Engineering Department not approving this unless the street was paved and sewered were to be taken up at this meeting. I would like to know if the road is to be paved; could they force the paving and improvement of these roads? Mr. Andrew: We could not condition the rezoning of this property in order to provide for the paving of any street. Is that correct, Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Zoning cannot be conditioned. Mr. Andrew: Therefore, the logical department to pursue the paving of this street is the City Council through the Engineering Division and I would think that at the time this petition does go before the City Council you should appear to ex- 5802 press your viewpoint and I am sure you will find the Engineering Division on your side. They will probably make a statement to the City Council as to how to improve the street. Mr. Pinto: The City Council can't condition zoning either but they have the power to set up the improvement of streets. Resident: Could these homes be built without the improvement to the road? Mr. Andrew: It is difficult to answer that question. I suppose they could, but the Engineering Division has indicated to the Planning Department that they would insist on the paving of that half street and indicated three ways to bring about the desired result. If homes were built on the unpaved street if the Council approves the zoning, the Engineering Department would proceed with a special assessment. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-84-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-2-1-8 as submitted by Emerson Building CompaQy to rezone property located on the west side of Alexander between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-2-1-8 be approved for the follow- ing reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning to the R-1 classification is consistent with the overall development pattern of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning to the R-1 classification requiring minimum lot sizes of 60' in width is, in general , consistent with the subdivision of the land within the neighborhood area that has occurred since the initial platting of the subject land. (3) The proposed change of zoning will promote the orderly growth and development of the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning will remove the non-compliant status that occurs with respect to Lot 224b of Supervisor's Livonia Plat #3 and bring same into conformance with the appropriate zoning district regulations. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer/Eccentric, under date of March 20, 1975 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Consumers Power Company, City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. tof Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-4-5-1 by Dale Burrell requesting a topsoil permit to remove dirt from 5803 Parcel DD2b located on the south side of Curtis between Farmington lifRoad and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Talbot and unanimously adopted, it was #4-85-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18. 13D of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, the City Plan- ning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 75-4-5-1 as submitted by Dale Burrell requesting a topsoil permit to remove dirt from Parcel DD2b located on the south side of Curtis between Farmington Road and Mayfield Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, pending receipt by the Engineering Division of a topographical survey as required by Section 18. 13C(b) . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Council Resolution #233-75 referring Petition 74-9-2-15 by Jeffrey Lauren Land Company requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a four- a theatre complex on property located north of Plymouth Road, east of Farmington Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, back to the Planning Commission for further study and thereafter a new report and recommendation. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mrs. Wisler and unanimously adopted, it was #4-86-75 RESOLVED that, having further considered Petition 74-9-2-15 as requested by Council Resolution #233-75, the City Planning Commission hereby reaffirms the recommendation in its Resolution #12-244-74, adopted on December 10, 1974, for the reasons reported therein. Further, with regard to the overall development potential of the petitioner's entire site comprising 21 .4 acres which is zoned in part C-2 and in part M-1 , the Planning Commission presently believes that full commercial develop- ment, in a manner as that illustrated on Plan #2739, dated 3/14/75, Sheet D, as prepared by Louis Wiltse, Architect, would provide both a desirable and effective use of the overall site. Additionally, the Planning Commission calls to the Council 's attention Petition 72-3-1-17 seeking a rezoning of a portion of the industrial property to a commercial classification which was acted favorably upon by this Commission and which is presently pending before the Council . _ Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-87-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan sub- mitted in connection with Petition 75-3-8-4 by Ralph Weber for Color Tile requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in ' t connection with a proposal to construct a retail store on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between St. Martins and 5804 Bretton in Section 1 , subject to the following conditions: (1) that the Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1 , dated 4/21/75, prepared by T & M Construction Consultants , Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (3) that all landscape materials shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #4-88-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-4-8-7 as submitted by R. Keith Milam for First Federal Savings and Loan Association requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a proposal to construct a branch office with partial basement on property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road, in Section 8, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #7429/7511 , prepared by Ralph Calder & Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commis- sion for approval within thirty (30) days; (3) that Building Elevation drawing prepared by Ralph Calder & Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (4) that this approval includes approval of one free-standing sign only; that being the sign proposed for the First Federal Savings and Loan Association. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-89-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-4-8-8 as submitted by Robert B. Whitcomb requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a 5805 proposal to construct a retail sales building on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Inkster and Middlebelt Roads in Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan for Club and Cue prepared by Robert B. Whitcomb, dated 5/6/75, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevations as shown on plans prepared by Robert B. Whitcomb, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to with the added condition that all exposed block walls shall be painted to match the proposed brick; (3) that a landscape plan showing all landscape materials proposed for the site shall be presented to the Planning Department for approval within ten (10) days from the date of this approval ; (4) that a plan showing any signs proposed to be erected on the site shall be subject to the approval of the City Planning Commission. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 294th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 29, 1975, was adjourned at 12:20 a.m. , April 30, 1975. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1[01 Jqeph J.' Fa V) Secretary l ` ATTEST: Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman ac