Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1976-01-06 i • MINUTES OF THE 308th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 4On Tuesday, January 6, 1976 the City Planning. Commission of the City of Livonia held ',its 308th 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 8:00 p.m., with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Francis M. Hand Esther Friedrichs William Scruggs Herman H. Kluver Judith Scurto Suzanne Wisler Members absent: Charles Pinto Joseph J. Falk (Lansing) Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; H G Shane, Planner IV; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on tonight 's agenda involves a question of rezoning or vacating, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council, after holding a public hearing, will make the final deter- mination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. If a petition requesting a waiver of use is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council. If he does not appeal to the City Council, the petition is terminated. Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 75-12-1-31 ILby Brentwood Professional Association requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, east of Brentwood in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, from P.O. to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating that there are no City maintained water mains to service the subject site and in addition, it appears that approximately 50% of the site is involved in designated flood plain area. That is the extent of our correspondence. Lawrence A. Thompson, 19500 Middlebelt, petitioner: I did make this petition but I brought Mr. Freed, the Architect, who I think is more qualified to answer your questions as to why we want this change. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Thompson, you are the petitioner? Mr. Thompson: No, I am the Attorney for the petitioner. Mr. Donald Freed, 19500 Middlebelt, Architect: We have two pieces of property involved with the development. The one to the west is zoned P.S. providing for low- rise buildings. The property to the east is zoned for high-rise build- ings. It is our intent to build low-rise buildings. Because of the nature of the site, to get a one-story building on the site we must project into this area to a small degree. On the basis of high-rise, we would not be allowed to build one-story. We will be able to satisfy the parking l requirements. We will also be before you again to seek site plan approval. We believe a one-story building is more compatible to the area and will blend in with surrounding development more than a multi-story building. That is the reason we are seeking this change in zoning. 5971 Mr. Andrew: Will you take advantage of the existing footings? Mr. Freed: No, wewill not be able to. ,There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, ,declared the public hearing on Petition 75-12-1-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #1-1-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on January 6, 1976 on Petition 75-12-1-31 as submitted by Brentwood Professional Association requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, east of Brentwood in the Northwest 1/L of Section 1, from P.O. to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-12-1-31 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for physical develop- ment more appropriate to the existing development of the area. (2) The site of the proposed change of zoning, being physically bisected by a flood plain, separates this parcel from the balance of the P.O. District thereby leaving the balance of the property more logically associated with the existing P.S. District located to the west. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer/Eccentric, under date of Decem- ber 18,1975, 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. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-12-1-32 by Morris and Barbara Huler requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Stamford between Clarita and Curtis in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from R-3 to R-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division which states that "The platting of this area as a subdivision will require the con- struction of a full width pavement on Curtis Road and Stamford Avenue, as 'well as Clarita and Pickford Avenue east from Stamford Avenue. The above pavement construction will necessitate right-of-way for the north one-half of Clarita Avenue as well as the south one-half of Curtis Road, immediately east of Stamford Avenue, to accommodate transitional areas of pavement. Further requirements for this subdivision will be developed by this office when final engineering plans have been received. " Mr. Andrew: What is the reason for this request? Mr. Morris Huler, petitioner: The reason for my request is that it is my understanding that in August the property to the east on the other side of Stamford was replatted to accommodate 65 and 70 foot lots. In my petition, I indicated that I felt that use of similar lot sizes here 'would be more compatible to the subdivision that is contemplated. 5912 Mr. Bruce Buchholz, 18253 Myron: My property is Lots 122 and 423 and Lots 438 and 439, fronting on Stamford. I would like to present to the Commission signa- tures on a petition against this zoning change and I would like you to know. that everyone I called on signed the' petition as being definitely against the zoning change. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, read the petition for the record. The petition has been signed by IL approximately 23 to 25 families, and this will be incorporated as part of the public record. Mr. Buchholz: I only canvassed the east side of Whitby from Clarita to Curtis and the west side of Myron from Clarita to Curtis . I was unaware of how far from the property people were sent notices and felt the closest properties should be contacted. Mr. Andrew: The property located on Whitby Road in Hellman Park Subdivision #2--it looks like they are about 70' x 120' . Mr. Nagy: 76' x 118' for those lots beginning on Curtis extending to Pickford. From Pickford north they are all 80' x 111 ' . Mr. Andrew: The lots between Pickford and Clarita are 76' x 118' ? Mr. Nagy: Right. Mr. Andrew: On the east side of Stamford where we had lot splits, apparently those are 65' , 70' and 75' lots. Mr. Nagy: That is 'correct. The lots were split by action of the City Council. 1!: Mr. Buchholz: When was this split taken care of? I was never aware of arty proposed lot split. I was never sent a notice. Mr. Nagy: A lot split is different from rezoning of land. A property owner has the right to request a division of a lot of record. They were platted as 50' lots but the owner saw fit to combine and divide lots to increase the lots from 50' to 70' . Mr. Buchholz: They are zoned for 80' lots. Mr. Nagy: The Council can divide the lots but the owner still has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to ask for a waiver of the R-3 regulations in order to be issued a building permit. Mr. Andrew: I guess I don't understand the opposition to the proposed rezoning from the standpoint that as you relate the proposed lots with the pre-prelim- inary plat it indicates lots south of Pickford to be 75' x 220' which is almost double the area of the lots that they would abut on Whitby Road and as they relate to the lots across Stamford, they exceed those lots in area and frontage. What is the problem? Mr. Buchholz: All of the area is zoned R-3, 80' x 100' minimum lot size. Why should this area be zoned anything other than R-3? ['Mr. Andrew: If the Whitby Road lots are 70' x 118', why is it zoned R-3? • 5973 Mr. Nagy: I wasn't Planning Director at that time but I can surmise that it was the closest zoning classification that approximated the size of the lots. Also, the zoning notice that went out did not have benefit of the pre-preliminary plat. 4 [Mr. Andrew: We will adjourn the public hearing temporarily on this item to give the people a chance to look at the plat because it might have some bearing on the question. The public hearing on Petition 75-12-1-32 was temporarily adjourned and a copy of the pre-preliminary plat furnished interested persons in the audience. Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda. is Petition 75-12-1-33 by John D. Dinan requesting to rezone property located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Merriman Roads in the Southeast l/4 of Section 3, from R-1 to P.S. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter dated December 15, 1975 from the Engineering Division in the file which states there are no apparent engineering problems con- nected with the development of the site. Mr. Mark Wieland, 31609 Gable: My wife and I talked this over and we are dead against any rezoning of this parcel to other than residential. We feel the safety of the children 'we expect to have some day would be endangered and also I feel the value of my home would be decreased. Whenever you go a mile each way you have a shopping center. We have a shopping center here and a mile down the other way you have the K-Mart shopping center. There are plenty areas other than this in which this gentleman can build his professional service and make a go of it in Livonia. Mr. Andrew: Thank you very much for your comments . 4 Mrs. Friedrichs: I would like to comment that professional service zoning seems to me to be an excellent buffer between the small shopping center and the resi- dential. It is sort of a transitional type of zoning from the parking and I think it would give you a feeling of open spaces and the advantages of any other type of use are not as good. A small office building there well landscaped and set back from the property lines on each side would give you a feeling of openness and be a real buffer between the shopping center and the residential. Mr. Wieland: First of all, I don't think you'll find a better buffer than what is there now. The trees are a natural buffer. Secondly, I feel traffic at this corner is continually getting to a point where it is bad. To draw more traffic into this area -- I just don't buy it. Mrs. Friedrichs: I think that you are not thinking of the property owner's rights. Some- thing will be built there and the owner will not keep it there as open space because you like open space. You could get something much heavier in the traffic way and much less agreeable like a drive-in or a filling station; those that would be detrimental to your neighborhood whereas a good office building would not create much traffic. Mr. Wieland: I feel it should stay residential. Mrs. Friedrichs: Would you like to build your home there? Mr. Wieland: No, not on Merriman Road. What I am saying is--say these people decide to sell their lots, the frontage on Seven Mile; are we going to make this all professional service? Mrs. Friedrichs: No, we are not. That is where it will stop and that is why this will be a good buffer. John D. Dinan, petitioner: The rezoning request is for the north 180' of the section along Merriman and we have already constructed the mall and the parking lot along Seven Mile. It was felt that a good transition from the parking lot would be a professional service/office complex of a one story nature, quite small in relation to the overall development. We contemplate an 8,000 square foot building--equivalent to three or four houses. We feel we can use the general aesthetic character that we have developed in our other buildings here. We contemplate making it into professional offices because we feel there is a demand for professional offices rather than general offices. The hours are nine to five for doctors and would not create a nuisance to the property owners to the north. As part of the construction, we would include a poured wall which would go along the west and north property lines to protect the residential property to the west and north. Mr. Andrew: Do you have a waiver at the present time from the Zoning Board of Appeals on the wall between the parking lot and residential? Mr. Dinan: Yes. 'Mrs. Wisler: You already have your curb cuts and driveways in so there would be no additional drives that would be a nuisance to the adjacent homeowner? Mr. Dinan: That is correct. All the parking would be in the rear of the building. Mr. Andrew: If rezoning was accomplished, would it be your intent to start construc- tion soon? Mr. Dinan: Yes. This spring as soon as the weather permits. We feel having doctors and dentists will be providing-a service to the residents. Mr. Andrew: How many are you speaking of? Mr. Dinan. Five or six. The normal doctor would use about 1200 square feet. I would think the maximum would be six. Mr. Hand: Mr. Wieland, just to maybe give you a little more insight into why we favor this rezoning and also in support of Mrs. Friedrichs ' position, this property in its current zoning of R-1 as we view it is not partic- ularly attractive at this time. Number two, I have a very strong feel- ing that left R-1, the shopping center in becoming very successful the normal thing to happen would be to construct another building to the north of the existing building and extend parking into that area. I am not interested in seeing the commercial expand. I -think that would be detrimental. The P.S. classification is a far less intense type of use by virtue of the fact that it is professional service and you would end up with a medical facility available to you in the area. It seems like 59/i a good compromise and I would have to support the petition as presented on that basis. Mr. Wieland:11 What type of lighting will there be? ' Mr. Dinan: The commercial concept is different from professional office because doctors normally work from nine to five. There is no need for parking lights to be on beyond, say, 7:00 at night. We are using quartz light- ing, I believe. It is not a large light. Mr. Andrew: In the event this petition should be approved by the Council, prior to the time he can pull his building permit he will have to come back to us for site plan approval at which time we will go into parking, light- ing, etc. I think your point is extremely valid. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-12-1-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #1-2-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on January 6, 1976 on Petition 75-12-1-33 as submitted by John D. Dinan requesting to rezone property located at the northwest corner of Seven Mile and Merriman Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, from R-1 to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-12-1-33 be approved for the following reasons: t (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a transitional and buffer zone separating the commercial parking zone from the established residential development located to the north. (2) The proposed change of zoning will not adversely affect the development of the surrounding area as the P.S. District regulations are specifically designed so as to ensure harmony and compatibility of professional development with that of the abutting residential areas. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer/Eccentric, under date of Decem- ber 18, 1975, 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. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, announced that the public hearing on Petition 75-12-1-32 is recon- vened at this time. Mr. Buchholz:IL Is it not possible to not only have Stamford put through there but to split those lots again and put another road through there? Mr. Nagy: No, it is not possible. 13976 Mr. Andrew: There would be only 80' deep lots which would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 220' minus the 60' right-of-way. 110 Mr. Buchholz: Is there a minimum lot depth? Mr. Nagy: Yes. It is 120' . Mr. Buchholz: Me and my neighbors would like to stand with our petition and would like to require 80' wide lots. Mrs. Wisler: If you check this plat with this zoning classification, this plat offers at least the residents on Whitby maximum privacy; the lots are at least 100' deeper than they are presently in Hellman Park which would give you 100' more between you and the people living in this subdivision. Mrs. Barbara Hetler, 18508 Whitby: That would be excluding the lots that are only 73' x 120' ; they wouldn't be 100' deeper. Mr. Andrew: That is correct. Mrs. Hetler: I don't see why the City of Livonia would want to cut the lots down and build tiny, dinky houses. The people there won't be able to build an attached garage. Due to the size of homes now, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get an attached garage. Mr. Andrew: Then that is a matter of placement. I can't really see where it hurts anything because these lots are larger than the others between Pickford and Clarita. 'Mr Buchholz: Isn't it true that R-3 is only 80' x 120' lot size? Why do you need a zoning change if he already has sufficient square footage? Mr. Nagy: He must comply with all three standards--the width, depth and area. Rather than go to the Appeals Board, he is attempting to rezone so all of his lots can comply with the new zoning standards . Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Huler, have you looked into what the R-3 is and how many lots you would have with R-3 versus R-2? Mr. Huler: To give the objectors the benefit of my thinking, it carne to my attention in August that there were splits on the east; those lots are 65' and 70' . You would like to keep this as a park but I have paid taxes on that property for twenty-two years. Development costs being what they are today would negate the possibility of a little house. With the difference between 70 and 80 foot lots, in developing you could be talking $1500. I have taken these steps to protect this area. The lots on the east side of Stamford were split to accommodate 65 and 70 foot lots and being develop- ment costs are as high as they are today, I felt that if I could get lots somewhat compatible proportionately with those, I or the developer of Stamford Avenue would be in a position to develop homogenous homes. With this we can get a similar development but you could have a group of homes in the neighborhood with a large difference in price with different size lots. A much better job could be done ultimately by having lots of similar size and cost structures. Your initial fears were contemplated many months ago. 5977 Mr. Robert F. Graf, 18524 Whitby: The question was asked did you pursue what you could do under the R-3. t Mr. Ruler: I did not pursue it until this carne up. I did some pre plat work and did it knowing what was developed across the street where there are 65' lots, so that each developer can develop in a homogenous way. Mr. Graf: If it is,approved, it doesn't stop him from going down to the 70' minimum. • Mr. Andrew; As long as he conforms to the requirements, I suppose he can. Mr. Nagy informs me that it is physically impossible to do what you say. Mr. Nagy: At 70' you could not get a greater lot yield than what is already shown on the pre preliminary plat. Mr. Graf: How many could he get with R-3? Mr. Nagy: At the 80' x 120', he would lose possibly five to six lots. Mr. Huler: If I knew the man across the street was contemplating 80' lots, I wouldn't think of anything else. Mr. Graf: That property a long time ago was zoned RUF. I have watched the paper and have yet to see when the property was zoned R-3. Do you have that information and what was the size of the lots that were split? Mr. Andrew: 50' . [ Mr. Graf: All the property around is going larger; from 80' to 100' . I guess I was sold a bill of goods when I bought thinking that I bought a lot and that all the other property around me would be similar. Mr. Nagy: The change was made from RUF to R-3 in 1965 when the Zoning Ordinance changed from No. 60 to No. 543 and the Comprehensive Zoning Map was adopted. Mrs. Jeanie Swanson, 18287 Whitby: Our back yards are just fine. We have 80' lots and I cannot see for the type of home that we have, going to 75' lots. I really and truly think we need that width. Mr. Andrew: You would rather see 80' x 120' rather than 70' x 220'? Mrs. Swanson: I certainly would. It doesn't involve me but I .like to help my neigh- bors and we want the very best possible type of home we can get. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-12-1-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #1-3-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on January 6, 1976 on Petition 75-12-1-32 as submitted by Morris .and Barbara Ruler requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Stamford between Clarita and Curtis in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from f R-3 to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-12-1-32 be approved for the follow- 1: . ing reasons: 5978 (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a density of • land use consistent with the established residential development of the surrounding area. IL (2) .The proposed change of zoning will provide for a residential lot development pattern consistent with the residential lot development pattern of the surrounding area. (3) The proposed change of zoning will promote the orderly growth and development of the area as it will facilitate the sub- division of the lands and the public improvements associated with a subdivision. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer/Eccentric, under date of Decem- ber 18, 1975, 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: Kluver, Scruggs, Scurto, Hand, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs ABSTAIN: Wisler ABSENT: Pinto, Falk Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval 4 for Hillbrook Estates Subdivision proposed to be located 4 east of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road, in.the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Nagy read the correspondence from the file; a letter dated December 30, 1975 from the Engineering Division stating that the development of Lots 3 and 4 will be predicated on filling a portion of the designated flood plain adjacent to the Tarabusi Drain and that Lot 2 may require some filling of the flood plain to accommodate a house-building operation; a letter dated January 2,- 1976 from the Chief Building Inspector stating that the plat is being returned since it is being substantially revised but noting that Lots 1 through 5 are in a flood plain and would require up to 12' of fill; and a letter dated January 2, 1976 from Lt. Widmaier of the Traffic Bureau stating the Bureau's opinion that street access to the development being limited to one direction via Hillbrook Avenue from the east as indicated in the site plan could present some disadvantage by extending arrival time in the event that quick arrival into the area should be required of an emergency vehicle for some reason. Mr. Andrew: Does Lt. Widmaier offer any suggestion on how to get around that? Mr. Nagy: Lt. Widmaier would like to have Hillbrook extended out to Merriman Road. We also have a letter from the Department of Natural Resources based on the original drawing . r 5979 Mr. Andrew: Do you understand, Mrs. Veri, that the Department of Natural Resources has rejected your plat? ' Mrs. Lidia Veri, developer: No. I was there only today. 1 Mr. Nagy: The letter was addressed to your Engineer. Mr. Nagy read the letter for the record. Mr. Nagy: Again, I should advise you that we reworked the plat and this is not the plat they commented on. What you would have to do is to submit it to the Department of Natural Resources again. Mr. Andrew: We studied this last week and Mr. Nagy made some suggestions as to how to overcome the problems. The plat before us tonight we cannot approve. You should get back to your Engineer. I am sure he is aware of these questions. This will have to have another public hearing also. Mrs. Veri: I would like to know what they want me to do. I have already paid the Engineer a large amount of money and don't wish to do it again. Mr. Andrew: We will put a revised preliminary plat on a study meeting for next Tuesday for some time after 9:30 p.m. Why don't you come down and we will discuss it. This will not be acted on because the plat was denied by the Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Woodrow W. Bradd, 18500 Merriman: If this is submitted again, will we get another letter to come down here again. IL Mr. Andrew: Yes. The next time the preliminary plat comes in for public hearing you will be notified. If you would like to come down to discuss it at the study meeting on Tuesday, please come after 9:30 p.m. because it won't be discussed until then. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, ruled that the public hearing on this item is closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #1-I -76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on the Preliminary Plat for Hillbrook Estates Subdivision proposed to be located east of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item until the Planning Commission Study Meeting of January 13, 1976. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a request for bond release in connection with Petition 7Li-5-5-1 by Greenfield Construction Company, Inc ., requesting to remove topsoil from property located at the Northwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Southeast 1/t of Section 7. a 5980 On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was IL #1-5-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the recommendations and report of the Bureau of Inspection dated December 18, 1975, the City Planning Commission does herein authorize the release of the Surety Bond in the amount of $72,000, filed by General Insurance Company of America for Greenfield Construction Company, 33040 Merriman Road, Livonia, Michigan, and the cash bond in the amount of $7,200, filed under receipt MR#13119 by Greenfield Construction Company, posted in connection with topsoil removal operations performed under Petition 74-5-5-1, Permit #123 and #126; it appearing from the above report that all Ordinances, rules and regulations have been complied with and the City Clerk is herein authorized to do all things necessary to the full performance of this resolution. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for Currie Court Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Newburgh and Amrhein Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #1-6-76 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Currie Court Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Newburgh and Amrhein Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, for the following reasons: [I: (1) The final plat is in substantial compliance with the previously approved preliminary plat. (2) The Engineering Division and Industrial Coordinator recommend approval of the final plat . (3) All of the financial assurances as set forth in Council Resolution #1048-75 have been complied with. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #1-7-76 RESOLVED that; having reviewed the revised Building Elevation Plan submitted in connection with Petition 74-7-8-26 by Louis G. Redstone, Associates, Inc., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 26.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #613, in connection with a proposal to con- struct an office building on property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Brentwood and Angling in Section 1, and having determined that the modifications and revisions are of an architectural nature only and will have little impact upon the previously approved 5981 site and building plans and that the previously approved site development plans are being adhered to, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant approval to the revised Building Elevation Plan subject to the IL . following conditions: (1) that Revised Building Elevation Plan No. 210Lt-02, Sheet 3, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and (2) that all other conditions as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution #7-146-74, adopted on July 9, 1974, and #11-239-74, adopted on November 26, 1974, are.valid and shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 308th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 6, 1976 was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Sde-----x-,-c-e.../ 'N -,./--e---:V-----ee--f z e H. Wisler Secretary ATTEST: , Z Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman 1• 'ac:1/8/76