Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1976-08-10 6109 MINUTES OF THE 318th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 10, 1976, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 318th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Judith Scurto William Scruggs Jerome Zimmer Herman Kluver (arrived at 8:15 p.m.) Members Absent: William DuBose (Illness) Joseph Falk (vacation) Esther Friedrichs (vacation) Suzanne T. Wisler (vacation) Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph 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, this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Councl and the City Council, after holding a public hearing makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied, and if a 110 petition for a waiver of use request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. ' Mrs. Scurto, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 76-6-1-24 by Charles G. Ball to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 22, from C-2 and R-1 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy is there any correspondence in the file concerning this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Division of Engineering dated July 14, 1976 concerning the easement of the alley behind the subject sight. Mr. Wm. Lindhout: I will be representing Mr. Ball in this petition. Please see 18518 Farmington attached sketch of proposed building to be erected on subject site. We are trying to facilitate the use of this site in the best possible manner. We do not have any property zoned P.S. to the west of this site, and I feel that the rezoning of the vacated alley mentioned in the Engineering Division's letter should present no problems whatsoever. There is a large sanitary sewer which would provide adequate drainage, and I anticipate minimum amount of trouble. The basic development of this site, in combination with landscaping, will be very beneficial to the corner. Use of this bank site will increase traffic at the corner, but the basic approaches will be from the west. We anticipate a minimum amount of interruptions at the corner. 6110 Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Are there any buildings on this site at the present? Mr. Lindhout: No buildings at all. Mr. Scruggs: Mr. -Lindhout, the Professional Services buildings across the street, are those your buildings? Mr. Lindhout: No, those are not my buildings. Mr. Andrew: Any more questions? There were no more questions regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 76-6-1-24 was closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-125-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-6-1-24 as submitted by Charles G. Ball to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 22, from C-2 and R-1 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-6-1-24 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible to and in harmony with the 'surrounding uses of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning so as to provide for professional service uses are more compatible to residential uses than would otherwise be the case if the land were used in a commercial classification. (3) There is no need for commercial zoning in this area as there already is an over-abundance of both used and unused commercially zoned lands available within the immediate area of Five Mile and Merriman Roads. (4) The proposed change of zoning to the professional service classification will reduce the likely potential for further expansion of strip commercial zoning in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, under date of 7/22/76, and 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. 6111 Mrs. Scurto, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 76-6-1-25 by William P. Lindhout to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Clarita and Pickford in Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, from R-1 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated June 29, 1976 regarding drainage from Pickford Avenue. Mr. Lindhout: These two 20' lots just recently became available due to the 18518 Farmington settlement of Jesse Ziegler's will, and I have been approached as to whether or not I would care to purchase this property. The purchase of these lots would be a logical expansion of my present business. The anticipated price at the moment would include abandonment of the existing house now standing on the property. The rezoning of this property would be consistent with the area. There now stands the Harris Building nearby. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Lindhout, these lots are only 20 feet wide? Mr. Lindhout: That is right, just 20 feet in width. A daughter-in-law now owns the lots. Mr. Andrew: Will there be adequate parking space? Mr. Lindhout: There is now adequate parking space; these lots will allow my buildings to expand. I do not want to make a fish bowl of my drafting room. Mr. Andrew: You stated that the existing house will be removed? Mr. Lindhout: Yes, it will. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the audience regarding this petition? Mr. P. O'Brien:Mr. Lindhout now owns property on the corner. He wants to make 18573 Westmore a parking lot out of land where existing house stands. He will take out old trees that now stand there. Mr. Lindhout: That is not so; I will preserve all existing trees. The present landscaping at that site will be preserved. Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Lindhout, why don't you try to purchase land between your office and the Harris Building? Is it because the fireman who lives there now will not sell his land to you? Mr. Andrew: Mr. O'Brien, I question whether or not you are fully aware of the specific lots mentioned in this petition. Mr. Lindhout: I see Mr. O'Brien's obejction as being irrelevant to the petition as presented.. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions or comments from the Commission? There was no one present wishing to be heard furtherregarding this item, and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared that the public hearing on Petition 76-6-1-25 be closed. 6112 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-126-76 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-6-1-25 as submitted by William P. Lindhout to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Clarita and Pickford in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, from R-1 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-6-1-25 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is a minor expansion of an existing P.S. Zoning District already established south • of the area under petition. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the adopted goals and policies for professional service land uses in that the proposed zoning change would provide for small professional office buildings along a major thoroughfare as a buffer separating the residential neighborhood from the adverse effects of a heavily travelled mile thoroughfare. (4) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses consistent with and/or in harmony with the already established uses within the immediate area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, under date of 7/22/76, ,and 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. ME. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adoptee Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-6-1-26 by Dr. Stella Evangelista to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington Road and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Engineering Division indicating that they have reviewed this situation, and it meets with their approval. Dr. Evangelista: My husband and I own the property adjacent to these lots, and we would like to have the property rezoned in order to put up additional medical buildings. IL Mr. Andrew: Wasn't there a previous petition on this matter? Dr. Evangelista: Yes, we have previously requested additional parking space. We also applied for rezoning of the corner lot. It was indicated to us that that property has been earmarked for P.S. Zoning. 6113 • le Mr. Andrew: Did you appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals: Dr. Evangelista: Yes, they have already given us 50' . We presently own the lot on the corner. My parents live in that house. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, do you have a copy of the minutes of the Zoning Board's meeting? Mr. Nagy: No, I do not, but I feel that the Zoning Board of Appeals does not have the power to grant the 50' extension. Zoning Board can only grant where there is a lot of record and it has two zoning classifications established on it. In this case there is only one. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Feinberg, were you at that meeting of the Zoning Board? Mr. Feinberg: No, I was not at any Zoning Board meetings. Mr. Brezezinski usually attends those meetings. Mr. Andrew: The petitioner has indicated that the Zoning Board did grant her a 50' extension which would allow for additional parking spaces. Is that correct? Dr. Evangelista: Yes, but they also said that the site plan is in your Department. Mr. Andrew: Did the Zoning Board recommend that you present your zoning petition to the Planning Commission? I, Dr. Evangelista: Yes, they did. Mr. Scruggs: Sometime in the near future, do you plan on removing the house that is there now? Is the 50' extension all that you are planning to use? Dr. Evangelista: Right now, we do not have any plans to build on the corner. Mr. Scruggs: Ultimately, do you plan on removing the house? Dr. Evangelista: There is plenty of land there now. Mr. Scruggs: Do you have tentative plans to use any portion of the extension? Do you now own Lot #131? Dr. Evangelista: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: What about parking spaces for the building you are considering to construct? Dr. Evangelista: We would definitely need more parking spaces. Probably, about 20 more spaces. We should have more parking because of size of building. The Zoning Board would not approve construction of building with parking spaces now available. They told us to te request the 50' extension. Therefore, the property would have to be rezoned. 6114 Li Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions or comments from.the audience? Mrs. Chester Wido: I live directly across the street from subject site. 10274 Farmington Presently, there is a severe traffic problem on Farmington Road, and I object to the rezoning of this property from RUF. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, do you have correspondence in the file regarding 'the ' the traffic in this area? Mr. Nagy: Farmington Road is not fully dedicated. All residential streets are required to be 60' wide. ' Mr. Andrew: If this rezoning would become realized, and you did decide to construct another building, we have the right to review the site plans. There is no notice mailed to adjacent property owners. We can put your name in the files regarding the site plans when they are submitted, Mrs. Wido. • Mrs. Wido: I do not object to the tentative plans for a new building. But I do object to the 50' extension. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Dr. Evangelista, would the 50' extension be used as access off of Orangelawn? Dr. Evangelista: No, we do not plan on using this extension as either egress ILor ingress. Mr. Scruggs: It is possible that this 50' extension could be used for parking spaces. Dr. Evangelista, would you object to this entire extension being used for parking spaces? Dr. Evangelista: As shown on the map, we have already outlined spaces available for future parking. • Mr. Scruggs: I would like to study this item more closely before a final decision is made. Mr. Andrew: Yes, I would suggest that this petition be tabledin order for the Commission to become more closely familiar with the petition. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was #8-127-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-6-1-26 as submitted by Dr. Stella Evangelista to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington Road and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-6-1-26 until the Planning Commission's Study Session to be conducted on August 17, 1976. ILA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Scruggs, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSTAIN: Scurto ' ABSENT: Friedrichs, DuBose, Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resoln;:. on aeon+ ' 6115 (16; Mr. Andrew: The Planning Commission would like to invite Dr. Evangelista and Mrs. Wido to our meeting of August 17, 1976 for the purpose of discussing this item. The meeting begins promptly at 8:00 p.m. in the Engineering Building on Farmington Road. Mrs. Scurto, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-6-1-27 by Don Vargo to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file concerning this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, there is a letter from the Division of Engineering dated June 30, 1976 indicating review of petition and meeting with approval of this office. Letter further mentioned construction of storm sewer to the south of site. Richard Pastor: I will be representing Mr. Vargo on this petition. He has great hopes in having this rezoning granted to him. It is our opinion that a facility of this nature is badly needed. I would venture to say that theremight be a few people opposed to this petition. Mr. Andrew: Didn't the Commission consider rezoning that property west of Henry Ruff presently C-1? Mr. Nagy: That petition is to be determined at a Council Meeting sometime in September. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Pastor, don't the building plans for this banquet hall call for the encroachment on the C-1 zoning? Mr. Pastor: The entire building project would be contained in the C-2 zoning. Mr. Andrew: I see a few basic differences here. First, the Master Land Use Plan does not call for any substantial extension of the parking area for this restaurant. More importantly, I am sure that Mr. Vargo was before this Commission earlier requesting the rezoning of the restaurant property to C-2. He indicated at that time that if we would rezone the property to C-2 that that is all he desired, and no expansion of the restaurant was being thought of at that time, and that parking at the site would accommodate all future needs. I am confident that a Banquet Hall of this nature is needed, but not at that location. Mr. Pastor: I will admit that Mr. Vargo may have talked in the past about a restaurant only but he has not tried to lead anyone down the "primrose patIC. Mr. Andrew: I presume that Mr. Vargo owns all of the property south of his restaurant down to Munger, and, consisting of seven or eight acres IFwith frontage on Six Mile Road. 6116 Mr. Scruggs: I also recall that Mr. Vargo requested a change to C-2 zoning mainly to conform to that use. It was the general understanding that he would not expand. It certainly is against my thinking to have future development of this nature in this area, and to bring in more development would certainly add to the traffic. Mr. Pastor: I feel that we have a need for this type of facility in this area. Mr. Scruggs: Certainly, anyone would agree that this is a predominantly beautiful area, 4nd I just don't want to see any future develop- ment there. Mrs. Scurto: Is Henry Ruff actually a road? Mr. Andrew: No, it a paper street. Mr. Pastor: It has no improvements on it. Mr. Andrew: There are underground utilities. Are there any comments or questions from the audience? Robert King: I have been appointed to represent property owners in the area. 30445 W.6 Mi. There are quite a group of us here tonight. We are here to present a petition to the Planning Commission opposing the rezoning of this property. We have no objection to the restaurant IL as it is now, or the parking spaces either. We must admit that there is a lot of noise in the parking lot between 12:00 midnight and 3:00 a.m. That is one of the things that would have to be considered if the parking lot were enlarged. As the petition reads, if the parking lot were enlarged, it would become located within 20' of our house. It would also become a lot closer to other homes nearby. Is it really necessary that the parking lot be made bigger? People who live near the parking lot are also worried about drainage problems that might result. With the widening of Six Mile Road, there certainly will be a lot more water draining off. There used to be a good amount of seepage into the ground, but because of the recent development in the area, we seem to be experiencing greater drainage problems. Let's face it, a bigger parking lot would certainly create more drainage problems. Plus, with the widening of Six Mile Road, there will be an increase in traffic. People with property adjacent to this property are highly concerned over this petition. Do you think that Mr. Vargo might sell this C-1 property later on if it is presently lased for parking? On that basis, are we going to make Six Mile Road another Middlebelt? However, if he gets this petition rezoned, as well as the construction of a banquet hall, etc. , there appears to be no reason why we couldn't all sell our property to businesses . The lot next to me is owned by a business - The Realty Investment Company, I think. With the price of land being what it is today, that would be great. ILMr. Andrew: Mr. King, how many people have signed your petition? Mr. King: I would estimate about 60 people. They are not all here tonight, but most of them are. Mr. Andrew: Are there any more comments from the audience? 6117 Mr. Angus Mackenzie: I have been to a lot of Public Hearing meetings, and would 30430 W. 'Six Mi. like to question the Commission -- is not Mr. Vargo's present building in violation to the existing lot line? He has been given many changes in rezoning in the past even though he is in violation of the lot line. Frank Brodick: I reside next to where Mr. Vargo plans to expand. If he is able 16971 Oporto to expand his parking lot, his lighting facilities would really light up our yards. Plus, a wall would have to be built because of the overflow of drainage water. I also object to noises in the parking lot being close to my home. I feel that he does not need any expansion other than what he has now. Jos.Pressotto: I understand that it has been recommended to the City Council 30566 Six Mi. that they let Mr. Vargo build and allow him only another 90' The City Council has set a limit of 90' . Frank Burton: I understand that his additional footage was given to Mr. Vargo 17207 Doris after the fire in order to just rebuild what he had before. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Pastor my only comment would be that if these people are objecting to these plans, couldn't Mr. Vargo put in some sort of berm to overcome these objections; Bud Lottie: I strongly object to this suggestion. I do not feel that the IL 30320 6 Mi. construction of a berm could eliminate the noises that come from the parking lot, such as the peeling of tires, the swearing, not to mention the fighting. Mr. Vargo wants to put in an additional 500 parking spaces? No way! ! ! Robert King: I remember a couple of years ago, one of Mr. Vargo's customers, upon coming out of the restaurant, ran into the electrical pole in the middle of the parking lot and toppled it. The neighbors were without electricity for about 4 to 5 hours. Since then, the Electric Company has put in steel and concrete reinforcements around the pole, but you should see the dents and bumps in that barrier now. Mr. Andrew; Chairman declared the public hearing closed on Petition 76-6-1-27. On a motion duly made by Mrs.. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, it was unanimously adopted #8-128-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-6-1-27 by Don Vargo to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-6-1-27 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would permit an expansion and related intensification of commercial use that would be detrimental . to the nearby established residential uses of the area. 6118 (2) The proposed change of zoning from residential to the parking classification would not promote the orderly and appropriate development of the surrounding area and would tend to encourage the further intensification and/or expansion of commercial development in this area. (3) The proposed change of zoning to the offstreet parking classification is not in the long-range best interest of the neighborhood or the general area as the area is pre- dominantly of a residential nature and parking and/or commercial uses are inappropriate to the continued long- range use and enjoyment of the neighborhood. (4) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Future Land Use Plan and Land Use Goals and Policies of 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 7/22/76, and 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 adopt Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-6-3-4 by the City Planning Commission requesting the vacating of a public alley located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Rensellor and Inkster in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file concerning this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Engineering Division dated May 25, 1976 indicating that, after a quick investigation by that department, there would appear to be little need for retaining this subject alley, Also, a letter from the Department of Public Works dated June 3, 1976 indicating that they would recommend the vacting of said alley. We also have a letter dated August 6, 1976 addressed to the Planning Commission, pursuant to the abandonment of alley abutting to 19136 Rensellor from a Mr. James E. Kraft. That is the extent of correspondence. Mr. Andrew: Are there hny comments or questions from the audience? Marvin Bresoff: My name is Marvin Bresoff, and I own the property located at 27448 West Seven Mile Road, Before I make my feelings known to the Planning Commission , I would like to know just what happens when the alley is vacated? Mr. Andrew: The property is split between the owners on the north and south side of said alley. The City would of course retain easements 'o€ the alley. • 6119 Mr. Bresoff: I do not feel that the alley could be utilized in any way. 4 Mr. Andrew: The property owners on either side could certainly landscape it. Mr. Bresoff: I am in perfect agreement with Mr. Kraft regarding the vacating of this alley. I put up a building about 15 years ago, providing a wall according to city ordinances, which separates my property from that on the north. I have maintained my property to the best of my ability, but I am perplexed by suddenly having 10' of property thrust upon me for tax purposes and maintenance. I feel that the City is shirking their responsibility to the citizenry. Mr. Andrew: This is an unused alley. There is no access to any building from that alley. It is of no benefit to anyone. Mr. Bresoff: I don't use this alley to enter my business. The County has provided a big 30' apron for this alley off of Inkster Road. Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Bresoff, concerning your property on Seven Mile Road, who maintains that on the opposite side of your wall? Mr. Bresoff: One of the other property owners, residing on Inkster, a Mrs. Meyers, and I feel that she is in full agreement with both Mr. Kraft and myself. Mr. Andrew: Does Mr. Kraft live directly behind your property Mr. Bresoff? Mr. Bresoff: Yes, he does. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Chairman, if two parties own property on the north and south sides of this alley, do they have to pay taxes on the easement portion? Mr. Andrew: Yes, they pay taxes on 10' of the additional property which is subject to the easement. Mrs. Scurto: Could Mr. Bresoff use this alley as parking? Mr. Andrew: Yes, if he wanted to. Mr. Zimmer: If this alley were vacated, could it all be given to one owner? Mr. Nagy: No, it is divided equally. One party would have to sell it to the other. Mrs. Scurto: Did Mr. Kraft really state that he would sell the additional 10 feet? Mr. Nagy: Mr. Kraft objects to the vacating of this alley, but did not specifically state that he would try to sell the additional 10 feet. Mr. Scruggs: I investigated this property the other day, and would like to look over this situation again more closely. Mr. Andrew: Yes, I would suggest that this petition be tabled in order for the Commission to become more closely familiar with the situation. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was 6120 #8-129-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-6-3-4 by the City Planning Commission by the City Planning Commission requesting the vacating of a public alley located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Rensellor and Inkster in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-6-3-4 until the Planning Commission's Study Session to be conducted on August 31, 1976. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Scruggs, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Friedrichs, DuBose, Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Bresoff, the Planning Commission would like to invite you to attend our meeting of August 31st for the purpose of discussing this item. The meeting begins' promptly at 8:00 p.m. in the Engineering Building on Farmington Road. If you see Mr. Kraft you might like to ask him if he would like to join us at the time. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-7-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 25.04 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, so as to expand the permitted uses in the C-4 Zoning District. r There was no one present wishing to be heard concerning this item, and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 76-7-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #8-130-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-7-6-4 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 25.04 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, so as to expand the permitted uses in the C-4 Zoning District, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-7-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This amendment is required to allow additional uses normally associated with current uses permitted in C-4 Districts. (2) This amendment is recommended by the Department of Law. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, under date of 7/22/76 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 carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6121 IL Mrs. Scurto, Acting Secretary then announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-7-6-5 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 26.04 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, so as to provide for general office uses in the P.O.Zoning District. There was no one present wishing to be heard concerning this item, and Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the Public Hearing on this item closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-131-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-7-6-5 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 26.04 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, so as to provide the general office uses in the P.O.Zoning District, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-7-6-5 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This amendment is required to allow uses within the P.O. District which are normally found in office developments, particularly over two stories in height. (2) This amendment is recommended by the Department of Law. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, under date of 7/22/76 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 carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Preliminary Plat Approval for Laurel Park South Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18. Mr. Andrew: Let the record show that the Chair will abstain from the discussion and from voting on this petition, and that I will pass the gavel to the Vice-Chairman at this time. Mr. Scruggs: Thank you. Mr. Nagy, do we have any correspondence in the file Vice-Chairman concerning this petition. Mr. Nagy: We have numerous letters in our file concerning this petition. Letter dated July 22, 1976 from the Department of Parks and Recreation; letter dated July, 29, 1976 from the Engineering Department, indicating no forseeable engineering problems with development; letter dated July 29, 1976 from Mr. Kerby, Building Inspection, indicating no objections to proposed residential sites; letter dated July 29, 1976 from the Fire Marshall, outlining the naming of streets in the proposed area; as well as letter dated August 4, 1976 from the Livonia Police Department, indicating satisfaction with proposed traffic patterns. Mr. Scruggs: Are there any comments about the naming of streets? 6122 Mr. Nagy: The naming of streets in any new residential area rests with the Division of Engineering. Mr. Zimmer: Does the first letter, from the Department of 'Parks and Recreation relate to waiving requirements regarding open spaces? • Mr. Nagy: Yes, it does. Mr. Scruggs: This is to be considered at a later time. Isn't the subdivision plan based upon our approval of the waiver of. the open space? based Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is also/on the petition for a change in zoning from the R-9-I to the R-3-B classification, which is still pending before the Council. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Martin, as representative of the General Contractor of this development, can you tell the Commission whether or not the residential developer of this property will be an individual concern, or many builders. Mr. Martin: There will be only one residential developer in this area. Mr. Scruggs: Any further questions or comments from the audience or the Commission. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this petition, and Mr. Scruggs, Vice-Chairman,declared that the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat Approval for Laurel Park South Subdivision be closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and adopted it was #8-132-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Laurel Park South Subdivision proposed to be located on the westside of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, be approved subject to the rezoning of the property from R-9-1 to R-3-B and to the submittal of a plan showing proposed entrance markers to the Planning Commission for approval, for the following reasons: (1) The Preliminary Plat complies with the R-3 Zoning District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The Preliminary Plat complies with the. Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the open space requirement having been waived by the City Planning Commission. (3) All responding City Departments have indicated approval of the Subdivision. AND THAT, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend the waiving of the open space provisions of the Plat Ordinance, Section 9-116(p) of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, inasmuch as there is already sufficient lands to provide this area with adequate open space for park, recreation and open space purposes. 6123 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the ILabutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the proof of service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Kluver, Scurto, Scruggs ABSTAIN: . Andrew ABSENT: DuBose, Falk, Friedrichs, Wisler Mr. Scruggs then declared the motion carried, foregoing resolution adopted. • At this time, Mr. Andrew informed the Commission that he would refrain from voting on the next item and passed the gavel to Mr. Scruggs, Vice-Chairman. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #8-133-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 19, 1976 from Greenfield Construction Company, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the open space requirements of Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as they relate to, Laurel Park South Subdivision ' for the following reasons: (1) The proprietor of the Subdivision, Greenfield Construction Company has already dedicated permanent open space in connection with IL , the overall Laurel Park development far in excess of what is required by way of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations would otherwise require only 1 1/3 acres. (2) The maintenance of such a small open space area of 1 1/3 acres would burden the Parks & Recreation Department and the area is not of sufficient size to have practical meaning to the Subdivision. (3) The Parks and Recreation Department and Commission, by letter dated July22, 1976, concur in this request. (4) There is already available to the proposed residential area park lands of 47.5 acres immediately adjacent to the south of the subject area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Kluver, Scurto, Scruggs ABSTAIN: Andrew ABSENT: DuBose, Falk, Friedrichs, Wisler Mr. Scruggs, Vice-Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted, and passed the gavel back to Mr. Andrew, Chairman. 6123a IL . Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda the Preliminary Plat Approval Julaur Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 28. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file concerning this item? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated July 28, 1976 from the Engineering Division, indicating no engineering problems. However, the final plat plan must show public easement; letter dated July 29, 1976 from the Fire Marshall approving Julaur Subdivision as submitted; letter dated August 2, 1976 from the Department of Public Works, Mr. Frank Kerby, indicating no objection to proposal. However, recommends change in Lot #5, so as to avoid new lot line from occurring within confines of new building area; letter dated August 4, 1976 from the Police Department, indicating proposal appears satisfactory relative to traffic patterns. • a 6124 Mr. Roth: We have submitted our revised plat plan. Instead of eight, we now have 10 lots shown in our Building Program. And have also changed Lot #5 and part of #6. I might add that all the utilities are in. Mr. Andrew: Your power comes from where? Mr. Roth: All utilities have been installed by the City and proper Public Utility Commissions. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Gilmartin, didn't you have something you wanted to add to this discussion. on Mr. Gilmartin: No. I will withdraw any discussion/this item due to the changes Industrial being made relative to Lots #5 & 6. We have no objection to the Coordinator Plat Plan as it has now been revised. Mr. Andrew: I don't see any easements along the south lot lines to protect the public utilites. Mr. Roth: All easements will be shown on the final Plat Plan. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, would you recommend that this subject to be tabled for further investigation? Mr. Nagy: That rests with the Planning Commission. All easements should be shown on Plat Plans. This Preliminary Plat does not show any'easement across Lot #4 as required by the Engineering Division or along the south property lines as you have stated. We still have the control over final plat approval to correct these matters. Mr. Andrew: Any comments from the Commission? • Mr. Scruggs: I would be in favor of approving this Preliminary Plat subject to the insertion of all required easements. Mr. Roth: I was of the assumption that easements do not have to be shown on Preliminary Plat plans. the Mr. Andrew: The letter of/law will be followed. If there is no further discussion on this subject, I will call the Public Hearing on this item closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. .Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-134-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 requesting a Preliminary Plat approval for Julaur Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the North 1/2 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat be approved subject to all easements be shown on the Final Plat, for the following reasons: (1) The preliminary Plat conforms to the M-1 Zoning District Regulations. (2) The Preliminary Plat conforms to the requirements of Zoning Ordinance #543 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of • the City of Livonia, (3) It has been recommended for approval by the Industrial 6125 Ii0FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the .proof of service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation. Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda a letter dated July 30, 1976 from Lindhout Associates requesting a one-year extension of approval of Petition 75-6-2-16 by Lindhout Associates for Allen Animal Hospital. requesting waiver use approval to construct an animal hospital on property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile Road and Clarita in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10. Mr. Andrew: I do hereby remove this item from tonight's agenda and will retain the letter in the files until October, 1976 for action then in the event that construction has not yet begun by that time. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-135-76 RESOLVED that, the City of Livonia Planning Commission hereby authorizes the Planning Department to' transmit the document titled "Capital Improvement Program, City of Livonia, 1977-82" to the Mayor and Council as a relistic program to aid in the determination I; . of a complete fiscal planning strategy for the City of Livonia, and FURTHER RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission stands ready to do all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and Council in making a functioning Program of Capital Improvements and Capital Budgeting a reality for the City of Livonia. Mr. Andrew, Cahirman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adopted, it was #8-136-76 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine .whether or not to amend Section 2.08, Definitions of Terms relating to Commercial Buildings and Uses, of Ordinance #543, so as to provide therein the definition of Ice-Cream.Parlor. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the lotion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted it was #8-137-76 RESOLVED• that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 10.02(b) Permitted Uses, so as to provide standards for determining whether or not bakeries,. ice cream parlors, etc, are restaurants. Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6126 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously 10 adopted, it was #8-138-76 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 11.03(c) , Waiver Uses, so as to more clearly define the term "restaurant". Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #8-139-76 RESOLVED that, the minutes of. the 317th Regular Meeting held by the City 'Planning Commission on July 13, 1976 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Scruggs, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Friedrichs, Falk, Wisler, DuBose Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs and seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was #8-140-76 liRESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the : . City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 76-7-8-14P by the Livonia Trade Center requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located on the south side of Eight' Mile Road between Middlebelt and Brentwood in Section 1, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #1423, revised 7/23/76, prepared by Leon H. Kohls & Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan #1423, Sheet 3, revised 7/23/76, prepared by Leon H. Kohls & Associates, Inc., which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to in all respects; (3) that Landscape Plan #76250, dated 7/26/76, prepared by Anderson- Lesniak & Associates, Inc., which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (4) that the landscaping as shown. on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building; (5) that each tenant sign shall be limited to only 4' x 15' (60 sq.ft.) internally illuminated panel as shown on the approved Elevation Plan; and (6) that any' proposed free-standing sign shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission; 6127 . (7) that all landscaping installed on the site shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 7 AYES: Scruggs, Zimmer, Kluver, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: Friedrichs, Falk, Wisler, DuBose Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and .unanimously adopted, it was #8-141-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the. City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Sign Plan submitted in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 74-12-8-48P by A.S. Dorchen requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a new retail building on property located on the south side of Ann Arbor and Hix Road in Section 31, subject to the following condition: (1) that Sign Plan .#0876-0656, dated 8/28/76, prepared by Acme-Wiley Corporation, 'which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs and seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #8-142-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 10, 1976 on Petition 76-6-2-10, as amended, by the Galilean Baptist School requesting waiver use approval to erect a multi-purpose building on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt and Inkster Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-6-2-10 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #75-09, dated 8/6/76, prepared by Ashor, Walsh & . Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #75-09, dated 8/6/76, prepared by Ashor, Walsh & Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that all landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed on the site before Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the multi-purpose building; and (4) that all landscaping installed on the site shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reasons: I (1) The proposed use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 5.03(a) . (2) The Proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding uses of the area as the site has. the capacity to support the expansion of use. 6128 FURTHER RESOLVED , 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 declared the motion carried, and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew: I would request that the Reverend and concerned neighbors might like to attend our Study Session scheduled for next Tuesday night, in order to further discuss construction materials and landscaping plans to be used at this particular site. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 318th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 1976 was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION J ith Scurto, Acting Secretary f ATTEST: 6v/ Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman