Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1976-09-14 • - 6160 MINUTES OF THE 320th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 14, 1976, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 320th 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 8:10 p.m. with 9 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Suzanne Wisler William F. Scruggs Jerome Zimmer Judith Scurto Joseph J. Falk Members absent: William DuBose Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; H G Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney were also present. Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of rezoning or vacating, this Commission only makes recommendation 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, and if a petition for a waiver of use request or a site plan is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda as Petition 76-7-3-6 by Wood & Wood, Attorneys, requesting the vacating of an easement located on the east side of Farmington Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Andrew; Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence• in the file re petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated September 3, 1976 from Detroit Edison indicating no objection to the vacating of this easement; also a letter from Consumers Power dated August 30, 1976 indicating no problems, as well as communication from the City Engineers dated August 19, 1976 indicating no problem. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? • Neither the petitioner nor a representative thereof were present at meeting. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Scruggs: Why are they vacating this property? Mr. Nagy: The proposed building location is straddling the easement as shown and is no longer needed as an easement in its present location. to. Mr. Zimmer: Why was an easement put there in the first place? Mr. Nagy: Originally - these lots were zoned residential, and the easement was placed there in order to accommodate utilities servicing the house There was no one present to be heard and Mr. Andrew, declared the Public Hearing close • 6161 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was i #9-165-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 14, 1976 on Petition 76-7-3-6 as submitted by Wood & 1,,,14 Wood, Attorneys, requesting the vacating of an easement located on the east side of Farmington Road, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-7-3-6 be approved for the following reasons: (1) There is no need to retain this easement in its present location for the reason that acceptable arrangements have been made to relocate the easement to the rear property line which thereby avoids the conflict between the present easement and the proposed building location. (2) The Engineering Division has no objection to the vacating, and (3) All reporting public utility companies have indicated that they have no objection and the Detroit Edison Company, which presently makes use of the easement, has indicated in their report that satisfactory arrangements have been made between the Company and the property owner to provide a new easement and for payment to the Company for relocating their equipment. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published 1[10 in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, under date of 8/26/76 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 carried and the foregoing resolution adoptee The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-6-6-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 23.07 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide protest provisions consistent with State law. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 23.07 of the local zoning ordinance so as to provide protest provisions consistent with the state laws. Any questions or comments from the audience or City Planning Commission. There was no one present to be heard, Mr. Andrew, declared the public hearing closed on this item. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #9-167-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Sept. 14, 1976. on Petition 76-6-6-2 as submitted to the City Planning Commission ijo4 to amend Section 23.07 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide protest provisions consistent with State law, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-6-6-2 be approved for the following reasons: 6162 (1) This amendment is required to bring the Zoning Ordinance in compliance with State Law as regards Protest Provisions, and (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 8/26/76, 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 carried and the. foregoing resolution adopted The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-8-6-6 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 2.08 Definitions of terms relating to Commercial Buildings and Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide the definition of Ice-cream Parlor. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to amend a definite section of the Zoning Ordinance so as to provide greater clarification within specific definitions. Any questions or comments from the audience or the Commission? Mr. Falk: I see a group of young people in the audience that appear to be a bit puzzled by all that is happening here. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, you would care to explain our purpose here. Mr. Andrew: Thank you, Mr. Falk, your point is well taken. (Mr. Andrew then explained, on general terms, the fact that recommendations are made to the Council on petitions, presented to the Planning Commission, and discussions are held regularly to review these petitions.) There was no one present to be heard and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, closed the public heari On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #9-168-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 1 1976 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 2.08, Definitions of Terms Relating to Commercial Buildings and Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide the definition of Ice Cream Parlor, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that: Petition 76-8-6-6 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This amendment is needed so as to provide for greater clarification as regards the meaning of the subject commercial uses, and (2) This amendment has been recommended by the Building Department. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, ender date of 8/26/76, 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 Sery Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6163 Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-8-6-7 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 10.02(b) , Permitted Uses, of • Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide standards for determining use of bakeries, ice-cream stores, etc. , as restaurants in C-1 Zoning Districts. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to provide standards for determining uses of those stores mentioned by the Secretary. Any comments or questions from the audience or the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: What is the difference between an ice-cream store and an ice-cream parlor? Mr. Shane: An ice-cream parlor includes the serving of ice-cream in the form of sodas, sundaes, ice cream cones, etc. at chairs and tables in addition to bulk sales of ice cream. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs and seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #9-169-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 14, 1976 on Petition 76-8-6-7 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 10.02(b) , Permitted Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to provide standards for determining use of bakeries, ice-cream stores, etc. , as restaurants in C-1 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-6-7 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This amendment is needed in order to provide more definitive controls regarding the use of particular types of commercial establishments, and (2) This amendment is needed to provide for a means whereby the City may more properly control the intensity of use regarding particular commercial establishments, and (3) This amendment is needed to establish criteria whereby the City may determine the proper disposition of particular commercial uses which heretofore have been a problem to the Building Department. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric under date of 8/26/76, 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 Ser. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopt& Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-8-6-8 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 11.03(c) , Waiver Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to more clearly define the term "restaurant" in C-2 Zoning Districts. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance in order to more clearly define the term "restaurant' in the C-2 Zoning Districts. There was no one to be heard and Mr. Andrew closed the public hearing on this item. Mr. Kluver entered meeting at this time - 8:25 p.m. 6164 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Zimmer ,and adopted it was I #9-170-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 14, 1976 on Petition 76-8-6-8 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 11.03(c) , Waiver Uses, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, so as to more clearly define the term "restaurant" in C-2 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-6-8 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This amendment is needed so as to provide a consistent criterion as regards the determination of the use of commercial buildings as "restaurants", and (2) this amendment is needed to provide for a means whereby the City may more properly control the intensity of use regarding "restaurants". FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric under date of 8/26/76 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scruggs, Falk, Friedrichs, Wisler, Zimmer, Scurto, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: BuBose ABSTAIN: Kluver Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adoptee The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-8-6-9 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #489-76 to amend paragraph (e) of Section 11.02, Permitted Uses, so as to include coin- operated amusement devices or pinball machines as accessory uses in bowling alleys, billiard parlors and poolhalls. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak regarding the petition as outlined by Mrs. Wisler? In our study meeting of last Tuesday night, I raised the question as to whether or not the language amendment before us tonight would permit a coin operated amusement device which could also be classified as a "pornographic movie" . Is my interpretation correct in that such a device is permissable: Mr. Nagy: Within interpretation of the Ordinance procedures as written, such a device would be permitted. Of course, control would have to be governed by the licensing provisions of the City, and I feel that the licensing provisions of the City would most certainly prohibit this. Mrs. Scurto: Does every amusement device in the city require a license? Mr. Andrew: Yes, it does. Mr. Feinberg: I believe that licensing is required for amusement devices if they are accessory uses. 6165 Mrs. Scurto: Are the amusement devices now located in the city bowling alleys Licensed? I16; Mr. Feinberg: They should be. Mrs. Freidrichs: Whose responsibility is it for the inspection or policing of the bowling alleys? Mr. Feinberg: It is the responsibility of the Police Department as well as the D.P.W. under the licensing ordinance. Mrs. Wisler: What method do we have of knowing that such a machine is being moved into a building? Couldn't a machine be installed in a store without anyone knowing it? Wouldn't all stores have to be surveyed periodically? Mr. Andrew: Yes, I believe they would. To install such machines without proper licensing would be an illegal act. Mrs. Wisler: How does this change in the ordinance provide that a storefront could not be turned into an Arcade? Mr. Shane: The pinball machine is clearly an accessory to the building. If the Inspection Department finds that a billiard parlor has an excessive amount of machines, they would no longer be complying with the Ordinance. That would clearly be a violation. The ordinance is written so that pinball machines are installed soley as accessory uses. An Arcade would definitely be prohibited. Mr. Feinberg: That question has come into our office. And we find that definitely an arcade is prohibited. Mrs. Wisler: Do we see this as a way of controlling the number of coin-operated machines within an established business? Mr. Nagy: Very definitely. Mr. Zimmer: Is there any indication that all• pinball machines currently being operated in Livonia are now going to be removed? Does this action make that likely to happen? Mr. Nagy: That effect does not rest with our Department. The Inspection Dept. would be the one to enforce the Ordinance. A more exact Zoning Ordinance regulation would give the Building Department the control to go in and enforce the ordinance. Mrs. Wisler: What effect would this change have on pinball machines, or any type of machinesthat are in local taverns. Mr. Nagy: They would be illegal. Only allowed as accessory uses in poolrooms and billiard parlors. Mrs. Wisler: What is an assembly building? 16: Mr. Shane: Tennis clubs, Racquetime, etc. Mr. Andrew: This is a good time to explain what happens when we are asked to amend a section of the Zoning Ordinance. The City Council asked us to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would permit the use of coin-operated machine in businesses such as bowling alleys, etc. At the time the Commission received this 6166 ' petition, we prepared this petition which then went to the . newspaper and advertised therein at least 15 days prior to tonight's meeting. Atthis time, we went into a Study Session, perhaps two or three study sessions, and discussed great length ' the details of this amendment. Based on report received from ' the Planning Staff and the Law Department, the Planning Commission can then make a decision on .whether or not we will pass on this petition. We are hearing a tremendous amount of conversation tonight regarding this petition. Any more questions or comments? Mr. Michniak: I would just like to make one point clear to the Commission. 18519 Myron Pinball machines are not owned by an establishment. They are owned by individual businessmen. The private businessmen have to be licensed. Mrs. Friedrichs: Yes, but they must have gained the permission of the owner of establishments. This puts the responsibility back on the owner. They cannot occupy more than 10% of the total floor space. There was no one else to be heard, Mr. Andrew, declared the public hearing closed on this item. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and adopted, it was #9-171-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 14, 1976 on Petition 76-8-6-9 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #489-76, to amend para- graph (e) of Section 11.02, Permitted Uses, so as to include coin- 110 operated amusement devices or pinball machines as accessory uses in bowling alleys, billiard parlors and poolhalls, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-6-9 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This amendment is needed to provide for and properly control the placement and use of coin-operated amusement machines, and (2) The proposed amendment is a corrective amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in that the Zoning Ordinance as it is currently drafted is silent on coin-operated amusement machines and according to Section 3.08 are thereby prohibited within the City. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric, under date of 8/26/76, 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scruggs, Kluver, Friedrichs, Falk, Wisler NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto, Andrew ABSENT: DuBose Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopt o 610 The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Peition 76-8-6-10 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #429-76, to amend Section 10.02, Permitted Uses, so as to delete S.D.D. Licenses from C-1 Zoning District; and Section 10.03 and Section 11.03, so as to add S,D,D, Licenses as Waiver Uses in the C-1 Districts. Mr. Andrew: This/a petition by the City Planning Commission to amend a section of the local ordinance in order to delete S.D.D. licenses from one zoning district, and allow them in another district. Are S.D.D. Licenses allowed in C-3 Districts. Mr. Nagy: Yes, they are. Mr. Andrew: Is the City Council aware of this? Mr. Nagy: I •believe they are, yes. Mr. Zimmer: Is our intent here to restrict waiver use of liquor licenses, that is liquor by the glass? Is the City of Livonia involved in the issuance of liquor licenses? Mr. Nagy: Only the package sale of liquor, not liquor by the glass. The sale of liquor by the glass is already subject to waiver use approval. Mr. Scruggs: What happens to drug stores and supermarkets with liquor licenses? Mr. Shane These businesses would require waiver use for S.D.D. licenses'. Mr. Andrew: Let's take a party store, for instance, with an S.D.D. license in the C-1 zone, with the passage of the amendment would it become a non- conforming use? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Shane: A party store with an S.D.M. license is no problem. But the question is - what happens when the license comes up for renewal? Mr. Andrew: But I am talking about an S,D,D,-S,D,M, Party Store. Does that make theS.D.D. license a non-conforming use? Would they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Nagy: Yes, they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to the expansion of use of the license. There was no one present wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and adopted, it was #9-172-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 14, 1976 on Petition 76-8-6-10 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #429-76, to amend Section 10.02, Permitted Uses, so as to delete S.D.D. Licenses from the C-1 Zoning District; and Section 10.03 and Section 11.03, so as to add S.D.D. Licenses as Waiver Uses in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-6-10 be approved for the following reason: (1) This amendment is needed to provide the City with additional control with respect to the location of establishments requesting S.D.D. licenses. 6168 • FURTHER resolved, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric under date of 8/26/76, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, the 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: Zimmer, Scurto, Kluver, Friedrichs, Falk, Wisler,Andrew NAYS: Scruggs ABSENT: DuBose Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-8-3-7 Cecil T. Schnittker requesting the vacating of Pickford Avenue right-of-way, located south of Clarita between Stamford and Myron Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file re this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated September 3, 1976 from Detroit Edison indicating no objection to proposed vacating; letter from Consumers Power Company dated Sept. 10, 1976 indicating no objection; letter dated Sept. 14, 1976 from the Chief of Police indicating that vacating of proposed road would be satisfactory with regard to traffic in the area, as well as letter from the Engineering Division dated Sept. 14, 1976 stating that presently there is no City maintenance involved, consequently, no objection to vacating as proposed. That is the extent of correspondence on this petition. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Cecil T. Schnittker Yes, we have several reasons for wanting this street vacated. 18423 Myron There are woods in the area south of the proposed easement, and some of the kids are using this road for a motorcycle run. I don't know what else is going on in those woods, but it doesn't look good. Mr. Andrew: Do you live on the south side of Pickford? Mr. Schnittker: Yes. Can I ask what happens at Stamford? Mr. Scruggs: Fence it off - vacating the property would permit the fencing of your property. Mr. Andrew If the vacating of this easement is approved, the property will be yours. Mr. Nagy: A curb will be installed after Myron is paved. Mr. Michniak: I live on the north side of the parcel in question. I have lived the since 1963 and have maintained this property by doing all the 4 mowing with my own equipment, me and my three boys who use this as sort of a playground. The added maintenance would be nothing. 4 Mrs. Wisler: I direct my question to the property owners present: Do you own clea back to Stamford? 6169 Property owners: No, our lots are only 130' deep. Mr. Falk: Personally, I am against vacating property. I do not believe in giving something to people after. 13-15 years. When those new subdivisions go in that area, those people will want accessibility to Farmington Road. Are the people buying into the new subdivision aware of this petition to vacate this street?' I would want the street there in order to get to Farmington Road. Streets being put through residential areas is just something that we have to live with. It seems that the various departments of the City never have any objections to vacating property in the City. Mrs. Wisler: I will take an opposing view to Mr. Falk's stand. By closing Pickford Avenue, we will then have to use Curtis - there is no other way off of Farmington Road. Pickford Avenue should be closed for safety reasons: Mr. Falk: People who live in that area naturally agree with Mrs. Wisler's point of view. Mr. Andrew: Let's go back to the Study Meeting. Mr. Robert Paciocco, Developer of the Francavilla Subdivision is definitely in favor of vacating Pickford Avenue. Mr. Falk: The gentleman who proposed the R-2-B rezoning, has he been notified? Mr. Andrew: After checking this area, we find that there are no cars using this avenue now. Curtis will be 86' wide, and will function as a collecto street to take traffic out to Farmington Road. Pickford is only 60' wide, and not to be considered a collector street. 1[ 10 Mr. Michniak: I can see Mr. Falk's point - use Pickford Avenue as a fast way in and a fast way out, but I would like to say that there are school age children in this subdivision, and if more homes are put up, they will be more children. If Pickford is a through street, it just means more traffic on Pickford to Farmington Road, add more danger to the children. Mr. Falk: Let's face it - most drivers avoid short cuts through residential streets. The same problem exists south of Plymouth Road. I would suggest that we table this petition and study it further. Mr. Scruggs: I 'say that we put this petition in its right light. This particular road is not now presently being used for traffic, so why not go ahead with vacating it? On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs and seconded by Mr. Scruggs, it was #9-173-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Sept. 14, 1976 on Petition 76-8-3-7 by Cecil T. Schnittker requesting the vacating of Pickford Avenue right-of-way located south of Clarita between Stamford and Myron Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-3-7 be approved for the following reasons: (1) There is no need to retain and develop Pickford Avenue in the subject location as no existing lots or parcels of land take access to or from the subject street right-of-way. ( , 6170 (2) All reporting City Departments and public utility companies have indicated that they have no objection to the street vacating provided a full-width easement is retained. (3) The vacating of Pickford Avenue in the subject location, it would avoid having Pickford Avenue take on the characteristics of a collector road which would otherwise compete with Curtis Avenue wherein Curtis Avenue is designed and located to properly serve as the collector road for this area, and t (4) With the vacating of Pickford Avenue, it would discourage through traffic from passing through several subdivisions which traffic would be detrimental to the public safety of the residents of the area and, in turn, would encourage the use of Curtis Avenue as a collector road and accommodate traffic along the outside perimeter of the several subdivisions at a half mile control point which point is the desired location for any future traffic control device. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer-Eccentric under date of 8/26/76, 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. 10 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Scruggs, Kluver, Scurto, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Falk, Zimmer ABSENT: DuBose Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopt On a.motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Zimmer it was #9-174-76 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 318th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on August 10, 1976 are hereby, approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Scurto, Scruggs, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Friedrichs, Falk, Wisler ABSENT: DuBose Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Scruggs and unanimously adoptee it was i ) 6171 #9-175-76 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 a that Petition 76-9-8-18 by Leon Siegel, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct retail stores on proPerty located on the east side of Farmington Road, south of Eight Mile Road in Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That site plan #7616, Sheet #1 revised 9/20/76, prepared by Architects and Planners, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that building elevations as shown on Plan #7616, dated 8/31/76, prepared by Architects and Planners, Inc., (with the north and south elevations being revised, showing full brick on these, two walls with the rear wall of the building being painted block) , which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that a revised Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within seven (7) days from the date of this approval; (4) that all landscape materials shall be installed on the site prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any portion of the building; ' (5) that all landscape materials installed on the site shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition, and (6) that the proposed low profile roof-mounted air conditioning units shall be screened from view if they protrude above the proposed roof line on Farmington Road. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler and seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimous' adopted, it was #9-176-76 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 74-10-8-41P by Patrick O'Hara requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance #988, in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the south side of Plymouth Road between Eckles and Newburgh Roads in Section 30, until the next Regular Meeting to be conducted on September 28, 1976. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopt. i 4 6172 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 320th Regular 11 Meeting and Public Hearing held by 1-he City Planning Commission on September 14, 1976 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION I 4 Su . ; T. Wisler, Secretary ATTEST: / //Z /: Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman 4 Li 4 1