Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1976-10-12 I r ' 6181 MINUTES OF THE 322nd REGULAR MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY s PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA LAND On Tuesday, October 12, 1976, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 322nd 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 8:05 p.m. with approximately 80 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Suzanne Wisler Jerome Zimmer Judith Scurto William DuBose Joseph Falk Herman Kluver Members Absent: William Scruggs (business meeting) Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; H G Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, also were 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 recommendations to the City Council and the City Council, after holding a Public Hearing, makes the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied, 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. 3 Mrs. Wisler, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 76-7-1-29 (rehearing) by James A Creed, for Monaghan K-C Building Association to rezone property located on-the west side of Farmington Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from P.S. to C-2 and P. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Bakewell: Yes, we have a letter from the Chief Building Inspector stating that no deficiences in the site plan have been noted. Most correspondence came in prior-to the initial hearing. We have a memo received tonight from Ardmore Acres Hospital, definitely objecting to the rezoning of this property. Mr. Andrew: Is there a representative from the K-C Building Association present? James A.Creed: Yes, my name is James A. Creed, and I am President of the K-C Building Association. I have been a resident of Livonia for the past nine years, and I would hereby like to show the revised preliminary - site plan to the Commission. (At this time, Mr. Creed mounted site plan on easel and exhibited it for all to view.) Mr. Andrew: For the information of the audience, the original petition was for the rezoning of this property from P.S. to C-2. That petition was tabled. The revised petition in addition to the C-2 also requests i rezoning to the P classification for parking purposes. Mr. Creed: As you can see on the revised plan, we would like to have a parking lot placed 170' from the north lot line. Consequently, the building will have to be moved 170' south. Mr. Andrew: . Any questions from the Planning Commission? Anyone in the audience 6182 Alex Zeid::1[ My name is Alex Zeid, and I have been a resident of Livonia for 26 33175 Fargo years. I am presently the President of Woodlore Condominiums, and I don't understand how the movement of the parking lot will help the people who are against the K-C putting up a building here. This is the third meeting being held on this matter. How many more meetings are there going to be before you people understand that we do not want this building? You probably have also heard from the Ardmore Convalescent Home, objecting to the noise and traffic that will result. As you can see, we have maybe 100 tenants or co-owners at Woodlore who are against the K-C Building going up. Is there any possibility that our original letter to the Planning Department could be read again tonight? Mr. 'Andrew: Was that letter presented to the Commission at the first Public Hearing? Alex Zeid: Yes, it was. Mr. Shane: Who signed the letter? Alex Zeid: I did, Alex Zeid, President of Woodlore Condominiums. Mr. Shane: Yes, I have the letter here dated August 18, 1976. (He then proceeded to read the letter word for word.) Mr. Andrew: Mr Zeid, that is the letter you had reference to? Mr. Zeid:(0 Yes, it is, and I would like to know just what action will be taken on this letter.. Will it be tabled again for another meeting? Mr. Andrew: I cannot answer that question. We will ask for a motion on a course of action in due time. Mr. Zeid: What does the movement of the parking lot have to do with the petition? Mr. Andrew: The petition has been revised from P.S. to C-2 and P. The original petition was only to change the land from P.S. to C-2. They have amended the original petition. That requires a new Public Hearing. Mrs. Wisler: I think Mr. Zeid should also note that we only make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council will hold their own Public Hearing on the rezoning. We only make recommendations to the Council. Mr. Andrew: Whether we approve or deny this petition, in either case it goes to City Council. Mr. Zeid: You mean that the Council can override your decision? Mr. Andrew: Yes, they can and do - many times. However, if we table the petition, it remains with us until a definite course of action is taken. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak regarding this petition? tio:' Chas. P. Nugent: With reference to the objections raised here. I would like to call Council for to the attention of the 104 members of the Woodlore Condominium that Monaghan Bldg. are presently living in the City of Livonia, that we have approximately Association 220 members of our Council, who together with their wives are Association members of the K-C Council. Furthermore from the stand- point of Woodlore Condominiums, we are dropping down a distance of 170' from Farmington Road, which means that only eight (8) apartments 6183 (11 will be as close as 50' from where the building will be located. They will be approximately 360' from the northeast portion of the proposed parking lot. With reference to the objections from the Ardmore Convalescent Home, first of all - they are approximately 90' on a setback east of Farmington Road, which means that there is approximately 300' from the front of our building to the front of the Ardmore Home. Also, please keep in mind that this building will be used for council meetings. I would like to have the Planning Department read a letter they received from the Anchorage Convalescent Home. Mr. Shane: Yes, we have a letter from the Ancborage Convalescent Home dated August 25, 1976 indicating no troubles at all with the K-C Building • located at their previous site. Mr. Nugent: I would submit to you that the experience of a convalescent home immediately adjacent to the council building is indicative of the manner in which we conduct ourselves. We merely want to hold club meetings. The members of the Monaghan Council are stockholders and associate memhers of the corporation. I think these objections are without merit. Mr. Andrew: Anyone else present wishing to speak for or against this petition? Milton Cheske: My name is Milton Cheske, and I am on the Board of Directors of the Woodlore Condominiums. I would like to point out to the Planning Commission that Ardmore Acres is not a convalescent or nursing home. It is a hospital for short-term psychiatric patients. Margaret Leiman: I am a nurse at Ardmore Acres, and I would like to define exactly 33237 Fargo what type of people- live at this home. These people are what is known as short-term psychiatric patients. They are people in acute mental distress - alcoholics, acute stages of depression, and any sudden burst of noise would certainly set them off. Mr. Andrew: Just what does the term "short-term" mean: Ms. Leiman: A "long-term" psychiatric. patient is one who will probably spend the rest of their lives in acute mental anxieties. A "short-term" patient is anyone, like your or me, for instance, a normal person, who for some reason or another, suddenly becomes ill mentally. We treat these people with tranquilizers, but any sudden loud noises might set them off. Mr. Andrew: You mean that you treat them so that they can return to normal. Ms. Leiman: Yes, that is right. We also feel that with the K-C putting up a building here, there would be an influx of the wrong type of persons, possibly creating crime in the area. Sam LoCicero: I do not like the idea of a K-C Building here. Beer parties are bad. 33363 Fargo Bingo parties are bad. I have been to many of them. We don't need any of that here in Livonia. Banquets and weddings - no: 4 Mr. Nugent: I think that some of these objections are rather tenuous. Certainly the 220 members of the Council are law-abiding citizens. They won't be stealing anyone's property. Mr. Falk: I just want to view my opinion. I can share the concerns of the people with regard to traffic congestion, lights and noise. However, 6184 in my judgment, this Commission should not deny this petition solely j on people objections. I feel that it should be passed on to the City Council for their final determination. The responsibility would be ours should we deny this petition. Every owner has a right to sell his land the way he sees fit. I do not feel that we can arbitrarily deny a petition without a justifiable reason. Based on these facts, I will vote accordingly. Mrs. Wisler: I also have two concerns about this petition. The K-C Hall requires a C-2 classification. Will there by any further C-2 development on Farmington Road? Also, I live close to the Seven Mile-Farmington intersection. In all fairness, I do not believe that this particular building would cause a substantial increase in traffic. If the Traffic Commission feels that it is acceptable, I will vote accordingly. Mr. Andrew: Any further comments on the petition? Loretta Carlin: I remember when they built the last Monaghan Council. They rented 33371 Fargo out the basement before the top part was ever finished. With 200 more people coming to this hall, they don't_ care about traffic or lights or any other problems for that matter. Mr. Cheske: Has anyone here ever attempted to enter onto Farmington Road from Woodlore? The traffic is very bad. What will happen when more IL traffic increases? If they rezoned the property to C-2, we will probably have a MacDonald's. Mr. Andrew: Don't worry - no MacDonald's. I will agree that the traffic along Farmington Road is quite heavy. I believe that a recommendation should be made to the Wayne County Road Commission that a traffic signal be installed at Fargo - whether or not a K-C Building is built. It would appear that it is just a matter of time before a traffic control device will be installed at that corner. Mr. Zimmer: Most of you people in the audience have been with us before. You should understand that we have spent a lot of time looking at this petition. When we first heard this petition, we were asked to decide whether to zone this land P.S. to C-2. This Commission prefers to putting that kind of facility that fits in that particular piece of land. This K-C Council certainly have adequate room for their facility. I think it is only fair that we rezone this property for a very legitimate use of it. I live with noisy traffic near Plymouth Road. Yes, I agree that between 8 and 5 there will always be a heavy flow of traffic in this area, just as in other areas, but certainly the traffic will become less dense in the evening. Milton Cheske: What about them having a bar and lounge? • Mr. Andrew: That is not a question of zoning. The Knights of Columbus do have a club license. Mr. Falk:toe This man is trying to tell us what is going to happen. He doesn't really know for sure. Legally, this club has the right to sell 1 liquor and use that license according to the zoning. Further, how can anyone say what the traffic will be in two or three months? We have heard both the pros and the cons. Let's just close the meeting and make a recommendation. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition and Mr. Andrew. 6185 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-192-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 12, 1976 on Petition 76-7-1-29 (rehearing) as submitted by James A. Creed, for Monaghan K-C Building Association to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from P.S. to C-2 and P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-7-1-29 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will provide for uses that will not adversely affect the surrounding established uses of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning abuts a major thoroughfare which has the traffic-carrying capacity to accommodate any increased traffic as generated by the new uses as well as it abuts an established flood plain to the south, and west which will further insulate and buffer the commercial site from the other nearby established.uses of the area, and (3) The proposed change of zoning which, in part provides for a parking zone and limits the use strictly to. offstreet parking only, will create a transitional and buffer zone so as to protect the established residential uses to the north. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the abbve Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of 9/23/76 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. The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Peition 76-8-1-30 by Eugene Pulice to rezone property located on the west side of Mayfield, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P. Mr. Andrew: ' Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: We have a letter from the Engineering Division indicating that there is no storm sewer to serve the proposed parking area, signed by Gary Clark. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present this evening? Eugene Pulice I will try to explain my request for a change in rezoning in order 14087 Hubbard to put in a bigger parking lot. The parking lot as it stands now is not adequate, plus the fact the Roman Chariot also needs more space for parking, as well as other stores in the area. 1.0 Mr. Andrew: It was my hope that at this time, along with your goal to improve the parking problem in this area, you would bring an overall develop- ment plan before the Commission. If we rezone this property, I would concern myself with access to the area. Who issues permits for parking lot construction. The Bureau of Inspection or the Engineering Department. Mr. Shane: The Bureau of. Inspection issues building permits after all site plans • 6186 Mr. Pulice: We are in the process of preparing a site plan for your approval right now. r There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on this item closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was #10-193-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 12, 1976 on Petition 76-8-1-30 as submitted by Eugene Pulice to rezone property located on the west side of Mayfield, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-1-30 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is an extension of an existing and established parking zone located to the west of the area under petition. (2) The proposed change of zoning would thereby provide for a uniform offstreet parking zone for the full block area from Mayfield Avenue on the east to Loveland Avenue on the west. (3) The proposed change of zoning so as to expand and extend the off- street parking zone is needed for expanded offstreet parking facilities for this area as abutting lands to the south and fronting the mile 1[;110'1' road are developed commercially and are similarly owned by this petitioner. (4) The proposed change of zoning to the offstreet parking classification which limits the use of parking only will not adversely affect residential uses when adequately screened and landscaped. (5) The standards of the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions for site plan approval and the Civic Center Control Ordinance will ensure that the site is properly designed and laid out so as to achieve compatibility between the new uses and the established uses of the area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/23/76 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. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 12, 1976 on Petition 76-8-1-30 as submitted by Eugene Pulice to rezone property located on the west side of Mayfield, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 76-8-1-30 10 until such time as a site plan has been submitted to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 4 AYES: Friedrichs, Scurto NAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew ABSENT: Scruggs . 6187 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the reso?_ution fails for lack of support. d A roll call vote on the foregoing approving resolution resulted in the following: i AYES: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs, Scurto ABSENT: Scruggs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried, and the foregoing resolution adopted, and Petition 76-8-1-30 is approved. The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda Petition 76-9-2-16 by Lindhout Associates requesting waiveruse approval to construct an addition to the existing church located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file re this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have correspondence from the Traffic Division of the Police Department indicating no objection to proposed addition; memo from Chief Building Inspectmr, Frank Kerby, indicating proposed addition in compliance with Zoning Ordinance; memo from Gary Clark, Assistant City Engineer, statin no engineering problem connected with proposal; letter from Chief Fire Marshall indicating no problems with proposal as shown; as well as letter from Mr. LaGosh, Engineer with Wayne County Road Commission, stating that small increase in request for parking space would certainly involve no future problems. Ii Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner or a representative present? Frank Pierron: The purpose of this particular petition is to get permission to construct an addition to the church, as classrooms are now overcrowded, as well as space presently being used for fellowship hall is totally inadequate. Mr. Andrew: I noticed that there is a transformer down in the southeast corner of the building. What is that for? Mr. Pierron: Air conditioning. Mr. Andrew: In the courtyard closest to Six Mile Road, it`looks like the Church is storing a trailer and two buses. Where will theseitems end up? Mr. Pierron: After the Study Session, I revised the site plan, and have shown a hard surface area to park these vehicles as well as screening them from Six Mile Road. Mr. -Andrew: There will be landscaping between the eastern edge of the property and the Church? Mr. Pierron: Yes. . Mr. Andrew: What about the trash container? It will be incorporated in the same area. Behind the screen. We will 4 Mr. Pierron: .po put in a generous piece of asphalt to accommodate these items. Mr. Andrew: Does the Planning Commission have a copy of the revised Site Plan? Mr. Pierron: No, you do not, but the Site Plan was submitted to the Planning Dept. 6188 Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, did you have a chance to review the revised Site Plan? J Mr. Nagy: Yes, and we have no objections to this revised plan. Mr. Falk: What about landscaping along the south property line? What will that entail, and what kind of landscaping will there be adjacent to the Church? We have had no verification that this will be put in from the Petitioner. Mr. Andrew: The revised Site Plan incorporates many things that were looked into at the Study Meeting. Mr. Falk: I guess I have a big hangup, but I feel that we should not be any more partial to a church tjan we are to any other petitioner. I have nothing against churches. I go to church myself every week - but I would like to see adequate screening along the edge of the church's property - screening that will please the people in that area. Mrs. Scurto! Before we take a vote on this matter, could all Commissioners see the revised site plan? Mr. Andrew: I am happy to see that landscaping has been added on Bloomfield side. Mr. Pierron: Somebody questioned the bus parking. We are providing a place with screening. We have also incorporated additional parking on the corner with space for another 60 cars. The reason for this is that the church needs to get as many more spaces as they can. Presently, we have people parking across the two main streets in that area, and walking across to the church. The parking lot will be depressed, and 4 we will provide a buffer - berm - type screening around the property. Mr. Falk: My question is - what kind of screening will go up? John, what kind of screening do you suggest? Mr. Nagy: To try and come up with some definite plan that will please everyone in that area is rather difficult at this time. Screening has been provided along the south property line. The east property line is an area of heavy natural growth, and adding new landscaping would only • disturb the presently natural l'ndscaping. The natural landscaping is far superior to any introduction of new bushes and trees, and only the people in that area can comment on whether or not they will be happy about it. A brick wall was considered -earlier, but the cost was determined to be prohibitive. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the audience? Addison Bacon: My property abuts along the eastern boundary of this church for about - 65 feet. We are glad to be along side of a church, but the one thing that troubles us and gives us much concern is the traffic in this area. The church is using a small shopping center across the street from them, half of which is unoccupied, and a couple of more spots on the west side 11 of Farmington Road. I see that there is no way for the church to accommodate all its members. What if these spaces were shut off, and not made available to the. There would be a monumental traffic jam along Farmington Road, the cars also cut through the church parking lot which at this time is undedicated. Many times at night now we get a lot of traffic from the church. And the noise rocks us out bed. These are some of the things we • 6189 concerned with. When the church started its last building program, they talked about a landscaping plan running along the eastern edge of their property. They never completed it. There are a few trees, and a fewer number of bushes. There is a dense woods behind my house, and when the foliage is out in the summer, there is a shield against the parking lot; but when the foliage is gone, it is there to see. It is like an open sea of automobiles. They will never achieve a landscape plan that will totally hide it. I would like to see them build a masonry wall. Eventually, they will do away with the wooded area - they will need more parking spaces. I think the only solution now is that this Commission should obligate them to put up a masonry wall. As far as the'objection about the buses, they are standing in the middle of the lot, and I feel that a 6' high masonry wall should be put up along the entire eastern boundary, and perhaps a portion of the south line as well. Eventually every square inch will be used for parking - cannot avoid it. Mr. Andrew: Isn't there a fairly dense woods down in the southeast corner of the church property - wouldn't car light be screened from Bloomfield Ave.? Mr. Nagy: Yes, there are quite a few trees and underbrush which would screen out lights along the adjacent east and south property line. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Bacon, have youseen the revised Site Plat which would increase the parking spaces by about 60 in number? ti; Mr. Bacon: I guess I would just as soon have them park across the street as give them that. My concern is with the church activities, especially at night. I get a tremendous amount of light in the back of my house from the cars going in and out. I even had to turn my bed around so that I won't have to-look at the lights shining in. Mr. DuBose: Mr. Bacon, are you representing your neighbors? Mr. Bacon: Yes, I am representing my immediate neighbors. They feel the same as I do. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Bacon, when you say you are disturbed by the church, do you mean by the church activities themselves, or by the traffic? Mr. Bacon: By the flow of people in and out of the church activities. Mrs. Friedrichs: Don't these church activities cease at 10 or 11 o'clock at night? Mr. Bacon: Lights in the parking lot are on until 1 or 2 a.m. Mrs. Scurto: Are the new additions extending down past Mr. Bacon's property? Mr. Andrew: No. Mrs. Scurto: Isn't there some other way to shield the light from his property? I hate to see a masonry wall. 1 Mr. Nagy: The proposed addition might serve as a divider, as well as make the undedicated roadway a little more indirect. Mr. Andrew: Will the building addition take place in the area of the present woods? 6190 4 Mr. Pierron: Yes 4 Robert Thompson: I am the Attorney for Ward Church, and I live across the street from 16832 Bell Creek Mr. Bacon. I appreciate Mr. Bacon's objections, but I would like to point out that Ward Church is doing a real good job in this community. They are reaching out to the kids, to the high schools, and I would hope to see more cars going in and out of their parking lot. Mrs. Stiers, who lives two doors from Mr. Bacon, has no objection to the traffic. They haven't told me about any problems with the lights of cars, and there are other neighbors here tonight that we should hear from. Joan Italia: We have no complaints whatsoever about noise or light in the church parking lot. I have two young kids, and the lights have never kept them awake. ' I would not like looking at a masonry wall out my front door. Perhaps a higher screen of some sort, but definitely not a wall. Mr. Andrew: Perhaps a tall screen could be buildt along the south boundary of the church lot, maybe Austrian Pines or Blue Spruce. Mrs. Italia: I would much rather see greenery than a brick wall. Mr. Bacon: I would like to point out to the Commission that Mrs. Stiers is located across the road and she probably can't see or hear anything that is going on in the church parking lot. Mr. Machno, who lives next door to me, continually complains about the traffic conditions behind him in the church lot. We talked about the beautiful green I:4 belt that the Church promised us years ago. Never cam to fruition. On March 13, 1974 I wrote to the Rev. Hess asking him to contact me about o what might be expected to be planned there. Never heard anything after that. Mr. Andrew: Suppose they do go ahead and put in a green belt, would you feel better about that. Mr. Bacon: I would have no objections to a green belt for 12 months of the year. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, what kind of material would that call for? Mr. Nagy: There is no live landscaping that will give you total screening 12 months a year. Mr. Pierron: The density of those woods would not allow anything of any size to grow there. It is too dense now behind the property owners. In order to plant more bushes, the present brush would have to be taken out. The new plantings would then have a better chance to grow. We would only be replacing existing plantings with new plantings. Mr. Bacon: I would have to disagree with him on that point. You must properly clean and clear out that piece of land, they might achieve a suitable green belt. 6191 L . Mr. Andrew: Is it possible to achieve a green belt back there if the soil is properly prepared and adequate preparations made to insure some i form of success? Mr. Nagy: I think you can satisfactorily prepare the soil so that an established green belt could be planted. You will never achieve 100% total screening in that area. Mr. Bacon: OK, let's forget about a masonry wall on the south of the church property, but put one up on the east side. It isn't whether or not we would like a chain-link fence. Mr. Andrew: Would you be satisfied with a chain link fence? Mr. Bacon: I would only be happy with a 6' masonry wall. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, have you had a chance to study the area? Mr. Nagy: Yes, there are both deciduous and evergreens there now, but the deciduous do not give a year-long screen. I would think something like hemlock, or some other shade tolerant planting like arborvitae might suffice. There is a variation between the original plan and the one now before us. Mr. Falk: Mr. Thompson, would you agree with Mr. Bacon that the church did not comply with the original plan as approved by the Council? Mr. Thompson: The Site Plan was complied with by the church, but some of the trees did die. Mr. Nagy: Yes, we did go to see if a green belt was planted. They never got a good start, but, yes, an attempt was made to plant all trees. Mr. Thompson: If the church was negligent in replacing the trees, I believe that they did all that could have been done. Mr. Bacon:then read verbatim from Item #3 of Resolution adopted 12-1-70. Mr. Pierron: I am sure that the church would be more than willing to provide landscaping if the Planning Commission would help us establish such a screen. Mrs. Parrish: I live next door to the Italia's and I would not like to see a brick 16783 Bloom- wall along the church's property line. I like the natural beauty field of trees, and have a very definite objection to a brick wall. Mr. Bacon: I see the only solution being that the neighbors on the south of the church do not get a brick wall, but that a brick wall be put up along the east side. Mrs. Wisler: I sympathize with your dilema, Mr. Bacon. But I cannot encourage a brick wall being put up along your property. I would suggest that a screen of landscaping be established with the guidance and counsel of the Planning Dept. 4 Mr. Bacon: Why is it that the ordinance exempts churches - they should be required to put up a masonry wall. 6192 Mrs. Wisler: Would you consider anywhere accepting a denser planting of shrubs ' that grow in the shade? 4 Mr. Bacon: I would if I could be assured of another 25 years. Mr. Falk: I would like to show that we would have an agreement that should the church find itself pressed for additional parking space after the enlargement of the church is completed, they will not try to come back to us and take away the green belt in the southeast corner. Mr. Andrew: I have no objections to such an agreement. Bob, is that possible; Mr. Feinberg: There is nothing to that effect that could be written out, but possibly a verbal promise. We could always remind the petitioner of his verbal promise if he were to come back with such a petition. Mrs. Wisler: In the event this petition is approved in its entirety, I would like to add one condition - that is that the lights in the parking lot be shaded somewhat not to go into the adjacent yards? Mr. Pierron: The lights do not shine directly into the adjacent yards. Mrs. Wisler: How latedo they stay on? Mr. Pierron: Until 11:00 p.m. Mr. Bacon:1[ The automobile lights are the nuisance, but I would like to see ,the yard lights shaded. Mr. Andrew: 4 Any further comments. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on this item closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, it was #10-194-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 12, 1976 on Petition 76-9-2-16 by Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition tb the existing church located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-9-2-16 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #7614, dated 10/12/76, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. • (2) that Building Elevation #7614, dated 9/17/76, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that a revised landscape plan including landscape screening along the east and south property lines as well as foundation landscaping adjacent x to the new building addition shall be submitted to the Planning Commissio for review and approval within thirty (30) days from the date of this 4 approval; (4) that Alternate #1 on Site Plan #7614, P. 1 dated 10/12/76, specifically is deleted; and • 6193 1: (5) that the petitioner is required to install a shading device within the lamp of the parking lot lights along the present east property a line for the purpose of shading light from the adjacent residential area; 4 for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 4.03(a) . (2) The Fire Department, the Traffic Division of the Police Department, the Building Inspection Department and the Wayne County Road Commission have indicated there are no adverse affects associated with the expansion of use. • FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner and those City Depts' as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Falk, Friedrichs, Scurto, Wisler, DuBose NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver .. ABSENT: Scruggs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. He then requested Mr. Frank Pierron, Addison Bacon, and the Planning Dept. to set up a meeting for the purpose of setting up a revised landscaping plan. I!1 4 Mrs. Wisler announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 76-9-2-17 by Rev. 4 Jacob J. Traub for Bethel Missionary Assembly of God requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing Church located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from the Engineering Division indicating no problems. Mr. Andrew: Anyone in the audience wishing..to speak for or against this petition. Mrs. Scurto: Do we have indication from the petitioner regarding a landscaping plan. Will there be shrubs around the new building? Mr. Andrew: The petitioner is required to show new landscaping on plot plan. Rev. Traub: There are shrubs in front of the church now. We have greenery right up to the property line in front of the house. There are some large trees, and the only way we could put in any more in front would be - to break up the parking lot. Mr. Andrew:. We do not expect you to break up any asphalt, but we would like to see some shade or flowering trees along the east boundary line. A IL , landscape plan should be submitted within 30 days of approval of this waiver use request, and I would suggest that you contact a professional nursery man and have him get together with our Planning Dept. to work out a layout. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing closed on this item. * 6194 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, tJi it was #10-195-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 12, 1976 on Petition 76-9-2-17 as submitted by Rev. Jacob J. Traub for the Bethel Missionary Assembly of God requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing church located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Joy Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-9-2-17 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #3469, dated 9/20/76, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan dated 9/20/76, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that the pad-mounted A.C. condenser shall be located on the south side of the proposed building; and (4) that a landscape plan showing the site landscaping adjacent to the proposed new building as well as site landscaping within the existing offstreet parking lot shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within thirty (30) days of this approval. for the following reasons: I! (1) The proposed expansion of use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 4.03 (a) , 4 (2) The Zoning Board of Appeals, by resolution adopted on May 13, 1976, has approved the expansion of the non-conforming use and the variances of the minimum yard requirements; and (3) The site has the capacity to support the expansion of use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner, and those City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #10-196-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 7/30/76 from Lindhout Associates requesting a one-year extension of approval of Petition 75-6-2-16 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, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution subject to all the conditions as set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution #8-165-75 in connection with the original approval of the petition. 4 t Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was _• 6195 • #10-197-76 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission doeshereby approve the 1: Final Plat for Wildwood Forest Subdivision proposedto be located on the south side of Five Mile Road, north of Lyndon Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Engineering Division recommends approval of the Final Plat. (3) The Final Plat conforms to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia and the R-2 Zoning District regulations of Ordinance #543, and • (4) All the financial assurances as set forth in Council Resolution #362-76 have been complied with. . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #10-198-76 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby remove from the agenda request for Final Plat approval for Stoneleigh Village Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Ellen Drive in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, until such time as the Council reduces bond amounts imposed upon this particular subdivider. 11: Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr.. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #10-199-76 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a Public Hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located north of Schoolcraft Road, west of Hubbard in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, from RUF to R-1-B. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded' by Mr. Kluver, it was #10-200-76 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 320th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 14, 1976 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Falk, Friedrichs, Scurto, Kluver, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: DuBose . ABSENT: Scruggs , 4 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the- motion carried .and the foregoing resolution adopted. • On .a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-201-76 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 321st Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission on September 28, 1976 are hereby approved. Mr. Andrew, L1. : : declared t iic i:_'__' c—iT1 an., tr% feregni n:. _L....' .._...:" adr ' w 6196 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was to #10-202-76 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 313th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 5, 1976 are hereby approved. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #10-203-76 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 that Petition 76-10-8-20 by Rourke Haas/Wah Yee Associates, Architects, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a store addition to the existing Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center Building located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and Fitzgerald in Section 17, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #568-71, revised 8/13/76, which is hereby approve<], shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Plan, Sheet 2, dated 10/1/76, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 1[0 (3) that no wall signs, canopy signs or such similar signs shall be affixed to the building mansard, and that any future signs for the new stores shall be only allowed on the building facia under the roof canopy as provided for on the building elevation plan; for the following reason: \ (1) the proposed Site Plan complies to Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11.02, and the off-street parking requirements for the reason that the Zoning Board of Appeals has waived, by resolution, the deficiency of 27 units of parking. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the -322nd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on October 12, 1976 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 1/4.01.- ATTEST: 62740t/,,,..,:// 1"-- / , Su - one T. Wisler, Secretary Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman I I i