Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-03-08 6324 IL MINUTES OF THE 331st REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 8, + 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 331st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:10 p.m. with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Joseph Falk Jerome Zimmer Suzanne Wisler Judith Scurto Members Absent: Wm. F. Scruggs *Herman Kluver *William DuBose Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Robert Brzezinski, Ass't. City Attorney, also were present. Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of vacating or rezoning any prverty, this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Council; and the City Council, after holding their own 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 then has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. In the absence of Mr. Scruggs, Mr. Falk acted as Vice Chairman. Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 77-2-2-2 by Vargo's, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto and Merriman Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding petition? Mr. Bakewell: We have a letter from the Engineering Division regarding drainage in the area and stating there are no storm sewers to service the site. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Vargo, just exactly what do you intend to do here? Mr. Vargo: I am trying to vacate a parcel of land here and enlarge my restaurant. Mr. Bakewell: In the correspondence received from you, the only area of Henry Ruff you requested to be vacated will be occupied by a berm. Mr. Andrew: Notthe entire vacating of Henry Ruff Road that relates to your property? Mr. Vargo: Right. Mr. Andrew: Didn't you request the City to drop that petition? 6325 Mr. Vargo: Yes, I dic3, but now I wish to install a berm and Engineering advises that portion of Henry Ruff where the berm is planned be vacated. Mr. Bakewell: The only letter we have is dated March 2, 1977 requesting that we consider the vacating of said portion of Henry Ruff as the installation of an earth berm is being considered. Mr. Andrew: Has a formal request been made here to amend or drop the petition for vacating in the hands of some City department? Mr. Bakewell: Unless the letter asking for a specific vacating petition to be dropped has been placed in with another petition, I do not know of it. This petition is for a waiver use. The other letter may be in some other file that I do not have with me at this time. The file I have before me now is connected with the waiver use request. Mr. Andrew: Where does the petition stand regarding the vacating of Henry Ruff to the south? Was it sent to the City Council? I believe it was tabled before this Commission? Mr. Vargo: I talked with Mr. Nagy, and we discussed the possibility of putting in a retainer basin which would run down my property all the way to Bell Creek. Mr. Andrew: Where is the old vacating petition? Mr. Vargo: I understand that the old petition is null and void. Mr. Andrew: It probably was tabled and attached to some other file by mistake. 1[: Mr. Vargo, do you remember when that old vacating petition came up? Mr. Vargo: It seems to me it was late fall, maybe October or November. Mr. Andrew: One of the reasons I am questioning the whereabouts of the petition regarding the easement vacating is that it would be pertinent to this particular petition. Mr. Vargo: Basically, I am proposing to put in a 2348 sq. ft. addition on the' southwest end of the restaurant, with an eighty-seat capacity. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: The earth berm on the westerly side is that on your property? Mr. Vargo: Yes, that is on my property. (He then pointed out on the map the whole range of his property - 10 acres.) Mrs. Wisler: Is the berm located on property zoned C-1 or C-2? Mr. Vargo: Half of it is on C-2, the other half on RUF. Mrs. Wisler: Well, I am wondering just how that berm can be preserved? Is there any way that we can be assured that it will be maintained in the fashion of a berm? Mr. Nagy: We could make that a permanent condition of the site plan and waiver use approval. 6326 Mr. Brzezinski: The way I understand it, from the action of the Zoning Board of Appeals, there must be a berm between the C-2 land and 11, the RUF property. Mr. Vargo: I was told that the separation could be either a wall or a berm. Mr. Brzezinski: .Yes, that is right - you must separate the RUF from the C-2. And if the berm isn't properly maintained, then a wall will have to go up. Mr. Nagy: We could be satisfied with that. The earth berm would have to be 20' wide and 4' high. I am sure the appearance would be much better with a raised berm and a green belt. Mr. Vargo: Do I have a choice? • Mr. Andrew: It matters to us. The 4' high berm must be shown on the landscape plan. Mr. Zimmer: What if he sells the RUF? Does that condition go with the land? Whoever buys that property, would they have to stick with the 4' berm as a continual condition on the RUF property? Mr. Nagy: . If he sells that land, then there would be lot splits involved. Splitting this lot would include that portion with the 20' wide berm, which would render the balance deficient, and we would 1[: probably object to the split. Mrs. Wisler: Then .if Mr. Vargo were to split that lot and decide to sell, the purchaser would have an encumberance on the back of his lot. He ould not have full use of the property he purchased. Mr. Andrew: Not an encumbrance. The purchaser Mrs. Wisler: would not be able to use that entire portion of the lot. Mr. Nagy: I would first recommend that the sale of the property involved not include the 20' berm. Because the 20' wide strip of land with berm screening was provided to make the C-2 use compatible to the area. I would think that the City Assessor's Office would object to the lot splits that included the 20 foot strip as well. Mr. Andrew: If Mr. Vargo wanted to sell his land on the west, and if indeed he did sell it, what could the City do about it? Mr. Nagy: In my opinion if anyone were to buy this land and then go to the Building Department for a building permit, they would be refused the permit until the matter of the lot split and landscape • screening is resolved. Mr. Andrew: Does the legal description include the RUR piece of-property? Mr. Nagy: - No, it does not. • 6327 Mr. Brzezinski: If he intends on keeping the berm, then the easement would have to be retained even if he splits it. This would of course create a deficient lot. Mr. Andrew: Do we have a copy of the Zoning Board of Appeal's decision in the file? Mr. Nagy: We do not have that particular file at this meeting. Mr. Vargo: I understood that there was to be either a berm or a wall. Mr. Bakewll: A 4' berm was the condition, to be erected on the perimeter of the parking lot, on the east - south - and west. Mr. Andrew: Is this the plan that was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals: Mr. Falk: Mr. Vargo, have you talked with the residents in the area? Is the berm their choice? Mr. Vargo: Yes, the majority of the people in the area preferred the earth berm versus the solid wall. Mrs. Friedrichs: I understand the Engineering Department says that a storm sewer be installed which would lead into Bell Creek. What effect would that have on this area? Mr. Bakewell: Apparently none. Engineering objects to the basin there now, and prefers drainage going into Bell Creek. Mrs. Scurto: Could somebody please tell me why the berm on the southeast side of the property did not continue up alongside the adjoining property? Mr. Vargo: Mr. Bowers preferred that we put in a cyclone fence adjacent to his property so that he could plant shrubbery and bushes. He wanted this in lieu of the earth berm. This was an agreement between Jack Bowers and myself. He didn't want people trespassing on his property. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Mr. King: I live directly west of Mr. Vargo's property, and the thing I am concerned 30445 Six Mi. about is the drainage. When I went over to the Planning Department about this, they told me that the drainage ditch will go into Bell Creek. I would say that anymore water that goes down there will certainly flood us out. We have been getting additional flooding from Six Mile. We get additional water from Mr. Vargo's parking lot, from the church across the street and their large, parking, as well as the subdivision beyond that. It. seems that with every improvement Ar that goes up along Six Mile, the flooding problem in our yard gets 4L1( worse. I cannot even walk within 25' from the back of my lot because of the water. Mr. Andrew: It seems to me that Mr. Vargo's drainage ditch would not have any effect on your property. 6328 Mr. King: - Well, it does, on the back portion of my land. Regarding the fence along Mr. Bowers' property, I think a fence would be better in keeping the kids from running through my property. A berm does not do that. Mr. Andrew: The plan does show 200' of cyclone fence. Mr. King: Well, we would prefer a berm, but with the kids coming in with their motor bikes and whooping it up, it does get kind of noisy at times. I don't know if you. remember, but I did object to Mr. Vargo enlarging his parking lot. • Mr. Andrew: But you are in support of this petition? Mr. King: Yes, the ,addition is all right with me. • Mr. Andrew: Any more questions from the Commission? Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Vargo, would you be using natural gas for this addition, or will you have to go to propane for heating? Mr. Vargo: I feel we have enough natural gas now. Mr. Zimmer: The plan still shows storm drainage consideration. What has been resolved regarding that? Mr. Andrew: The legal description has been forwarded to the Engineering Division, and no building permit will be issued until they are satisfied with the effect the storm sewer will have on the area. Mrs. King: At the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, I agreed with the 6' berm. 30445 6 Mi. Also, I would like to see them add some planting around the berm - young trees - anything that might screen the lights at night. Those lights from the cars sure light up surrounding yards. Is that included in the plan? Mr. Andrew: I understand that the berm will be 4' in height. A detailed landscape plan must be presented to this Commission within 60 days. I can't tell you what is on that plan at this time. That is a separate action. Mrs. Friedrichs: Mr. Vargo, why was the berm changed from 6' to 4' . The ordinance says the minimum must be 4° . Mr. Vargo: If the residents want a 6' berm, we'll put in a 6' berm. Mr. Andrew: I feel the maintenance of the berm should be considered. Mr. Nagy: It really depends on how they intend to landscape the berm. It might be too steep for grass coverage and mowing. Without seeing the landscape plan first, I cannot say whether it should be 4' or 6' . Mrs. Friedrichs: Why can't we make that a condition for the resolution - OP" we could suggest a 4' or 6' berm depending upon the.plant materials used. Mr. Nagy: Yes, we could say no less than 4' and leave it go at that. Whether or not it will be 6' , we will work that out at the time of landsc< pe approval. 6329 Mr. Andrew: Mr. Vargo, the west and north additions to the building that are exposed will be brick? Mr. Vargo: Yes, with a block wall on the back. The exposed part will be mission brick. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Vargo, is there a basement under the addition? Mr. Vargo: No. _ Since there was no one wishing to speak further on this petition, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-2-2-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #3-44-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-2-2-2 as submitted by Vargo's Inc. , • requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing restaurant located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Oporto and Merriman Road in the northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-2-2 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) Site Plan #76-02, Sheet P-1, revised dated 2/16/77, prepared by Shiels Associates, is adhered to. (2) The added dining space is limited to not more than 80 seats. I (3) The building addition elevations conform to those shown on Plan #76-02, Sheet P-3, dated 2/16/77, prepared by Shiels Associates. (4) A detailed landscape plan is submitted to the Planning Commission within 60 days. (5) The landscaped earth berms located on the adjoining residential property is permanently maintained as a greenbelt. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 11.03(c) . (2) The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the intended use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSTAIN: DuBose ` ABSENT: Kluver, Scurggs • Mr. DuBose abstained because he felt that he had arrived to late (8:35 p.m.) to make the proper decision. 6330 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carriedandthe foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-2-3-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #1005-76, requesting the vacating of the portion of the right of way of Filmore Avenue located on the west side of Filmore, east of Irving, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated February 10, 1977 from the Engineering Division indicating no objections from an engineering standpoint, signed by Gary D. Clark. We also have a letter from the Detroit Edison Company indicating no objection as they have no equipment involved in the area, signed by Phil Franks. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission pursuant to a Council Resolution regarding the vacating of a right of way on Filmore Avenue. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one else wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-2-3-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimodsly adopted, it was #3-45-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-2-3-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #1005-76 requesting the vacating of the portion of the right of way of Filmore Avenue loacted on the west side of Filmore east of Irving, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-3-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) There would be little, if any, effect on the ultimate full public improvement of the street. (2) There would be no effect on underground utilities. (3) The fact that vacating represents the only reasonable permanent solution to accommodating this very minor encroachment. (4) The Engineering Division has no objection to the vacating. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/17/77, 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. 411110 Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6331 Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-2-6-2 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend paragraph (c) of Section 16.11 Waiver Uses of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to require a minimum of 4 acres rather than 5 acres of land area for retail sales of new furniture as accessory uses to warehouse structures in the M-1 Zoning District. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission to amend that section of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a definite size of land for retail sales of new furniture as accessory uses to warehouse structures in the M-1 Zoning District. Is there anyone present wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to speak on this petition, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-2-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-46-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-2-6-2 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend paragraph (c) of Section 16.11 Waiver Uses of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to require a minimum of 4 acres rather than 5 acres of, land area for retail sales of new furnisture as accessory uses to warehouse structures in the M-1 Zoning District, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-6-2 be approved for the follwoing reasons: (1) Analysis of existing facilities both inside and outside the City of Livonia indicates that a minimum lot size requirement of 4 acres is sufficient to accommodate furniture warehouse structures and accompanying drives, parking, loading areas and landscaping. '(2) Waiver Use Section 16.11, and general requirements contained in Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance, vest sufficient control in the hands of the City to ensure that, among other things, adequate land area is provided over and above the minimum should circumstances warrant it. (3) The Industrial Development Coordinator recommends this amendment. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/17/77, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumer Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopte /`' Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-2-2-1 by Diehl & 110 Diehl, Architects for St. Edith Parsh, requesting waiver use approval to construct a home for senior citizens on the south side of Five Mile Road between Blue Skies and Newburgh Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19. At this point, Mrs. Scurto requested that she be allowed to abstain from any discussion or vote on this particular petition. • 6332 Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Engineering Department indicating that they can foresee no engineering problems connected with this proposal signed by Gary Clark. Also, we have a letter from the Building Inspector, dated March 7, 1977, indicating that ordinance calls for a minimum of 98 parking spaces to accommodate this building, them are only 62 parking places shown on the site plan - communication signed by Frank Kerby. Then we have a lengthy letter from the Police Department outlining their observations of all the activities that take place at this particular location, which require police assistance at certain times of the week. Mr. Falk: That was quite a prolonged research done by the Police. I see traffic problems at every church yard. But I. had no idea that St. Edith's carried on so many different activities. Mr. Andrew: Is there a representative from the Church here tonight. Gary Diehl: In regard to the traffic, we would like to mention the fact of parking. Architect It has been our experience in many of these projects throughout the six-county area, there is a small number of these senior citizens who drive. We have found that the maximum is one in three who even own a car. These people are 75 to 85 years old. Many of them have given up on driving. We are conscious of the traffic problems at St. Edith's. The flow of traffic in and out of the area is being studied, and will be resolved in a short time. We appreciate the conditions of the ordinance, and the call for 98 parking spaces but we do not feel that in this case the number is needed. If additional parking is needed at a later time, we have the space available to put it in. Mr. Andrew: I put this before the Law Department - based on the comments in Mr. Kerby's letter with the 36 parking space deficiency, can this Commission act on this petition, or must- they go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Brzezinski: The site plan does not meet the ordinance; therefore, they will have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Diehl: In addition, this project will have five buildings upon final completion. The Service Center will be where the people will take their food and spend their time for recreation. The other buildings will house single individual units. We will have some couple units. Mr. Andrew: When you say they will eat their meals in the Service Center - do you mean three meals a day? Mr. Diehl: Yes, that is right. Mr. Andrew: These are furnished units? Mr. Diehl: Yes, these units will be furnished through the Ryan Fund. Furnished t in every way - carpeting, silverware, everything. We have also noted landscaping on our plans. We intend to screen the development from the adjoining residential lands. There will be trees, shrubs, flowers, as well as a fire lane around the perimeter of the buildings. Rather than have a black topped paved road, we have come up with 6333 ' precast blocks which will allow grass to grow in between. We want to satisfy the people who live to the west and south of this development as well as the people who live at the center. We are thinking about safety and appearance. You will note that these buildings are only one-story high. In checking with the Building Department and the Fire Marshal, we have met with all of their local codes. There will be smoke alarms in every room. Another big factor is that every single unit will have exits that lead directly to the outside. No hallways whatsoever. Mr. Andrew: Will there he a caretake present at all times? Edward Wagensomer: There will be personnel on a 24 hour duty basis. Generally, Director, Arch- we have two sisters who live in one of the apartment units. diocese Senior Citizen Housing Mr. Andrew: Has the Fire Marshal agreed to not having concrete in the fire lane around the buildings? Mr. Wagensomer: Step #2 will have the completed project. When we reach that step, we will seek the approval of the Fire Marshal regarding the perimeter of the project. The response to this project has been overwhelming. If we could build that facility today, we could fill it entirely within a week. Father Van and his people have been taking applications and processing them for quite some time. Mr. Andrew: Will this be run by the parish? Mr. Wagensomer: The Board that will run this project is made up of sixteen parishes in the area, a non-profit organization. They will run the whole thing. The Diocese leases this land to them for a $1 a year, with a 10 year lease. They appointed Fr. Van as Chairman of the Board for the facility.. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: My concern is with the two different steps of construction. Why do they plan on constructing the Service Center and the two immediate buildings first, rather than the north and south buildings in the beginning? Mr. Wagensomer: Step #1 would have the north and south buildings constructed on the perimeter, and the Service Building in the center, with all preparations being made to run the sewer in order to receive the other two buildings at a later time. We feelthat the timing between the two major operations would be about two years. Mrs. Wisler: My question involves a disruption of the site. If there are three , units right in the middle, and then if you wanted to build the north and south buildings, why couldn't you do that at a later date? IV Mr. Wagensomer: It appears that we are not thinking alike in this matter. We are thinking of people living there, and the fire lane right down the side would have to serve as an emergency route for those in the north and south buildings if we did not have a center first. We would have no way of getting there from any emergency standpoint. We must get there very easy to service the people. 6334 Mrs. Friedrichs: Perhaps you have explained some of my concern, but even though t I understand that the ambulances would come down these pathways, it still really concerns me that a road should be made available to the units themselves. From my experience with the elderly, there are many cases, especially in the middle of the winter when it is very difficult for them to walk on the ice, where they could be picked up at their door. This block paving, with the grass in between, couldn't it be used by private cars to get to the doors of some of these people? Mr. Wagensomer: We would not permit this as a general rule. Actually, only in an extreme case, could that be utilized in that way. I am sure that they are perfectly capable of walking that short distance where they could be picked up. Mrs. Friedrichs: What about in the event of a heart attack? Mr. Wagensomer: On that emergency basis only. I am sure the people wouldn't want an open road with the possibility of kids on motorcycles coming in. Mrs. Friedrichs: Motorcycles couldn't come in if the passageway was shut off at the beginning. You talk about people walking out for their meals. During the winter it would be very difficult walking to this service center. These people expect to be helped. They get very worried about walking on slippery paths. Some of them have had sprains, strains, etc. I just feel that it would be very difficult for them to get to the Service Center without some sort of transportation immediately adjacent. Mr. Wagensomer: Please, take another look at this plan. Single story construction easy accessibility to other units, we do have provisions that can be used on that basis, but not as a general practice. These people come right of their units, and walk to the center. The walks are covered - roofed over. Maintained at all times. Under normal circumstances they can handle this. Where they can't, in some emergency, we will take care of the. With this particular kind of campus system, you 'will find that they can maintain their strength quite well. Mrs. Friedrichs: What if they are temporarily disabled? Mr. Wagensomer: We will take care of them. No way will we permit them to have to struggle. Mrs. Friedrichs: This roadway would be maintained, even in the winter time? Mr. Wagensomer: We will run the snow plows right around the circle. These heavy duty blocks can even support fire trucks. No problem in handling emergency vehicles. As far as the parking spaces are concerned, at one of our deveopments we have 189 residents with 14 cars. At our Merrydale Home in Port Huron, we have 66 residents with . 8 cars. • Mr. Andrew: The difficulty here lies with the Zoning Ordinance. IL 6335 Mr. Wagensomer: If it means additional delays, if you take the north end of the property, you have the land between ours and the Chatham Village Shopping center, and we could put in additional parking there. I would like to make one more point. Our original plans called for apartment- like units, with a total occupancy count of 98-100. Now it is more like 60 people possibly occupying the units. Plus the fact that there are some couple units. Mr. Andrew: Well, I see where we have two alternatives -- either direct you to take action with the Zoning Board of Appeals; or direct you to revise the site plan to show 98 parking spaces. A revised site plan cou"ld . be submitted within a couple of weeks. Mrs. Friedrichs: I would rather have them reduce the parking spaces, if at all possible. It does seem to me to be a larger number of spaces than they will use. Mr. Diehl: We would certainly like to see the project continue to move along, perhaps we should show some landscaping rather than parking spaces. Mrs. Friedrichs: Well, I forone would rather see more landscaping here rather than black top for parking. Mr. Zimmer: Relative to the residential property to the south and the west, why did you locate the buildings 90' from the Chatham Village Shopping Center, and only 60' from the residential back yards? Mr. Diehl: We wanted to be as far away from the Shopping Center wall as possible. We thought we would just possibly put in more plantings. and screening along that side. Mr. Zimmer: Perhaps some of our questions about these people should concern their coming out of doors. What else will they be doing in the Service Center beside eating their meals? Mr. Wagensomer: The Service Center also contains a laundry room and a linen room, with washers and dryers. They can also sit and play cards. Mrs. Friedrichs: You say - no interior halls. You mean there is no gathering room in each building. Mr. Wagensomer: This so-called Laundry Room is a pretty nice room, just happens to have washers and dryers. Also has game tables. The Service Center also have the dining room, Administrative Offices, kitchen equipment, visiting nurses' offices as well as doctor's office. The doctor comes in once a month. . .not so much to give medical care, just to keep tabs on, say, blood pressure, etc. Mrs. Friedrichs: There is a game room, though, in this building? Mr. Wagensomer:IL Yes, a very large game room. Mrs. Friedrichs: Are the couple-apartments the same as the single units? Mr. Wagensomer: They have a sitting room as well as the other facilities, but do not have a dining area. There is a refrigerator, stove, and some cabinets. But we don't want them making breakfasts in their rooms. 6336 We have a system, if someone doesn't feel well, and doesn't show a up for a meal, one of the sisters will bring them their meal. Mr. Zimmer: Regarding that driveway out to Newburgh Road. As well as the parking situation. I would think that there ought to some sort of curbing on the school side of the driveway out to the road. Some sort of restrictive curbing or sidewalk to protect the kids walking along that rOad. Mr. Wagensomer: We are studying the flow of traffic at this location, and we will try to unscramble the confusion. Mr. Andrew: That particular driveway should be kept up as a fire lane, kept open at all times, especially on Sundays. Is there air-conditioning in these buildings? Mr. Diehl: The Center is completely air-conditioned, nothing exposed. Mr. Andrew: What about the exhaust fans from the kitchen? Mr. Diehl: Would go through to the rear or side walls, possibly two of them. Mr. Andrew: The exhaust fans would go straight up through the roof? Mr. Diehl: No, not through the roof - no equipment on the roof. Mr. Falk: Mr. Nagy, this proposal complies with our Ordinance #543, and the site has sufficient capacity with the exception of the parking area. You have looked at the site and you are pleased with everything shown? Mr. Nagy: Yes, everything seems to be in order with the exception of a provision for a sidewalk along the driveway, as well as a more detailed landscape plan and the parking deficiency. Mr. Falk: It is nice that we are fianlly doing something for the aged. This project is not federally funded. It will not involve any additional costs to the taxpayers, and appears to be fairly attractive center. At least it's not six stories high. One story furnished units is something we can be proud of in this city. I hope the rest of this Commission feels the same way. Mr. Diehl: I was under the impression that we had submitted a Landscape Plan and it had met with the approval of the Planning Department. • Mr. Nagy: Your site plan does incorporate landscaping treatment, but we feel it lacks detail around the. buildings themselves. More could be done regarding the screening as it rela Otto the commercial development on the north. Three to five trees are adequate for screening purposes. We would recommend that a more detailed landscape plan be brought back. This would not delay the project in any way. Mr. Andrew: We will make that a condition of the approval of the petition. Is IV there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-2-2-1 closed. 6336 a On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, it was #3-47-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on. Petition 77-2-2-1 as submitted by Diehl & Diehl, Architects for St. Edith Parish, requesting waiver use approval to construct a home for senior citizens on the south side of Five Mile Road between Blue Skies and Newburgh Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-2-1 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) A revised landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Department within 30 days. (2) Site Plan #1455, dated 2/14/77, prepared •by Diehl & Diehl, Architects, Inc. , be adhered to. (3) That the petitioner either receives approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals to reduce number of parking spaces required or revises site plan to increase the number of parking spaces to comply with the off-street parking requirements. (4) That this driveway leading east out to Newburgh Road include some sort of curbing or restriction to allow for pedestrian traffic along side. li; (5) Building elevations as shown on Plan #1455 be adhered to. (6) Sign design plan for any sign proposed to be located on the site be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 7.03(b) . (2) The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the intended use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner and all City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Preliminary Plat approval of Tanglewood Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Lyndon Avenue between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the DPW, Bureau of Inspection indicating that all lot sizes either meet or exceed zoning requirements; a letter from the Fire Department indicating the requirement of two more water hydrants in the area, as well as a letter from the Police Department relative to the fact that there is no alternate secondary exit out of this particular t area. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? 6337 Rodney Kropf: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the plan you have before you is a revised plan. The original plan has been reworked in order that we might be ableto save as many trees as possible in developing this area. We show the same number of lots as we originally showed - 31. The rezoning of this property was approved ten months ago. And we come before you with a plan that meets all the require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance in that area. Mr. Andrew: Yes, that is right - it appears that all lots do either meet or exceed zoning minimum. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak either for or against this petition? Dan Bailey: He says he will save the trees. The people who live near this land 14364 Park are not going to like this at all. My friends and I like to take long walks through the woods, but if they put in houses, we will not be able to do that any more. Elaine Burg: I do not like the idea of putting in new houses at the end of my street. 14729 Fair- The animals and children who live near there will have no place to go lane anymore. I would say they should leave it alone. We don't need any more homes here in Livonia, enough people now. Would like to see the land preserved for the people that are there now and the animals. Jim Hinsch: This area here has plenty of trees, people like to go walking through 14757 Fair- the woods. Senior citizens who live around here like to set up their lane lawn chairs near the woods and just sit and look into the woods. Once the trees are cut down, the animals who live in the woods will leave. I grew up in that area. I want to see the woods stay there so I can tell my kids that this is where I grew up. Kids like the woods. I don't like the idea of bringing in more people. Mrs. Scurto: How big is Madonna Park? Mr. Nagy: 13 1/2 acres. Mimi Burg: What happened to the petitions that we made up to "Save the woods"? 14729 Fair- It seems that City Council, in their wisdom, decided to rezone this lane property in spite of all our petitions. I feel this world is very muchmessed up. I feel the animals have just as much right to these woods as people who want to put up this subdivision. Dan Ritchie: I too feel that the woods should be preserved. I have an animal 14628 Fairway which I am very fond of, and I take him for a walk down to those woods we are talking about. This is the only place to walk him. If I don't keep him on a leash, the dog catcher will pick him up but he should also have a place to run free. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Ritchie, exactly where do you live? Mr. Ritchie then pointed to a section north of the map shown on the screen. Mrs. Friedrichs: Are there no trails in Madonna Park? • Mr. Ritchie: We are getting too closed in. Dan Bailey: Madonna College is fenced in, we cannot get into that area, near Levan and Schoolcraft. Mr. Andrew: We are not talking about the Madonna College property; we are talking about Madonna Park. 6338 Mrs. Friedrichs: Anybody can use it. ' Mr. Ritchie: But it is not as heavily wooded. There was no one else wishing to be heard on this item, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing closed on Preliminary Plat approval for Tanglewood Subdivision. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-48-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Tanglewood Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Lyndon Avenue between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is drawn in compliance with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. (2) It complies with the R-2 zoning district regulations on which the land is zoned. (3) It is consistent with good principles of subdivision design layout.1[ (4) It has good relationship to the adjoining subdivisions and parks in the area; subject to submittal of a plan for the subdivision entrance marker for Planning Commission review and approval before final plat approval, and the vacating of the south 17' of Lyndon Avenue right of way for the length of the subject property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to 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 Department. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. *Mr. Kluver arrived at the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-2-3-2 by Rodney Kropf requesting the vacating of the portion of the right-of-way of Lyndon Avenue located on the south side of Lyndon Avenue between Park and Fairway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Kropf. Rodney Kropf: This petition seeks to vacate 17' along the proposed Tanglewood Subdivision on Lyndon Avenue so that we can make the width of Lyndon ILAvenue uniform. This would create a uniformity of 60' . This was brought up when our Preliminary Plat was submitted to the City. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from anyone in the Commission or the audience? There was no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-2-3-2 closed. ' 6339 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was t #3-49-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-2-3-2 as submitted by Rodney Kropf requesting the vacating of the portion of the right-of-way of Lyndon Avenue located. on the south side of Lyndon Avenue between Park and Fairway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-3-2 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject 17' of right-of-way in this location, is, in fact, surplus right-of-way. • (2) No adjoining subdivisions or parcel has provided for right-of-way of a similar width. (3) The Engineering Division supports this petition. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/2/77, 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. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on tonight's agenda is Petition 77-1-1-1 by Donnell P. O'Callaghan, Attorney for Durr Land Company, to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Amrhein and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, from RUF to M-l. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in file regarding petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Engineering Division, indicating no engineering problems connected with the proposal, as well as a letter from the Industrial Coordinator . .. supporting the petitioner. Mr. Andrew: Is that the Bra-Con plant? Mr. Gilmartin: No, that building is to the south. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? D.O'Callaghan: Yes, I am here representing the Durr Land Company, who owns lots Attorney for 23, 24 and 25. They purchased this property in July of 1976 and Durr Land Co. moved in around the first of September. They have expanded considerably and have added a great number of employees, which constitutes the need for additional parking. We have an option to purchase additional land, but at this time there are no plans of tbuilding. Nothing too expensive would be added to the existing building, but we still would have to have parking available, with an exit onto Newburgh Road. We are in the paint finishing products business. We do work for GM, Ford, Vokswagon of America. 6340 (101Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, Woodview Drive, is that a paper street, would that have any effect on this property? I Mr. Nagy: Woodview is just a small unpaved road running east from Newburgh - no effect on this petition. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Falk: Where are the nearest homes? Mr. Nagy: Those blocks outlined in yellow indicate the homes in the area. There are some to the south and also across the street. Land across the street is zoned RUF. Mr. Falk: We are talking about changing this from RUF to M-l. Have the people who live in this area been notified of what we are doing here? Mr. Nagy: All residents within 500' have been notified. Mr. Falk: Well, then, I guess I will have to agree with the M-1 zoning even though it will be used for parking. Mr. Andrew: This change in zoning would be consistent with the Master Land Use Plan. Mrs. Wisler: Why is the northerly portion of the lot not included in this? Mr. Nagy: The northerly portion of the lot is already zoned M-1. Mrs. Scurto: Are there any other exits onto Newburgh Road? Are there any other buildings that have driveways from Globe to Newburgh? D.O'Callaghan: There are many others one is a boat shop, I believe. Mr. Andrew: There is no other public thoroughfare from Globe to Newburgh Road. Maybe there are some private drives, but no public thoroughfares. There was no one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-1-1-1. closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-50-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-1-1-1 by Donnell P. O'Callaghan, Attorney for Durr Land Company, to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Amrhein and Plymouth Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, from RUF to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-1-1-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is a logical and minor extension of the light manufacturing classification. (2) It will provide for uses already established in the abutting area. 1 (3) It is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, (4) The Industrial Development Coordinator supports the change of zoning. • 6341 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/17/77, and notice of such a hearing was sent to the Detroit. l 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. Friedrichs announced the next item on tonight's agenda as Petition 77-2-3-2 by James P. Heffner, Jr. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for auto rustproofing on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth Road and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Engineering Division, advising us that there are no city-maintained storm sewers along this right-of-way along Merriman Road. Also a letter from Mr. Dan Gilmartin, Industrial Development Coordinator, advising that strict standards in the operation of this business should be upheld if petition is approved, as well as a letter from Lorna Schaffer, 11905 Merriman, opposing this petition. Also, a• letter from Ralph L. 0 Grose, 11975 Merriman, in support of the petition. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Gilbert W. Savage: Yes, I will be representing the petitioner. I am the Architect. Mr. Andrew: Are you aware of the storm sewer difficulty? Mr. Savage: Yes, I checked with the Planning Department a few weeks ago. As far as that lady complaining about odors, we will install fuel oil for heating. And there will be no odors connected with the operation of this business. The odors involved would be no more offensive than if a person were wearing it on their clothes. Mr. Andrew: Do you have any controls for containing the spray in the spray booths? Mr. Savage: Our controls include having the spray fall to the floor rather than drift out into the atmosphere. Mr. Andrew: Your proposed overhead door - metal or wood? Mr. Savage: We can go either way, but we are planning on a wood door. We have remodeled other buildings in the area to fit this business, but this one will be the first proto-type of its kind. Mr. Andrew: I am wondering why you plan on a wooden overhead door, wouldn't there be constant painting required? 1110 Mr. Savage: Yes, a wooden door is a maintenance problem, more or less a houskeeping chore. But we have found, from our experience with our other buildings i in Ann Arbor, Troy, wherever, that the wood doors are better than the steel doors. True the steel doors do not have to be painted, but they really do not last as long. 6342 Mr. Andrew: Well, I feel that if this petition is approved, we would have to ILmake that a condition - that the door be properly maintained and painted every three years. Mr. Savage: No problem. Mr. Falk: Mr. Savage, you heard Mr. Nagy reading those letters. You want to see that building go up, and there is no opposition from the Industrial Development Department. But I do not think that what you want fits in with this area. A fellow came in before and wanted to store trailers and was turned down. There are other developed sites north of this area that meet the property set back requirements and all that as well as same sites on the east side of Merriman. I feel you could find another site more suitable if you really wanted to come to Livonia. But I do not feel that this place is the right place to put in this type of business. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Gilmartin, you had some contact between your office and this business2 Mr. Gilmartin: I did not talk to the owner personally. I was concerned about this particular type of business so I went over there-and learned that they drill holes into the body of the car, shoot into the body, and plug up the holes. While I was there, I was not overcome by any foul smell, the odor was not obnoxious. I would say they could handle about 10 vehicles a day. This is not an exorbitant number of cars. I certainly could not call this a mammoth operation. Mr. Andrew: Is there any question that we are in the right zoning district for li: this operation? Mr. Gilmartin: I believe the District is zoned M-1. Messrs. Nagy and Brzezinski agreed. Mr. Barth: .I am here representing the owners of this property. They are selling this land to Mr. Heffner who has a franchise for the Tufcote Processing Company. I would like to make some comments about the maintenance and exterior of the property. It is clean as a pin. I have seen Mr. Heffner's operation in Flint - very neat and clean, and I couldn't detect any bad odors. Mr. Andrew: Where is the closest Tufcote operation near here? Mr. Savage: There is one in Farmington. Mr. Barth: Yes, near Eight Mile and Merriman - on the north side of Eight Mile - on Orchard Lake Road - not really open yet. Mr. Andrew: How soon will it be open? Mr. Savage: As soon as we receive a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Andrew: Is it an existing building being re-worked? a Mr. Savage: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Are there any other new constructions in this area? • 6343 Mr. Savage: No, this would be the prototype. 11 Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? 4 Lorna Shaffer: Yes, I live directly south of this property, and I would like 11905 Merriman to ask if there will be any noise connected with this work? Mr. Savage: Very low decibel levels of noise. Equipment will be drilling into metal. Lorna Schaeffer: Will the doors be closed in the summer? Mr. Savage: No, the doors will be open in the summertime. • be Lorna Shaffer: I understand that there is going to/a repair shop here as well as Rustproofing Shop? Mr. Andrew: The rustproofing shop is all that is being petitioned. Automobile repair is a prohibited use. Lorna Shaffer: I have never seen one of these kinds of shops that was not excessively dirty. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Savage, based on her objections what happens if we decide to flip this building over - I mean, put the door on the north side. IL Mr. Savage: No problem. Mr. Andrew: Well, I feel that we should table this until our nest study session. It seems there are some problems to be worked out. Mr. Savage: Your city has a good set of zoning ordinances, set back and landscape requirements. It appears that this is the only zoning district that we can go into. Mrs. Scurto: What about Industrial Road - there is the same zoning along that road. Mr. Andrew: If this petition is approved will the residential house on the property be removed? Mr. Savage: Yes. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-51-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 8, 1977 on Petition 77-2-2-3 as submitted by James P. Heffner, Jr. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for auto rustproofing on the west side of Merriman Road between Plymouth and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-2-2-3 until next Study Session to be conducted on March 15, 1977. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew then invited Messrs. Savage, Barth, Gilmartin and Mrs. Schaffer to next week's study session at 8:00 p.m. if they so desire. 6344 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and adopted, it was #3-52-77 RESOLVED that, the CityPlanning Commission does hereby determine 1[0: to table the request for an extension of the approval of Petition 66-4-2-9 by Willard E. Lockwood requesting waiver use approval to operate, a farm produce market on the west half of Lot #6 and all of Lot #7 of Horton's Newburgh Subdivision located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between Newburgh Road and Horton Avenue in Section 13, until the next study session to be conducted on March 15, 1977. A roll call vote on the above motion resulted, in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Scruggs Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew then advised the Planning Department to invite Mr. Lockwood to the March 15th study session. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-53-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 25, 1977 on Petition 76-12-1-44 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #518-76 to rezone property located north and south of Fargo Avenue between Merriman Road and Sunset in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-3 and R-5, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 76-12-1-44 and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-54-77 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 2.06, Definitions Pertaining to Lots and Areas, by revising the definition of "Lot" . FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-55-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #113-77, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) 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 6345 whether or not to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman and Middlebelt Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from C-1 to RUF. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by. Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-56-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) .of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia, by changing the designation of that portion of Lyndon Avenue located between Levan Road and Parkview Cemetery in the East 1/2 of Section 20 and the West 1/2 of Section 21, from a one-half mile collector to a local street. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia, and a notice by registered United States mail IL shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or railroad within the City of Livonia in accordance 'with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Andrew 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 #3-57-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from L.R. Schrader for Koppy- Densmore Builders, proprietor of the proposed Tanglewood Subdivision, 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 Tanglewood Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Lyndon Avenue between Yale Avenue and Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, for the following reasons: (1) The subdivision is of such limited size that the amount of open space required would be meaningless. (2) A 13.3 acre public park is immediately adjacent on the west. (3) The subdivision is made up of 31 lots and all except three exceed the minimum lot area requirements of the R-2 zoning District 1110 regulations. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was 6346IL, #3-58-77 RESOLVED that, the minutes of 330th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on February 22, 1977 are approved. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 331st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on March 8, 1977 was ' adjourned at 11:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • ------ ;:-.7 .1e-4,. :2-?i..(LA,(..:A64,._ Esther Friedrichs, Secretary P1117 ATTEST: i / t Z ------ Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman