Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-04-05 6352 t MINUTES OF THE 333rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 5, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 333rd 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 8:15 p.m. , with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Joseph Falk William F_ Scruggs Suzanne Wisler Herman Kluver Judith Scurto William DuBose Members Absent: Jerome Zimmer. (vacation) Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Robert Brzezinski, Assistant 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 property, 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 site plan ir is denied, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. 4. Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary, then announced the first item on the agenda a rehearing of Petition 76-4-1-17 initiated by Council Resolution #113-77 pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, 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. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the. Engineering Division, indicating no problems in connection with this request for a change in zoning. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? R. King: I am very much in favor of having this land changed back to RUF 30445 Six Mi. zoning. In fact, it was my understanding at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, that Mr. Vargo would be allowed to expand this restaurant if he would also change the zoning of this land from C-1 to RUF. Mr. Andrew: Thank you, Mr. King. We appreciate your support of this petition. Is there anyone else wishing to be heard? Since there was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on this rehearing of Petition 76-4-1-17 closed. il:: • 6353 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, supported by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was • #4-69-77. RESOLVED that, pursuant to a rehearing having been held on April 5, 1977, on Petition 76-4-1-17 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Merriman and Middle= belt Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from C-1 to RUF, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-4-1-17 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The C-1 zoning is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Plan. (2) The subject C-1 zoning classification is inappropriate to the area . for reasons that, with the expansion of the parking zone to the rear and south of the established commercial use, the newly created parking zone is more conveniently located to the use it is intended • to serve, thereby eliminating the necessity for parking in this location. (3) The C-1 zoning and development is incompatible with and detrimental to the surrounding and established residential uses of the abutting neighborhood. (4) The C-1 zoning in this location should be removed so as to preserve the residential development and character of the abutting neighborhoods. (5) The C-1 zoning, if left remaining 'in this location, would tend to encourage the further expansion of .commercial zoning in the area and with this change of zoning, that eventually would be eliminated. (6) This proposed rezoning is in accordance with a condition as established by the Zoning Board of Appeals. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above Public Hearing was published in theofficial newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 3/17/77, 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. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the above, motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-3-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 2.06 Definitions Pertaining to Lots and Areas, of Ordinance #543, by revising the definition of "Lot". Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission to amend the definition of the word "lot" in the Zoning Ordinance. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Since there was no one present wishing to speak on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petiton 77-3-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #4-70-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 5, 1977 on Petition 77-3-6-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Section 2.06, Definitions Pertaining to Lots and Areas, by revising the definition of "Lot", the City • 6354 Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-6-4 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Clarification is .necessary in order to properly apply the special standards of the Ordinance as they relate to minimum acreage requirements. (2) This amendment is supported by the Department of Law. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 3/17/77 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. • Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 77-3-7-1 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to -amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, 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 West 1/2 of Section 21, from a one-half mile collector to a local street. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to amend the Master Thoroughfare Plan to show that Lyndon Avenue located between Levan Road and the cemetery should be changed from a one-half mile collector road to a local street. Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence relative to this petition in the file? Mr. Nagy: Yes, the Engineering Division indicates that they feel that this petition should not be granted, for those reasons setforth in their letter. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Resident: The letter that we got states that you want to widen this street and open it up as a half-mile thoroughfare. Mr. Andrew: I'm sorry, but I feel that you have misunderstood the letter. We are just simply trying to reduce this road from a half-mile collector road, which requires 86' of right-of-way, to a local street, which only includes 60' of right-of-way. We have no plans to either widen it, or make any special assessments. Resident: Well, I am not too concerned about any more assessments, but we do worry about the traffic problems if they open up this street. Mr. Andrew: There would be no additional traffic on this street, probably just the reverse. Resident: Just what is the difference between a collector road and a local street? 6355 IL Mr. Andrew: Principally, in checking the Glossary of Terms, a collector road does just that - collects traffic from a subdivision and funnels it out to the main roads; whereas local street designates those streets - running through a subdivision. We have been informed by the Engineering Division that by changing this from a collector road to a local street would result in a substantial loss of revenue from the State, because we do receive funds from them on certain improved roadways. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw this petition, , but we are required to hold a Public Hearing. . There will be no changes whatsoever to this road - Lyndon Avenue. Are there any more questions? Since there were no more questions, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-7-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously' adopted, • it was #4-71-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 5, 1977 on Petition 77-3-7-1 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, 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, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 77-3-7-1 and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. 1[0 ' Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 77-3-2-4 by Burger Chef requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing facility located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this • petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated March 29, 1977 from the Bureau of Inspection indicating that this new addition would leave only 52' setback from Five Mile Road, which is deficient 8' from the 60' requirement, as well as a deficiency of three parking spaces. Also, a letter from the Traffic Department of the Police also noting the three parking space deficiency, but other than that, no foreseeable problems with the adjacent parking area. Also, a letter from the Fire Department noting no objections to the addition as shown. Also, a letter from Harry Spoon, consenting to the petition. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Mr. Mawhinney: Yes, I am the Regional Construction Manager for the Burger Chef 11 Lakepoint chain. I would like to point out that since we remodeled this location St.Peters, about two years ago, additional items have been added to the menu, Missouri including a steak plate, as well as a fish plate. There is more sit- down traffic in the store, and I must say that your parking requirements based on a 2 to 1 ratio are a little more stringent than we have ever a run into before. A study ,that we made shows that the average car stopping at our restaurants carries an average of 2.6 people. This would mean 130 people minimum for 50 parking spaces. This particular unit shows that the seating capacity was reached long before the parking lot is filled up. I have even seen people taking a salad 6356 out to their car and eating it there, because there was no room on the inside. ' We just simply want to provide an additional 28 seats. That is { about the maximum this location could take. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Mawhinney, I see two serious problems here: 1) a deficient front yard setback, and 2) deficient parking area, as these requirements relate to the City. We cannot take any action which would approve this petition because you are in violation of the Ordinance. Mrs. Wisler: Is this a separate tax parcel from the shopping center? Mr. Mawhinney: I spent 45 minutes before the Zoning Board of Appeals trying to explain this situation. We rent this property from the Spoon Bros. Mr. Andrew: Yes, Burger Chef is the lessee in this case, and it is a separate tax parcel in connection with the shopping center. Mr. Scruggs: Regarding the other entrances to your store from the shopping center's parking lot, after you moved into the building did you provide for that combination or was it shown on the site plan which was approved? Mr. Mawhinney: They were shown on the approved plan. Mr. Scruggs: We cannot act on this petition if it is in violation of the ordinance. Is that correct Mr. Chairman? Mr. Andrew: We cannot approve it, but we can deny it. I feel that the wise move on the part of this Commission would be to deny this petition, and then inform the petitioner of his right to appeal to Council. Mr. Mawhinney: Would your action on my petition prejudice the Council in any way? Mr. Andrew: No, it shouldn't. In fact, one of the members of this Commission will be at that Council meeting. • Mrs. Friedrichs: Personally, I have no objections whatsoever to giving them additional seating. If they meet the other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Andrew: In all fairness, we should deny this petition so that you can appeal to the City Council. This must be done within 10 days. There was no one else wishing to be heard on ,this petition, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing closed on this item. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #4-72-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 5, 1977 on Petition 77-3-2-4 by Burger Chef requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing facility located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-2-4 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposal does not meet the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The proposal does not meet the required building setback regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. 6357 (3) The site lacks the capacity to support the increase in use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew, announced that the public hearing portion of the meeting is concluded. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was #4-73-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Francavilla Subdivision proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Farmington and Six Mile Roads in Section 9, Phase II, for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Engineering Division recommends approval. (3) The Final Plat conforms to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance #543 of the City of Livonia. (4) All of the financial assurances imposed upon the proprietor by Council Resolution #1078-76 have been complied with. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and adopted, it was #4-74-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised Site and Landscape Plan submitted in connection with conditions of approval of Petition 77-2-2-1 by Diehl & Diehl, Architects for St. Edith Parish, requesting 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, subject to the following conditions: (1) that the revised Site and Landscape Plan dated 3/21/77, prepared by Diehl & Diehl, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that the approval of this revised Site Plan and Landscaping per- tains to that portion of the site proposed for senior citizen development only and supersedes the previously approved site plan; (3) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved revised Site Plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; (4) that a sign design plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval for any signs proposed to be erected on the site; and for the following reason: (1) The proposed use is of such location, size and character that it will be in harmony with the surrounding uses of the area. 6358 ti 1[0 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: DuBose, Scruggs, Friedrichs, Wisler, Falk, Kluver, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Scurto ABSENT: Zimmer • Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #4-75-77 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 331st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the Planning Commission on March 8, 1977 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Friedrichs, Scruggs, Wisler, Falk, Kluver, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: DuBose ABSENT: Zimmer Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, to it was #4-76-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated March 18, 1977 from Arthur Pollack requesting a one-year extension of approval of Petition 76-2-8-2 submitted by Arthur Pollack requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by Ordinance #786, in connection with a proposal to construct apartment units on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Six Mile Road in Section 12, 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 the same conditions, as were set forth in the original approving resolution #2-23-76, adopted by the City Planning Commission on February 23, 1976. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • The following is a discussion between Mr. Clifford Arnott, 860 Hemingway, Lake Orion, Michigan, representative of Allied Supermarkets, Inc. , and Mr. Gilbert Savage, 1025 E. Maple, Birmingham, Michigan, Architect for Tuf-Kote Auto Rustproofing Company regarding conditions in and around the proposed auto rustproofing establishment: Mr. Arnott: Allied Supermarkets would like to know what chemicals are used in conducting the rustproofing of the cars? • Mr. Savage: I was of the impression that you had called Tuf-Kote directly for this information. This is a patented formula, and I have no authority to divulge any of this material to you. Mr. Arnott: I do not need specifics, just general information. 6359 Mr. Savage: I' have an outline here (which he then presented to Mr. Andrew) who read from the outline aloud for all to hear, as follows: "TK 1010 and TK 1014 . . . Both contain a Rule "66" mineral spirits. The vapor pressure at 68 degrees F. is only 2mm of Mercury indicating 4 a low volatility, flash point is 107 degrees F. or greater. Rule 66 solvent is solvent controlled for cleaner air and formulated with a non-photochemically reactive solvent blend as defined in Section K, Rule 66, Air Pollution Control District - County of Los Angeles, June 15, 1966 as adopted July 28, 1966. Probably maximum of solvent liberated any one day 4 to 5 gallons." Mr. Arnott: Will there be individual spray booths for each car? Mr. Savage: No. Mr. Arnott: Are your employees required to wear any protective clothing? Mr. Savage: No. Mr. Arnott: What type of exhaust ventilation system do you have for the building? Mr. Savage: We have an exhaust fan on the roof, which is required by law. Mr. Arnott: No pollution control? Mr. Savage: None is required. 1 i4 Mr. Arnott: What about your drainage system? Mr. Savage: Drainage system extends to parking lot, which is for cars after rustproofing work is completed. At other locations, we have experienced noproblems with excessive drippings. Mr. Arnott: Have you planned for any expansion .of pollution controls? Mr. Savage: No, not as yet, but will be considered if you feel it is necessary. Mr. Arnott: What level are the fumes? Mr. Savage: All fumes are emitted into the air. Mr. Arnott: The solvent only? Mr. Savage: That is the only item that is lighter than air. Mr. Arnott: Do you know of any health hazards to people with regard to your process? Mr. Savage: No, never heard of anyone becoming ill near any of our locations. Mr. Arnott: Do you know of any possibility of your materials contaiminating food? Mr. Savage: No. Mr. Arnott: Are there any known carcinogens in your materials? i 6360 11 Mr. Savage: Not to my knowledge. Mr. Arnott: To the Planning Commission, I just want to point out that many local agencies keep in touch with our organization. . .Michigan Department of Agriculture, Wayne County Air Pollution Control . . . and we have no recourse here at 'Allied .Supermarkets. ' They are the ones who regulate us. Our concern is to turn out a pure product to the people. Dennis Morris: How does the State of Michigan determine the approval of the Rule 66 Industrial ingredient? Are they as strict as the County of Los Angeles? Clinic Mr. Andrew: I would think that the county of Los Angeles is extremely more stringent with their Pollution Control standards than the tate of Michigan. In fact, Bob (Mr. Brzezinski) , somewhere in the Ordinance doesn't it refer to the Los Angeles Air Pollution Control Ordinance? Mr. Brzezinski: Yes, and I would want to say at this time that there is a new Public Health Officer coming around to the various departments pointing out to us certain restrictions that do prevail in the area. Mr. Savage: We are as much in favor of clean air as Allied Supermarkets or anyone else. Air pollution has never been any problem at any of our locations. At Tuf-Kote World Headquarters, they claim that good clean air makes good neighbors. ti Mr. Andrew: Any more questions? H. Dilley: I Would just like to add that we are very much concerned with our 42111 products for the main reason that they are food products. Some Brentwood are very sensitive products, and any little bit of fumes in the air Plymouth can be transported through the atmosphere giving these products an off-taste, such as cottage cheese, milk, baked goods, etc. Concerning the volatile gases, we take milk in from tank trucks, right along side of Merriman Road. Mr. Andrew: This building is on the extreme east side? Mr. Dilley: This building is the most easterly building in the whole complex. Small, amounts of volatile gases can affect the products if they were to get into the air filtering system. This is one of the concerns we don't want to have happen to any of the products that we sell to the people in this area. We are just being cautious. Also, we are on the same common sewage system as this proposed business. Mr. Andrew: There must be some sort of oil separator going into the public sewer. Mr. Dilley: What about a back-up? MR. Savage: We would be down stream from Allied Supermarkets. All sewage water then drains into Merriman Road. Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Dilley, is there any one particular fault that you are looking for? 4 Mr. Dilley: I am just being cautious and looking for any volatile materials. 4 Mr. Scruggs: Is there anything you are suspicious of? Mr. Dilley: Anything - say like onions. 6361 il Mr. Scruggs: They are east of you, and a little bit north. Generally, the prevailing winds run from you to them, rather than from them to you. I would say that that is something in their favor. Perhaps, we should look into this whole situation a little more closely. Mr. Arnott: After consulting with the Weather Bureau, we found that 18% of the time there are prevailing winds from the easterly direction. , That is what is known as "thermal inversion." Mr. Andrew: Mr. Arnott, how long would it take your company to analyze the solvent? Could we have a decision between now and April 19th? Mr. Arnott: Yes, that would be possible. . It was then decided that the whole matter would be reconsidered, and tabled to a later meeting as follows: On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #4-77-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to reconsider action taken in Resolution #3-59-77, adopted on March 22, 1977, wherein a recommendation was made to the City Council to approve 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. 4 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was . #4-78-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission having held a Public Hearing 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, and having determined to reconsider its action taken in Resolution #3-59-77, adopted on March 22, 1977, does hereby determine to table Petition 77-2-2-3 until the Special Meeting to be conducted on April 19,1977. 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 adopted it was #4-79-77 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 332nd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning ,Commission on March 22, 1977 be approved. 4 4 i 6362 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 3 AYES: Scruggs, Scurto, Wisler, DuBose, Falk, Kluver, Andrew NAYS: None s ABSTAIN: Friedrichs ABSENT: Zimmer • Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution, adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 333rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 5, 1977 was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 /��. r st Q `c Secretary Friedrichs, Ct91ATTEST: /%'��:%G�'` . Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman 4 4 1 • I