Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-05-17 6387 MINUTES OF THE 335th REGULAR MEETING a AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May.17, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 335th 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 8:05 p.m. with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew William F. Scruggs Esther Friedrichs Judith Scurto Joseph Falk Jerome Zimmer Suzanne Wisler Herman Kluver William Dubose Members Absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; 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 vacating or rezoning any property,, this Commission only makes a recommendation 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 use request or site plan is denied, the petitioner then has then days in which to appeal the decision to the Council. Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary announced the first item on the Agenda Petition 77-3-1-4 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering indicating no problems with this proposal; also a letter from Mr. Paul R. Orlando, 21732 Roosevelt Avenue, Farmington Hills, expressing support of this petition. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to rezone land in an RUF district to Public Land in order to reflect public ownership of the property. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to speak on this petition, Mr. Andrew, declared the Public Hearing Petition 77-3-1-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-94-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 77-3-1-4 on May 17, 1977 submitted by the City Planning Commission to rezone property on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6, from RUFC to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-1-4 be approved for the following reasons: 6388 4 (1) It is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having all public lands zoned in a public lands classification. 4 (2) With the proposed change of zoning, the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia will reflect the public ownership and use of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/26/77, 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 declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-3-1-5 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh and Gill Roads in the South 1/2 of Section 5, from RUFC to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering indicating no problems 14410 with this proposal. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. Andrew: Again, this is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to rezone land in an RUF district to Public Land (PL) in order to show public ownership of the property. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? M.Fandrei: I just would like to have a bit of information. What is the 19578 Fitzgerald distance between that area to be rezoned and the houses on Fitzgerald? Mr. Nagy: There are two Public Land areas east of Fitzgerald, and the School District also has a park site there. I would say that the depth of the lots facing Fitzgerald are probably 350' or more plus the depth of the undeveloped public lands, therefore, the total depth maybe in excess of 600 feet. Mr. Fandrei: What is the purpose of rezoning this land - to build ball diamonds, bike trails, what? Mr. Andrew: The purpose for the rezoning is to reflect public ownership of the land. It is not owned by any private individuals; therefore, it must carry a Public Land classification as opposed to RUF. Mr'. Fandrei: If you classify this as Public Land, can you develop that into a park site without having another meeting? Mr. Nagy: This Commission administers only the Zoning classification of the property. We can only indicate the zoning of land. The Parks and Recreation Department controls the park sites. They would be the ones to contact with regard to specific plans on its use. There is also a Parks & Recreation Commission that sets policy for that department. 6389 4 Mr. Fandrei: Well, what about some kind of buffer zone between this land and the property owners along Fitzgerald? Mr. Nagy: In the actual development of general park planning, those kind of things, such as buffer treatments - shrubs, trees, etc. , remain the responsibility of the Parks & Recreation Department. Rotary Park is a good example of how shrubbery and berming has been used as a buffer. But that is the responsibility of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments? Mrs. Schulz: What will. happen to Pembroke, the east-west street up in this area? 19736 Fitz- Will that get a lot of traffic if they do decide to develop this gerald into a Park? Mr. Andrew: I am sure that any access to the park would come directly off of Seven Mile Road. Mrs. Schulz: Can we check this out at Pierson? Mr. Andrew: Yes, go right in and talk with Mr. Dufour. Any more questions or comments? There was no one else present wishing to speak further on this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-1-5 closed. 1[0 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-95-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977 on Petition 77-3-1-5 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Newburgh and Gill Roads in the South 1/2 of Section 5, from RUFC to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-1-5 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having all public lands zoned in a public lands classification. (2) With the proposed change of zoning, the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia will reflect the public ownership and use of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/26/77, 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. II Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6390 Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 77-3-1-2 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located between Five and Six Mile Roads and between Levan Road and Edgewood in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16 and the East 1/2 of Section 17., from R-2-A and AG to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition. Mr. Nagy: No, correspondence. Mr. Andrew: Again, we have another petition to rezone land from a residential as well as agricultural classification to Public Land classification in order to reflect public ownership of the property. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one wishing to speak on this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-1-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-96-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977 on Petition 77-3-1-2. as submitted by the City Planning Commission IIto rezone property located between Five and Six Mile Roads and between Levan Road and Edgewood in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 16 and the East 1/2 of Section 17, from R-2-A and AG to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition i 77-3-1-2 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having all public lands zoned in a public lands classification. (2) With the proposed change of zoning, the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia will reflect the public ownership and use of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/26/77, 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 is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-4-1-10 by the Vacri Land Development Company to rezone property located south of Six Mile Road between Merriman Road and Oporto in the North 1/2 of Section 14, 1[(from RUFA, RUFC & C-1 to R-2-B. Mr. Andrew: What is the total acreage involved in this petition? Mr. Nagy: Seven and three-quarters acres. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding the petition. I • 6391 Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering indicating that the Legal Description submitted by the developer meets with approval. In the event the Henry Ruff right-of-way is vacated, former public t right-of-way will attach to Lot #16. . .etc. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, this Commission did take action on a petition to rezone that parcel of land adjacent to Vargo's restaurant from C-1 to RUF --- where does that petition stand now? Mr. Nagy: That petition has been forwarded on to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. It is now pending before the Council hearing to be held sometime in June. Mr. Andrew: Is that piece of property included in this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is that parcel presently shown as zoned C-1. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? • R.Paciocco: Yes, I am the Vice-President of the Vacri Land Development Company, 36776 Vargo and I would like to see this property rezoned from RUF to R-2. Mr. Andrew: If you should be successful in having this land rezoned, how soon would you begin the development? Mr.Paciocco: As soon as we could get a Preliminary Plat approval, Engineering 4 Division approval, City Council approval and so on . . .then we would go ahead with construction. 4 Mr. Andrew: So your timetable might indicate fall construction. Mr. Paciocco: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Paciocco, what type of homes are you planning to build - I mean price range? Mr. Paciocco: There would be a mixture of ranches and colonial, probably close to $55,000 or $60,000. It is pretty hard for me to say exactly, I will be selling lots to individual residential builders. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Paciocco, in the economic analysis of this site, are you confined to an R-2 zoning classification, or could you go to larger lots and still acquire sufficient economic benefits to yourself? be Mr. Paciocco: I feel it would/economically impossible to go to larger lots. With all the improvements needed, easements for utilities, with all that it would be almost impossible to go with larger lots. Mr. Kluver: In other words, R-2 would be the largest. Mr. .Paciocco: Yes, that's right. • Mr. Zimmer: As far.as access to your property, are you planning on entering off of Six Mile Road? Mr. Paciocco: Yes, I feel that the entrance would be off of Six Mile Road; perhaps there would be a cul-de-sac backing up to the parking lot behind Vargo'!"- 6392 Mr. Kluver: I thought this petition was a basic issue of rezoning. Mr. Andrew:'li Yes, it is. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Paciocco, have you looked at any other land in the City for development. I have great reservations about letting another subdivision go in there. Mr. Paciocco: I have tried to purchase that land to the west, but Mr. King doesn't want to sell. If he doesn't want to sell, I just can't go any farther. Mr. Falk: I don't really have a question, but I do want to say that that land has been up for development for the last two years. . . . multiples, catering place, etc. , but we want to stop any more commercial development going west. From a selfish point of view, I see nothing wrong with residential development here. Look at the attractive sub going in at Six Mile and Farmington. With this petition at least we are getting what we want that conforms to the Master Land Use Plan. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Paciocco, how many lots are you planning to put in here? Mr. Paciocco: Approximately 24 lots. Mrs. Wisler: What would that amount be if it were zoned R-3? Mr. Nagy: Would lose at least two lots. Mrs. Wisler: Twenty-two seems lily enough. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Paciocco, your rezoning petition calls for an R-2-B zoning district which requires minimum square footage of 1300 square feet, amending this to a C district would require 1500 square feet. Is that possible with your plans? Mr. Paciocco: I would say that the ranchesto be built will be at least 1500 square feet, and the colonials between 1800 and 1900 square feet. Mr. Andrew: The minimum for a colonial is 1800. So you feel that any residential builder could live with a C classification? Mr. Paciocco: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Robert King: First of all, I feel there has been very much a lack of faith 30445 6 Mi. involved in this. We had a meeting with the City Council, and it was agreed by Mr. Vargo that he would change his land from C-1 to RUF if he could get the expansion of his building. At the time, I thought it was all cut and dried. .he would not sell the property. I don't think there should be any consideration of changing the zoning in that area until something is done about the flooding. All the water drains into a dinky little creek. All the people 1[0: there have the same problem, all drains into Bell Creek. I don't think any zoning should be changed until Engineering decides what they will do. A tube there will knock out the great huge trees. Those trees are probably 100 years old. I 6393 Mr. Andrew: In all fairness, I must say that the petitioner does not know what Engineering will require, but we do have to assume that there will be both on-site and off-site improvements installed in connection with storm waters and drainage in that area. They may not be able to save the trees. Mr. Kluver: I don't think putting in 24 homes is going to help. The City did nothing about the drainage there when they widened Six Mile. Mr. Andrew: Well, we must admit there is a problem with drainge there. Mrs. King: I would just like to speak of the quality of life in Livonia. When 30445 6 Mi. we moved into that section, we moved because of the quietness and isolation, as well as the trees and all the wildlife. All the neighbors nurture the wildlife. What is going to happen to them? What is going to happen to our lives? All the trees will be cut down just so they can build 24 homes. What about air pollution? How is this development going to help the people who already live there? G.Eisenstein: Evidently, the Engineering people have had a change of heart 16581 Henry because they talked about a public right-of-way providing public - Ruff access. . .storm sewers. . .full width easement by retaining full right- of-way. Mr. Nagy again read the letter from the Division of Engineering. Mr. Andrew: Do you feel, Mr. Nagy, that this is contrary to the original letter? Mr. Nagy: No, the Engineering Division's letter is in regard to Petition 77-3-3-3 proposed to vacate Henry Ruff without any knowledge of this rezoning petition from the Vacri Development Company. They were thinking of the need to bring a storm sewer from the newly extended parking lot down to Bell Creek. Mr. Andrew: So the vacating of Henry Ruff stands tabled. There is no reason why the Engineering Department would take the position that the vacating of Henry Ruff, without a retention of easements for storm water, would be a logical move on our part given this latest proposal of residential development. Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is right. Mr. Eisenstein: I would like to point out further that any land development for residential building proposed by Mr. Paciocco would not be consistent with the neighborhood as it stands now. I feel that 1500 and 1800 square foot homes are not large homes. Back in May, 1975 the Planning Commission talked about establishing residential areas of low density. Would you call smaller homes on 70 x 120ft. lots low density? Would certainly conflict with the rest of the neighborhood. Lillian Owens: We have about 2 1/2 acres, and I certainly wouldn't want to see 29286 Munger smaller homes come into this area. We would like to have the zoning stay as it is now. If it has to be rezoned, why not make the lots at least an acre big? Mr. Scruggs: Mrs. Owens, where is your property? 6394 Virginia Mae I certainly wouldn't like to see little homes go in there because I Brandt: have four acres right on the corner of Henry Ruff and Munger. They 30175 Munger would have to fill in the creek across from my property in order to bring in any new homes on the north side. And what about all that traffic from Six Mile? J.Pressotto: We bought here quite a while ago and had to get a C-1 zoning 30533 6 Mi. changed back to RUF. We would like to see RUF zoning in the whole area. I live next to the Kings and my reason for coming here tonight - we don't blame this gentleman or his development purposes. He is a business man, and I am sure he will have only nice homes but I feel that the lots are too small. How much is a 70' x 120' lot - 1/2 acre? Mr. Andrew: 1/5 acre. Mr. Pressotto: Most of the homes here are on two acres, and some of these people have 4 1/2 and 5 acre parcels. Their homes are expensive homes, and if we get smaller homes in the area, that would just destroy the whole look of the area. If the Planning Commission does decide to go ahead and have this parcel changed so that this developer can put in the type of homes that he has mentioned here tonight, I would say that Munger should be extended right on down to Middlebelt and the people in this area could then get the developer to develop their land. . .we will then sell off all our acreage. But most of us don't want that. We like the wilderness and the woods. We don't 1[4: want a subdivision in the midst of our homes out in the country. That would ruin the whole neighborhood. Steve Brown: I represent the Merri-Six Homeowners Association, and as far as that 31500 Vargo new subdivision on the corner of Six Mile and Farmington, that is zoned R-3 with 80 x 120 ft. lots. In checking this petition, I was told that either an R-3 or R-2 zoning would stop any further commercial development along Six Mile. Well, why can't an RUF zoning stop commercial development too? We are definitely against this petition for the simple reason that when we moved into this area we wanted large lots and large trees. When they built that one up at Six Mile and Farmington, numerous trees were torn down. The same thing would probably happen here. Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Brown, just what area is it that you are representing? Mr. Brown: South of Six Mile, maybe over to Hubbard, that area around Vargo's. Resident: Just want to say that I support my neighbors' statements regarding 29640 Munger this new subdivision. We moved in last year to a new home on Munger on an one-acre lot. We moved out here into an RUF district because we liked the idea of large lots and all the wildlife. This is one of the last areas in the City where we still have a bit of country living. Mr.Gallagher: We moved out here a year and a-half ago on Lot #55 which is 1 3/4 29991 Munger acres. We built there because we looked high and low wanting a large t piece of property where we could have some privacy. We moved from the Wonderland Center area. If they start building 24 houses down Munger, do you realize the traffic that will create? 6395 And why is it that we didn't get any notice of this Planning Commission meeting? We only heard about it from a few of the neighbors who did 1[4140 get a letter. Mr. Andrew: Everyone who lives within 500 feet of the property under petition receives a notification by mail. We use the tax rolls of the City. If you purchased your land on a Land Contract, the holder of Land Contract would be the one to receive the notice. Mr. Gallagher: Nobody on Munger got a letter from the City. We just want you to know that we are very concerned about this, especially if it means an increase in traffic. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, didn't anyone on Munger receive a notification of this Public Hearing? Mr. Shaneread from the Proof of Service those people to whom a notification was sent. Helen Meyers: Well the traffic on Oporto will be unbearable. Oporto is a small 16945 Oporto street now, and any more traffic will just make it worse, coming in from Six Mile. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Paciocco, there has been so much discussion about traffic - could you tell this Commission just what you plan regarding access to this site? 11 a Mr. Paciocco: I was thinking of putting in a road on the right-of-way of Henry Ruff heading north, with cul-de-sacs winding around; also coming in from Munger and Middlebelt, as well as Oporto and Six Mile. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, what is the frontage of the property along Six Mile Road? Mr. Nagy: 173 feet. Frank Brodick: The back of my property touches Vargo's restaurant. You are talking 16971 Oporto about traffic coming in from Six Mile into the subdivision. I feel that 24 homes on 7 and 3/4 acres will have a bad effect on the drainage in that area. That is what it is all about. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Brodick, I don't agree with your statement. There will be improvements made with regard to the drainage if this petition and the whole plan goes through. Mr. Brodick: We get nothing. The C-1 district was to be changed back to RUF. John Bartus: We moved to get some country living - enjoy the animals. Get away 30069 Munger from traffic. This particular area is unique, the last one like it in the whole City and we are trying to get away from subdivisions. Mrs. Wisler: Who now owns the property under question? ILMr.Paciocco: I have a purchase agreement with Mr. Vargo, but the final transaction has not yet gone through. Mr. Zimmer: This flooding situation - isn't thereanything currently going on that deals with this problem as far as the City is concerned? What about Engineering? I 6396 • Mr. Andrew: There is nothing going on right now. 9 Mr. Nagy: There is nothing by way of any drainage improvements. Engineering feels that the flood plain will be left in a permanent open state. Mrs. Friedrichs: Well, I would like to have some information from Engineering regarding this flooding and easement situation. I think there is a real problem here and something should be done to correct it. I am opposed to an R-2 classification here, but I feel an R-3 with larger lot sizes would be more in conformance with the neighborhood. Mr. Scruggs: I went driving around this area yesterday, and my first impression was that there could be a nice development here. I am sure that Paciocco would do an excellent job. He is presently building the Francavilla Sub at Six Mile and Farmington, and it is lovely. But there is no question that putting this type of development into this particular area would not be compatible. I feel that I would have to vote NO on this petition. Mr. Falk: Well, I have a different point of view. We keep saying we don't want high-density apartments - don't want professional service buildings - well what do we want? If we keep denying everything that comes before us , we may not have anything before us any more. I feel we should table this petition and look into it further. 1!: Mr. Andrew: Mr. Paciocco, several members of this Commission have made comments relative to the possibility of an R-3 zoning. Would you please answer whether or not you could amend your petition to indicate an R-3-C zoning as opposed to an R-2-B? Mr. Paciocco: Not much difference between R-2 and R-3 - whether a house is on a 70 ft. lot or an 80 ft. lot - just about the same thing. Nobody could tell the difference. I would urge the Commission to go on with the R-2 zoning. As you know, trees will fall within the right-of-way. Trees will die if there is too much fill around them. Not much difference between R-2 and R-3. Stay with R-2. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-4-1-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk and adopted, it was #5-97-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 77-4-1-10 as submitted by the Vacri Land Development Company to rezone property located south of Six Mile Road between Merriman and Oporto in the North 1/2 of Section 14, from RUFA, RUFC and C-1 to R-2-B, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-4-1-10 until the Study Meeting to be conducted on May 24, 1977. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew then invited the petitioner, as well as a small group of concerned residents, to the Study Meeting to be held May 24, 1977. 6397 10- Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-4-2-6 by Henry Sonagere requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing building located on the east side of Levan Road between Five Mile and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering indicating no problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? H.Sonagere: I simply need more room for storage, as well as two more runs. 15200 Levan Have had to turn down some animals as I have no room to keep them. Mr. Andrew: These runs are totally enclosed? Mr.Sonagere: Yes, they are. Mr. Andrew: • Do the plans for the addition meet with the existing architecture of the building? Mr. Nagy: In all ways . . . same material - same design. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission or the audience? 11: Since there was no one wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-4-2-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-98-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977 on Petition 77-4-2-6 as submitted by Henry Sonagere requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing building located on the east side of Levan Road between Five Mile and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-4-2-6 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #77.08, Sheet A-1, dated 4/6/77, prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #77.08, Sheet A-3, dated 4/6/77, prepared by Kamp-DiComo Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that all landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan #77.08 shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate , of Occupancy. IL for the following reasons: (1) It complies with the C-2 zoning district regulations and the specific waiver use standards of the Ordinance as they relate to veterinary clinics. 6398 1[1: (2) 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 City Depart- ments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-4-1-9 by Philip and Maria Pisto to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering dated 4/22/77 advising that there are no storm or sanitary sewers in this area. . .etc. you Mr. Andrew: Mr. Pisto, would/please explain your reasons for this rezoning request? Mr. Pisto: I want to put in stores here. There are stores over here and I would like to put in more. I know there is no sewer - just a dry well. But there is a 2" main coming in from Farmington Road, as well as one across the street. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Pisto, if you are successful in getting this zoning changed, what about the buildings on the property to the east? Are you going to just extend your present building? Mr. Pisto: I just want to make commercial - a few more stores. Mr. Andrew: This Commission sees one major problem. The Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia does not provide for C-2 zoning west of your existing property line. I mean that parcel where you want to put in retail stores. Why should we go contrary to the Master Land Use Plan and rezone this property from residential to commercial? It might continue right down to Gill Road. Mr. Pisto: I can't go any more east. I have to go to the west. I feel that with a few stores, it will look better. Mr. Andrew: Do you own the property -- free and clear? Mr. Pisto: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mr. Kluver: It seems to me that we have been living through two phases of this man's development, and here we are back again. First he had parking IL deficiencies, but obtained relief from the Zoning Board of Appeals. I simply cannot support any additional commercial development. I can't understand what he would do with any more development. The exterior appearance is far from being in any way attractive and according to the Master Land Use Plan this proposal is in conflict. I 6399 Mr. Pisto: I have done everything they wanted. Mrs. Scurto: I have been sitting here listening to all this, and I want to say that I went by this corner today and it looked at least 250% better today than it did last Friday. I wonder if that would have anything to do with the fact that this meeting is being held tonight. I shudder every time I pass that corner and see this shopping center. The landscaping and the maintenance leave much to be desired. I am sure that people coming into our City from the north end of town are not too impressed with this spot. I simply cannot support a change in zoning to C-2. Rocco Pisto: I am the son of this man, and I am wondering what kind of maintenance 27147 Ann rules me have to follow. It seems we are always picking up dirt Arbor Trail and trash in the parking lot, and I know - I am the one who does the work. Mr. Andrew: I would say that on two different occasions this Commission has approved landscaping plans for this site. It is required that all plantings be maintained in a clean healthy condition. That is not being followed. And the signs in the windows are an eyesore. Mr. Pisto: I have no control over the signs that the tenants put in the windows. Mr. Andrew: Sandwich boards are not allowed in the City of Livonia. You are the landlord of this property, and these signs are a violation of the ordinance. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this petition and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-4-1-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and adopted,it was #5-99-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977 on Petition 77-4-1-9 as submitted by Philip and Maria Pisto to rezone property located on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-4-1-9 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia. (2) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Goals and Policies Statement of land use of the City Planning Commission. (3) The proposed change of zoning represents an extension of strip commercial zoning and related strip commercial development which is contrary to good planning principles. 1[0; (4) The proposed change of zoning would not promote the orderly growth and development of this area consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, but would tend to encourage the further conversion and stripping of the mile road with commercial development. • 6400 (5) There is no need for additional commercial zoning in this area as there is abundant commercial zoned lands available for the proposed uses. (6) The proposed development of this site would adversely affect the utilities of the area as this development is to be a part of an adjacent strip commercial center and would have to rely on the utilities provided in that center. There is a lack of suitable storm drainage as the commercial development relies on a temporary drainage basin to solve its storm sewer needs, which drain would be overburdened by this additional development. The public water system would be equally overburdened by this additional development as indicated in the report from the Engineering Division dated April 22, 1977. (7) The proposed change of zoning would adversely affect the Eight Mile Road thoroughfare as strip commercial development of the total length as is represented by this proposal, added to existing development, would cause the creation of new points of ingress and egress to the thoroughfare, and the related turning movements would impede the through traffic and result innumerous points of traffic hazards. (8) This recommendation for denial is consistent with the Planning Commission's prior recommendation of denial for commercial develop- ment of this property as set forth in its recommendation in Resolution #2-26-74, adopted on February 5, 1974. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was apublished in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/26/77, p and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and all City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: DuBose ABSTAIN: Scruggs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-4-2-5 by Rodney C. Kropf for Rocco & Adelia Corsi requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing banquet facility located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster Road and Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regardingthis petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering, indicating that 60' of this property is needed for right-of-way purposes. Mr.Kropf: Won't give them any more. How many times are they going to widen that road? I thought it was- fully dedicated four years ago. We need entrances to the building. Have asked the County maybe 15 times to allow us to pave it. This is a petition to expand an existing building. Most of the area ' 6401 A will be storage room, a coat room, portable bar, and any other additional space needed to expand existing banquet facility. We have agreed to seal off the restaurant area from the banquet .facility. We were asked to put in a fence on the westerly and northerly sides of the property - willing to do that. Also required to pave that area in the • rear between the existing parking lot and a ditch - willing to do that. Dance floor will be used in connection with the banquet facility. Mrs. Scurto: Would it be a fair estimate to say that you are planning on an extension about 1/3 of the present size? Mr. Kropf: Yes, that would be a fair estimate. Mrs. Scurto: This is going to be a banquet facility. You see no problems with parking? Mr. Kropf: The variances in parking have been waived by the Zoning Board of Appeals. I am sure your Commission has access to their minutes. Mrs. Scurto: So you are saying that the present parking facilities will remain as they are now. Mr. Kropf: Will not be changed. Used to be, a lot more parking available when the main building was erected. Mr. Scruggs: What is the additional requirement for right-of-way purposes. (1: Mr. Nagy: Engineering indicates that they now have 33' of public right-of-way. Since 120' is required - 60' either side of center line - another 27' would be required for right-of-way purposes. But this would have no impact on the parking lot or the driveway or the sidewalk. Mr. Andrew: You say the Zoning Board of Appeals did waive 33 parking spaces. Tell me - what will the total number of parking spaces be on this site if this should be approved? Mr. Nagy: Total parking spaces for 128 cars. Mrs. Scurto: How many seats in the existing restaurant? at Mr. Kropf: Do not have that information/hand at this time. Probably on the original plan. Mr. Corsi: We can seat 110 people in the restaurant right now. Mrs. Scurto: 110 plus 80 in the banquet hall makes a total of 190. Mr. Kropf: I would like to say that the banquet facilites probably would not be used at the same time as the restaurant. The banquet hall would be used mostly on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Mrs. Scurto: Where does the overflow park now? 4 Mr. Kropf: They do park in the rear, and sometimes they park in the gas station next door, but generally speaking, the banquet hall would be used during the day time. Mr. Scruggs: Mr. Kropf, when you expand this facility, do you plan on putting in any more landscaping? I 6402 Mr. Kropf: We will probably use the same trees that are in existence now. When this building was constructed, we tried to save as many as possible. We have landscaping in the front and on the side, but we put in a fence to stop any trespassers from cutting through the property from the vacant land in the back. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Kropf, does your client own the property behind the proposed back fence line? Mr. Kropf: Yes, they do. Mrs. Wisler: Will you use all the property that you can if you need more property for parking or whatever? Mr. Kropf: Yes. Mr, Andrew: Mr. Nagy, what would the seating classific&tion be that would be imposed upon the owners by the Fire Marshall? Mr. Nagy: The Fire Marshall indicates that the codes allow 15 square feet per person. With the existing and planned addition this would come up to 175 persons allowed in the banquet facility. Mr. Andrew: What then if we assume that Mr. Corsi's bar and restaurant lioperation seats 110 persons, then if we add 175 in the banquet 4 hall, that would mean 142 cars plus employees. Mr. Kropf: If parking is going to be a big problem, we would have to acquire some additional property. Mr. Andrew: Well, perhaps it would never be 100% filled. 170 people in a banquet hall is a very good possibility though. Mr. Kropf, I feel there could be a lttle bit better maintenance and care of the landscaping. Mr. Kropf: No problem. Mrs. Scurto: I would like to offer an approving resolution. Mr. Scruggs: I will second it, and would like to see the landscaped area better maintained. I feel the capacity should be limited to 175 persons for the banquet facility. Mr. Kropf: I wish there was something you could do to have the Wayne County Road Commission ask us to pave the area out in front. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, what's the difficulty with having these people replace this grass with concrete? .li: Mr. Nagy: I have no idea as to what their difficulty might be. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this petition and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-4-2-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was I 6403 #5-100-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977 on Petition 77-4-2-5 submitted by Rodney C. Kropf for Rocco & Adelia Corsi requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing banquet facility located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Inkster Road and Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-4-2-5 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #77.07, Sheet P-1, dated May 2, 1977, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and (2) that Building Elevation Plan #77.07, Sheet P-2, dated May 2, 1977, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: (1) That the proposal complies with the C-2 zoning district regulations as same has been modified by action of the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) The site has 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, the petitioner and City Departments 11-0 as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs, announced the next item on the agenda Petition 77-4-1-11 by Robert J. Gagliardi to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Merriman and Schoolcraft Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, from M-1 to P. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, Engineering advises that there is no city-maintained storm sewer. Mr. Andrew: To the petitioner, your site plan shows a tap to the catch basin in the Schoolcraft service drive. Do your plans show in fact that you can tap into this catch basin based on the earlier review made by the State Highway Department? What about the drainage off of the proposed parking area? A.Chartrand: It will drain into the existing line. Architect Mr. Andrew: What effect will the proposed parking area and new building have on the corner along side the service drive? Mr.Chartrand: The existing building is presently closer to the Service drive. In fact, it is very close to the corner- will be torn down, removed, and a new site will be built if we can get the rezoning changed from Manufacturing to Parking. The property involved is only 103' x 94.6' - .23 acre. I 6404 Mr. Andrew: To the petitioner, assuming you are successful, when do you anticipate construction of the new restaurant? R.Gagliardi: Just as soon as we can get the Site Plan approved. Working with the family right now. Mr.Chartrnnd: It is a family project. Mrs.Wisler: Mr. Gagliardi, do you own the property south of the restaurant - the house on it? Mr. Gagliardi: Yes, we do. Mrs. Wisler: Do you own the property to the east of your restaurant? Mr. Gagliardi: No. Mr. Chartrand: The property that Mrs. Wisler is referring to is presently zoned C-2. Mr. Nagy: It is zoned C-3. Mrs. Scurto: Will the new building be constructed before the old one is torn down? Mr.Chartrand: Yes,, we hope to at least continue our carry-out trade. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing closed on Petition 77-4-1-11. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-101-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977 on Petition 77-4-1-11 as submitted by Robert J. Gagliardi to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Merriman and Schoolcarft Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26, from M-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-4-1-11 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed changing of zoning will provide for uses that are compatible to the surrounding uses of the area. (2) With this proposed change of zoning, a small parcel of land can be integrated with the overall development of the adjacent commercial district, and thereby have one uniform development plan for both parcels. (3) The proposed change of zoning will provide for a meaningful use of a parcel of such limited size that under the existing zoning, any new industrial development cannot reasonably comply with the yard requirements. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/26/77, 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 Sprvi ce. • 6405 Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda Preliminary Plat Approval for Louis Nelson Industrial Subdivision located south of Schoolcraft Road, west of Wayne Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Department of Public Works Inspection Department advising no discrepancies . . . etc. Also a letter from the Department of Public Safety - Police advising that proposal as submitted to be compatible. . . etc. A letter from the Fire Marshal indicating no objections. . . etc. Also a communication from the Industrial Coordinator advising no objections . . . etc. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Roth, I have one question: Who is Otters? Mr. Roth: The banker who is lending us the money to finance this project. There was no one else present wishing to be heard and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat approval for Louis Ne]spn Industrial Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was li: #5-102-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 17, 1977, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for the Louis Nelson Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located south of Schoolcraft Road, west of Wayne Road in the Norhtwest 1/4 of Section 28, be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subdivision is in full compliance with the M-1 zoning district regulations and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. (2) All City departments have indicated their support of the Preliminary Plat. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, the proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat, together with the notice, have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-10-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Department, 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 the Windridge Village Subdivision, for the following reasons: . 6406 IL (1) The proprietor of the Subdivision has voluntarily chosen to provide 70' wide lots whereas the zoning would allow a 60' wide minimum lot size. (2) No additional lots are being gained as a result of the waiving of the open space requirements. (3) The general neighborhood area is more than adequately served with park and open space given the Tarabusi Flood Plain and the 250 acre Bicentennial. Park. (4) The Parks & Recreation Dept. supports the waiving of the open space requirement. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #5-104-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 3, 1977, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Prelirlinary Plat for the Windridge Village Subdivision, proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, be approved subject to the following 4 conditions: (1) that Landscape Plan for the screening of the greenbelt easement along Seven Mile Road shall be adhered to; and subject to installation of the subdivision entrance marker as shown on the approved landscape plan before approval of the Final Plat. for the following reasons: (1) The preliminary Plat complies with the R-1 Zoning District Regulations. (2) It complies with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, the Planning Commission having waived the open space requirements of Section 9.09. (3) The Preliminary Plat is drawn in compliance with good site planning and subdivision design standards so as to promote an orderly and efficient development of this residential area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, the proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat, along with this notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks & Recreation Dept. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was I • 6407 #5-105-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #131-77, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 10.03(g) 4 and Section 11.03(r) of Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to provide that the waiver use requirements with respect to SDD Licenses in C-Land C-2 Zoning Districts shall henceforth not be applicable to SDD licensed uses already in existence. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-106-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of the Zoning Ordinance #543, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.42 of the Zoning Ordinance #543 so as to provide new regulations with respect to amateur radio towers in residential districts. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded,by Mr. DuBose and unanimously adopted, it was #5-107-77 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 73-11-8-49(revised) as submitted by the Second Livonia Corporation, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a proposal to remodel existing building and add new building to existing shopping center located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt and Plymouth Roads in Section 25, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the required irrigation system be installed within 90 days and if already installed that it be made operational within 90 days. (2) That all landscaping materials as required on the approved landscape plan be installed within 30 to 90 days after completion and operation of the irrigation system and all dead landscaping materials must be removed prior to June 1, 1977. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-108-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Revised Site Plan submitted by Michael Roth in connection with Petition 73-7-8-32 by Clarence P. Jahn requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, in connection with a proposal to erect a commercial building in the Livonia Shopping Center located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Farmington Road and Surrey in Section 21, subject to the following conditions: o 6408 (1) that Site & Landscaping Plan #77-450, Sheet 1-A, dated 5/16/77, prepared by Seymour H. Mandell, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to, and supersedes Site Plan #7122, revised 7/31/73, 4 previously approved by the 'City Planning Commission in Resolution o #8-217-73, adopted on August 14, 1973; 4 (2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan #77-450, Sheet 4, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that all parking lot and landscape improvements shall be completed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition; (4) that no sign will be affixed or painted on the west side of the building without prior approval by the Planning Commission; and (5) that there be no new or additional outside storage in the front, rear or side yards of the building. for the following reasons: (1) The revisions are of a minor nature and will provide for an improved parking lot layout of greater sufficiency. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, li: it was o #5-109-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 29.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #774, does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-8-6 by Jude T. Fusco Associates, Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 29.02 submitted in connecetion with a proposal to construct an eight-story building on property located on the south side of St. Martins Avenue, east of Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan dated .3/20/77, Sheet A-3, prepared, by Jude T. Fusco, Architect, is hereby approved, the Zoning Board of Appeals having in Resolution #7704-36 granted a waiver of the side yard setback requirements, and shall be adhered to in all other respects; - (2) that Landscape Plan, Sheet A-4 & A-5, dated 3/20/77, prepared by Jude T. Fusco, Architect, which 3s hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that Building Elevation Plan dated 3/2/77, prepared by Jude T. Fusco, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and (4) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site, and all on-site improvements completed, before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 4 6409 IL* (Discussion then followed among residents of the area, the Planning Commission, and the Architects regarding improvements of the roadways in the area. Residents from 29428 St. Martins and 29924 St. Martins loudly complained about the dirt and dust conditions that the Senior Citizens have to put up with when walking along St. Martins and Purlingbrook Avenues. .They felt that paving of the streets would lessen the dust, but did voice a little reluctance to any major improvements because of the potential increase in traffic. Mr. Fusco stated that since HUD was financing this project, the whole idea might fail if the government were also required to pave adjoining streets. Mr. Andrew advised waiving the seven-day limit of recommendation to the Council, and directed that they be advised of this motion immediately for their consideration and action.) Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Scruggs, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-110-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 26.01 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #613, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-4-8-8 by the Felician Sisters, O.S.F. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 26.01 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a Chapel addition to St. Mary Hospital located on the south side of Five Mile Road, west of Levan Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan, Sheet 1, dated 4/26/77, prepared by Christopher Wzacny, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Landscape Plan, Sheet 2, dated 5/10/77,. which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that Building Elevations, Sheet 4, prepared by Christopher Wzacny, Architect, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Scruggs, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-111-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 77-5-8-9P by Michigan National Bank-West Metro requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal- to construct a drive-in facility addition with canopy to an existing bank located on the southeast corner of Angling and Eight Mile Roads in Section 1, subject to the following conditions: (1) a granting of the necessary variance of the 7' canopy encroachment by the Zoning Board of Appeals; 4 (2) that Site Plan #7708, dated 4/19/77, prepared by Lindhout Associates, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and (3) that the landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan be installed on the qi t-r before final in5.pc r•tir,rr of tho facility i nive•r 6410 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, IL it was . #5-112-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 77-5-8-1OP by Jack M. Richards requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a storage addition and remodel the exterior of an existing restaurant located on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Farmington Road, in Section 28, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #0312-77, dated 5/10/77, prepared by Charles D. Moti, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #0312-77, Sheet 3, prepared by Charles D.Moti, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that all landscape materials existing on the site shall be conserved during the course of construction and replaced, if necessary; and (4) the roof top unit is to be screened. Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 1[0 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously approved, the 335th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the City Planning Commission on May 17, 1977 was adjourned at 12:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Esther Friedrichs, Secretary / ' //,11°.: ATTEST: Daniel R. andrew, Chairman • 4 I