Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1977-11-22 6570 1 MINUTES OF THE 345th REGULAR MEETING PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA LAND On Tuesday, November 22, 1977, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 345th 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 Hearing to order at 8:06 p.m. , with approximately 40 interested persons in the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Sue Wisler William DuBose Jerome Zimmer Judith Scurto Joseph Falk Herman Kluver Lee R. Morrow MEMBERS ABSENT: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Rober M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of rezoning, the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council then holds a Public Hearing in order to reach a final decision. If a petition conerns a waiver use request or a site plan approval, and 110 the petition is denied, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal that decision to the City Council; otherwise, the petition is terminated. All petitions for Preliminary Plat approvals are forwarded to the City Council, but the Council does not hold Public Hearings on this type of petition. Mrs. Friedrichs, Secretary announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-1-36 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property on the west side of Surrey Avenue, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, from M-1 to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a communication from our Engineering Division indicating no problems connected with the proposal. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to rezone land from a Manufacturing use to that of Public Land. 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 on Petition 77-10-1-36 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was 110 #11-251-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-10-1-36 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the west side of Surrey Avenue, south of Schoolcraft Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, from M-1 to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-1-36 be approved for the following reasons: 6571 (1) The change of zoning will provide for the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia to reflect the public ownership and use of this property. (2) It is the policy of the Planning Commission to have all City-owned lands zoned in the Public Lands classification. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 11/3/77, and that 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 above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-1-37 initiated by Council Resolution W878-77 to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from P.L. to P. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering indicated no problems connected with the proposal. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by Council Resolution to rezone land presently zoned Public Land to Parking. Is there anyone in the 110 audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? 1 There was no one wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-1-37 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adoped, it was #11-252-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-10-1-37 initiated by Council Resolution #878-77 to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, from P.L. to P. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-1-37 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This change of zoning will provide that these lands will be made an integral part of an existing commercial development which will therefore promote the orderly and efficient site layout and circulation system for the existing commercial use. (2) The change of zoning will provide for a reasonsalbe use of a parcel very limited in size. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 11/3/77, and that 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 above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6571a Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-1-39 by Greenfield Construction Company requesting to rezone property 4, located north os Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the I-96-I/275 Freeway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, from R-8-II, R-5-C and R-9-III to R-9-III, R-8-II, P.O. , and R-7. At this time, the Chairman passed the gavel to the Vice Chairman, Mrs. Wisler, and announced that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this petition. Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering advises no problems connected with proposal. Mrs. Wisler: Is the petitioner or his representative present? Mr. Martin, Our main reason for requesting this change in zoning would he to more Representing or less flip-flop the R-8 and R-9 zoning districts. We felt that the Greenfield senior citizens housing would be better located further away from the Construction freeway and closer to the other funcitions of the overall development. Mrs. Wisler: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? John Rosanski: I am just wondering if they are going to put in any other roads that 18371 University lead to Newburgh or onto Siz Mile Road other than what is there now? Park Drive What about all the traffic that will accumulate at certain times of the year at the shopping center? Will ther be any additional entrances L or exits? Mr. Martin: To the best of my knowledge, the main ingress and egress to the Woods Condominimums will be via Laurel Park Drive. The current exit to Newburgh is only a temporary set-up. Mr. Rosanski: What about the stores in the shopping center - how will they be serviced - will there be back alleys or service drives, or what? Will we have to compete with all those trucks coming in and out? Mr. Maring: The main entrance into the development will be Laurel Park Drive, which the residents will use. There will be another service entrance from Newburgh Road and Six Mile respectively. Mrs. Wisler: Is there anyone else? tif4 6572 4 Raymond Robray: I am opposed to the rezoning. I certainly don't want anything higher 18383 University than the two-story buildings that are in the Woods at the present (10 Park Drive time. I am sure that this will have a bad effect on the value of my property, as well asall the people living in there. Recently we had notices from the Planning Commission about that area to the north where the School Board wants to sell that property, and put single family homes in there. Now they want to zone it so.that eight and nine-story buildings will go in. When we purchased this property we were told that there would be single family residences to the south, and that the school land to the north would be turned into a park. Now they are talking about changing the zoning. Personally, I am strongly against any change in the zoning. Mrs. Wisler: The petition we are talking about tonight is simply reversing the classification of two districts. The land is already zoned R-8II and R-9III. They are just asking for a reverse of classification on the property. At this time, Mr. Nagy approached the map and indicated to the audience the present zoning and the proposed exchange of classifications. Explained that the buildings could go as high as 9 stories for senior citizen housing and 8 stories for the R-8 classification. The petition is not to establish new zoning, merely reverse the two zoning districts. 1[10 Mr. Robray: I am definitely against high-rise zoning. There was no one wishing to speak further on this subject, Mrs. Wisler declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-1-39 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk and adopted, it was #11-253-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-10-1-39 as submitted by Greenfield Construction Company requesting to rezone property located north of Six Mile Road between Newburgh Road and the I-96-1-275 Freeway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, from R-8-II, R-5-C and R-9-III to R-9-III, R-8-II, P.O. , and R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-1-39 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The rezoning petition has been necessitated in part by the fact that the State Highway Department has declared surplus a long, slender portion of land lying east of the 1-275 Freeway and therefore the lands no longer are needed for hi4hway purposes. (2) It is logical and reasonable that these surplus State Highway lands are made an integral part of, and coordinatedwith the development of the adjacent private properties of Laurel Park. (3) There are no other means to develop these lands except as integrated with the adjacent Laurel Park development plans. (4) The proposed changes of zoning are logical, minor extensions of the established and adjacent zoning districts to the east of the surplus State Highway property. 6573 (5) With respect to the proposed change of zoning from R-8-II to R-9-III, it is more desirable from a planning standpoint to have senior citizens housing in closer proximity to the commercial and trans- portation services which support it; and with the reorientation of the R-8-II and the R-9-III Districts, the R-8-II will better serve as a buffer zone to help insulate the senior citizens housing district from the adverse affects of the I-275 Freeway as senior citizens are generally more sensitive to adverse environmental impacts. (6) With respect to the various sizes of the two housing districts, there is no significant change in the area. It is a change brought about only so as to have the senior citizens housing in closer relationship to and a more convenient walking distance of the planned future commercial stores and shops within the proposed Laurel Park Shopping Center. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 11/3/77, and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wisler, Zimmer, Falk, Kluver, Friedrichs, Dubose, Scurto, Morrow NAYS: None 110 ABSTAIN: Andrew Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. At this time, Mrs. Wisler passed the gavel back to Mr. Andrew, Chairman. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 77-10-1-41 by Stanley and Gladys Hayes to rezone property located south of Five Mile Road between Beatrice and Middlebelt Road in the North 1/2 of Section 23, from RUFA to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering dated October 28th relative to this petition, indicating no storm sewer. . .etc. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Seymour Levine: Yes, I will be representing the petitioner. As you know, most of the 23777 Greenfield property that we have in mind to develop is already zoned for our purpose: Southfield The granting of this petition will make the entire corner into one unified zoning district, so that we can develop a shopping center. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Levine, is the development of this shopping center contingent upon the rezoning of this piece of property? Mr. Levine: Yes. Mr. Andrew: I understand Mr. Hays owns all the buildings from Hoy Avenue extending east, north to Five Mile Road, except for the gas station. Would all these buildings be demolished as part of the new construction? Mr. Levine: Yes. storm sewer in this area, what effect would this have on your construction dates? 6574 Mr. Andrew: In view of Engineering Division's remarks regarding the lack of a Mr. Levine: We couldn't very well develop this property without the proper utilities being in there. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Bill McDonell: I represent the Civic Association in this area, and we have been down 29610 Hoy this road a number of times before. It appears to me that you are proposing to ,do is eventually tear down all the residential areas in Livonia. Green Acres has been in there since 1949, and all the homes are on either half-acre or full acre lots. I speak for all the people in this area. People are important. I know we need businesses in Livonia, but the people need some protection, too. If Mr. Hayes wants to develop this land, why doesn't he develop as a residential area rather than a shopping center? Another thing, when they decided to pave Beatrice, we fought that too. We even went to court. The people here are paying for better than 65% of the paving and we didn't even want it. Mr. Hayes did not join us in our fight, but now he wants t put in a shopping center there. We don't want to raise our children next to a shopping center. filw Mr. Andrew: Mr. McDonell, we have a site plan here that you have not seen as yet. As I interpret this site plan, the architect has indicated no ingress or egress onto Beatrice from the shopping center, with a 5' screening wall along the western boundary of that property for protection to those people to the west. Given those two situations, does that change your opposition to the rezoning? Mr. McDonell: The people who bought in this area bought it as residential property. I cannot say that it could be made so attractive for us to accept the change in zoning. Do you know what it has been like since Beatrice was paved? We are picking up beer bottles and trash all the time. Kids racing up and down the street in their fast cars. The Livonia Police Department is only five minutes away from us, but they tell us it is too much trouble to come down and run these kids off. We have to live with this. No, I cannot accept the change in zoning. Mr. Andrew: Mr. McDonell, we have a change here to clean up a very messy corner here in the City of Livon4a. We would eliminate the trailer-train operation, the rubber stamp operation, those other eye sores in this area. I cannot understand why you would want these nuisances to remain. I would have to think that this development proposed here tonight would greatly enhance the area; in fact, would most likely made the value of your home appreciate greatly. Mr. Levine: I would like to point out that a 5' screening wall would be constructed 20' inside our line of property. A 20' greenbelt along the full length of the property alongside Beatrice Avenue. 6575 Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, what are the dimensions of the long lot running down Beatrice? Mr. Nagy: Lot #80 is 90' in width and 500' in length. Mr. Zimmer: What is the zoning of Lot #74 as it faces Beatrice? Mr. Nagy: RUFA. The east half of the lot is in a C-2 district, whereas the west portion abutting Beatrice is in a residential district. Mr. Zimmer: There are no other commercial zoning on Beatrice at the present time? Mr. Nagy: No. Henry Vartanian: I am on lot #73, just below the Harold Thomas Nursery, and the front 15018 Beatrice half of my lot is zoned residential, and the rear half is zoned C-2. My property is completely surrounded by the Harold Thomas Nursery people and this adjoining project coming in now. Mr. Andrew: Is there a house on that property? Mr. Vartanian: Yes, there is. And I feel that with this development coming in here it would be a definite asset to the neighborhood. Would provide a buffer zone. I am somewhat protected now by the nursery business, but if these people were to put up some kind of greenbelt, I think it would look good for the area. 1[10 Mrs.SCurto: Mr. Vartanian, do you live in that house? Mr. Vartanian: Yes, I have been there 5 years, with five children, and five dogs. Mrs. Friedrichs: I really feel that such a development would be an asset to this area. There is such a conglomeration of odd-looking buildings there now. This new idea would definitely make the corner more attractive. I feel there is a need for this type of retailing activity here. There is no major grocery store in the area, and there are a lot of people living in those Franklin Square Apartments across Five Mile. Mr. Kluver: In essence, I concur with the fact that this particular corner is far from what we would like to have here in the City of Livonia. I certainly could support C-2 zoning in this area. Other developments of this nature have always been an asset to the neighboring residential areas. Take the new shopping center at Five Mile and Newburgh. That is certainly not detrimental to the residential area that it abuts. It has been a definite asset. Also, Six Mile and Newburgh - Seven Mile and Farmington. As one Commissioner, I certainly would support a change in zoning for this area. Mr. Andrew: Any more questions or comments? Mrs. Braithwaite: Do any of you live next to a shopping center? What about all the 29263 Hoy garbage, and trash, and lights on all night? Don't talk to me about a 5' wall? I am taller than that wall. We don't need a shopping center here. We can go two miles in either direction, up to Seven Mile Road or down to Plymouth Road for all our shopping. And what's this about an A & P? You could fire a cannon through an A & P store and not hit anyone. I just don't understand the whole thing. 6576 Mr. Levine: Yes, for the record, the supermarket planned is an A & P. b Steve Zipay:1[00 I am with the Real Estate Department of A & P, and I just want to point out that the reason the 3 or 4 A & P stores in Livonia failed was because of their size. The modern concept is to build large stores, and we are trying to get back into the Livonia area with a bigger type A & P Supermarket. Would also like to point out that the greenbelt screening wall will run along the southerly portion of Lot #75, this completely enclosing the whole shopping center. Mr. McDonell: I don't feel that we need another shopping center. Look at all the congestion on Middlebelt Road with all those little shopping centers there. We need a shopping center here like we need a hole in the head. Why not something different? Mr. Andrew: You should have been around when they were trying to put in a senior citizens complex up on Middlebelt. Mr. McDonell: Are you talking about the Armenian Home? Mr. Andrew: Yes, There were a lot of people against that development. Mrs. Wisler: I think we are getting away from the point here. The majority of this property is already zoned C-2. Mr. Hayes just wants a little mor( of his property zoned commercial so that a shopping center could be built. I feel that with the unsightly look that is there now, a modern design shopping area would add much to this area. Mr. McDonell: Are you trying to say that you are trying to protect us? The City has failed many times before to do their job. Same thing with that Spanich property. The grade level down there has been raised better than a foot. And we are getting all the run off. We even went to court over that mess, but nothing was ever done to protect us. Mrs. Scurto: Mr. McDonell, where is this Spanich property? Mr. McDonell: On the extreme west end of Green Acres. Where Flamingo runs into Hoy, just below the cinder block company. Mr. Nagy: Opposite Merri-Five Shopping Plaza. Mrs. Scruto: Well, I have two comments I would like to make, and they are - 1) maybe if the residents were to see the Site Plan and layout, some of their fears would be alleviated; and 2) I really feel that with the way this area is so blighted now, a new shopping center would certainly not make it any worse. This man owns this property, just like you people own your property. And if he wants to turn it into a neat, clean, modern development, he should be allowed to make that decision. Mr. Zimmer: This drain thing, No. 10. The petitioner did say that they couldn't proceed withoutthe storm sewer. That's the problem there? Mr. Nagy: I think part of the problem is the lack of right-of-way. Middlebelt is supposed to be widened in that area, and I really don't know exactly when that will take palce. 6577 1[00 Mr. Zimmer: Well, even if they do get this rezoning approved, it will still be along time before they can get started on the shopping center? Mr. Andrew: Yes, As far as the timetable for the extension of Drain #10, that would have to be answered by the Engineering people. Harold Thomas: I was told that they intend to start on the storm sewer this coming spring, or maybe the end of June. Mr. Vartanian: Is there any assurance that you people can give us that if this rezoning takes place, that this particular project we are talking about will take place? Mr. Andrew: No, we cannot assure you that this particular project will become a reality. But State Law does prohibit us from conditioning zoning changes. But before any development takes place, the developer has to come before the Planning Commission and the City Council with specific site plans. Mr. Vartanian: Will the homeowners in the area be able to say anything about the site plans? Mr. Andrew: We do not notify the residents on Site Plans. But there is always a notice in the local newspaper. If you like, you could leave your name and address, and our Planning Departmett will attempt to notify you by mail when the Site Plans come before this Commission. Mr. Vartanian: So what you are saying that this particular project may not materialize, but the zoning here could be changed to C-2. Then Mr. Hayes could do anything he wants with it. Mr. Andrew: Subject to certain rules and regulations of the City in a C-2 district. Mrs. McDonell: Has the developer already purchased this property? Mr. Andrew: The Purchase Agreement is subject to certain other actions taking places, one of which is the rezoning. Mrs. McDonell: You know, you people only drive down Five Mile or Middlebelt, and you say that this area is blighted. But down the road, where we live, it isn't. It really is pretty, rural looking, you should spend a weekend there. You would like it. Sam Soof: I really can't see where a 5' high cement wall running 100' down the 14911 Beatrice street is going to upgrade the value of my property. Mr. Andrew: The purpose of the wall will be to contain any trash that might blow around, screen the residential area from the trucks that might be coming in and going out, just more or less separate the shopping center from the surrounding area. Mr. Soof: You know, if you drive around other residential areas, such as Farmington, or Bloomfield Hills, you don't see shopping centers except on major streets. I would really like to see this corner left just way it is until something better than a shopping center comes along. Jos. Ciaramitaro: The way I understand it, this thopping center will be extende3 14957 Beatrice into the Harold Thomas property, is that right? 6578 Mr. Andrew: The Site Plan only shows center on Mr. Hayes' property. Mr. Ciaramitaro: What would it take to have this property remain the way it is? Mr. Andrew: It would take four votes by the City Council to deny this petition. Since the Public Hearing dicussion was becoming redundant, Mr. Andrew decided to close the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-1-40. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and approved, it was #11-254-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-10-1-40 as submitted by Stanley and Gladys Hayes to rezone property located south of Five Mile Road between Beatrice and Middlebelt Road in the North 1/2 of Section 23, from RUFA to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-10-1-40 until the Study Session scheduled to be conducted on December 20, 1977. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, Zimmer Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ILMrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-1-41 initiated by Council Resolution #833-77 to rezone property located at the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18, from M-1 to R-7. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Industrial Development Coordinator indicating no objection to proposed development as it does meet with Future Land Use Plan. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Kenneth Hale: My client, Republic Development company, has agreed to go along with Attorney for the R-7 classification on that portion of the property that fronts Rep. Dev. on Six Mile Road. That is why we are here tonight. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions of Mr. Haled Any further comments or questions on this petition? There was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this petition. Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-1-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, it was #11-255-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-10-1-41 initiated by Council Resolution #833-77 to rezone property located at the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18, from M-1 to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-1-41 be approved for the following reasons: 6579 I: (1) There is no need to retain the industrial zoning as the majority of the previously established M-1 district has already been changed to the R-7 or R-2 zoning districts. (2) This proposed coning will provide for a transitional use between single family residential and the Six Mile Road major thoroughfare. (3) This change in zoning will provide for additional housing opportunities of a type that are generally lacking in the City. (4) This change of zoning will provide uses which more closely parallel recommendations of the Future Land Use Plan. (5) This change of zoning will allow uses at a density which can take better advantage of the Freeway interchange. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 11/3/77, and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Wisler, Zimmer, Falk, Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Scurto, Morrow NAYS: Andrew ILMr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew then stated that, although he was not in support of an M-1 classification of this property, he felt that an R-7 classification was not the proper zoning for this property in question. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-2-23 by Michael Nieman requesting waiver use approval to establish a Class C Liquor licensed operation within an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road at the intersection of Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32. Mr. Andrew: John, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Both Engineering and the Safety Bureau indicate no opposition to proposal. Mr. Andrew: I note that this operation is non-complying as it applies to the off- street parking requirements. Mr. Nagy: Yes, with respect to restaurant operations. But the petitioner is planning to remodel the operation, installing a cocktail bar and corresponding facilities that would dimish the seating capacity. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? r 6580 Michael Niemen: Before we got into this area, there was a Howard Johnson's and a 2435 Dalesford Gold Key restaurant, and neither of them could make this a profitable IL Troy, MI business. We would like to work together with the Hines Park Motel and serve liquor with our food for those people at the motel. Mr. Herc has been in the food business for the last 32 years, and we feel that if we could serve liquor • along with our food, this would help everybody. Mr. Falk: I have no objection to you getting a class C liquor license, but I am concerned about this deficiency in the off-street parking require- ment. Just how many seats will there be in your operation? Mr. Niemen: I suppose we will be taking out about 12 seats less. Mr. Kluver: If he originally had 119 seats, and is taking out 12, that would leave 107 seats. Does he have adequate parking for that number of seats? Mr. Nagy: Yes, on the basis of 2 seats to one parking space, he has adequate parking. But the Ordinance also calls for one space per employee. In that respect, he would be deficient. Mr. Kluver: How many employees do you have on one shift? Mr. Niemen: Five, maybe six. Mr. Kluver: So he is 5 or 6 parking spaces deficient. Mr. Andrew: The issue before us tonight is to determine whether or not to establish approval for a Class C Liquor License. Also, whether or not that part of the Ordinance that calls for two such facilities being more than 1000 feet apart should be a condition of approval. Mr. Kluver: I have no problem with allowing the use of Class C Liquor License at this location. Just wanted to clarify parking deficiency. There was no one wishing to speak any further on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-2-23 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #11-256-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on,Petition 77-10-2-23 as submitted by Michael Niemen requesting waiver use approval to establish a Class C Liquor Licensed operation within an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road at the intersection of Ann Arbor Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-2-23 be approved subject to the following condition: (1) the waiver of Section 11.03 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance wherein no Class C Liquor Licensed establishment shall be located within 1000' of any other Class C Liquor Licensed establishment by the City Council; ti for the following reasons: (1) The Class C Liquor License will not adversely affect any of the surrounding uses of the area. (2) The Class C Liquor License will substantially improve the viability of the restaurant operation. 6581 te (3) The establishment of a Class C Liquor License at this location 4 will not result in any additional required parking. 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 resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-7-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, to delete property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a communication from the Parks and Recreation Commission recommending removal of this park site from the Master School and Park Plan of the City. L Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission for the purpose of amending the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-7-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-257-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisons of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a Public Hearing on November 22, 1977 for the purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled the "Master School and Park Plan", the same is hereby amended so as to delete property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Lyndon and Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, subject property being legally described as follows: The North 5.0 acres of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, except the East 60 ft. thereof. for the following reasons: (1) The Parks and Recreation Commission no longer recommends this site for acquisition for park purposes; and (2) This general area is now being adequately served by existing recreational facilities. 6582 AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-3-7-2 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Subdivision Rules and Regulations, by amending Section 9.01, 9.03 and 9.08 to establish controls relative to lots abutting major thoroughfares. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission for the purpose of amending Part III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? There was no one wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-7-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-258-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Rehearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-3-7-2 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Sections 9.01, 9.03 and 9.08 of the Sub- division Rules and Regulations, Part III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, to establish controls relative to lots abutting major thoroughfares, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-7-2 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Subdivision Rules and Regulations as currently written contain very little guidance and no standards regarding the establishment of greenbelt easements. (2) Lots abutting major thoroughfares require special screening to protect residents from noise and to afford them maximum privacy. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of 11/3/77, and that such notice 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 above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. LiMrs. Friedrichs announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-10-6-9 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.51(f) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to incorporate the fees as ss,- forth in Section 6.173(4) of the Livonia Code of Ordinances with respect to towing and storage of motor vehicles. 6583 Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission fnr the purpose of amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one present wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-10-6-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-259-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 22, 1977 on Petition 77-10-6-9 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 18.51(f) of the Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to incorporate the fees as set forth in Section 6.17(4) of the Livonia Code of Ordinances with respect to towing and storage of motor vehicles, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-6-9 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This proposed amendment will bring the Zoning Ordinance into compliance with the Livonia Code of Ordinances by incorporation, by reference, the appropriate sections thereof. (2) This amendment was recommended 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 11/3/77, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-260-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Windridge Village Subdivision #2 proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commissio does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Windridge Village Subdivision #2 be approved, subject to submittal of Landscape plan for the development of the 20' greenbelts as shown on the plat and the submittal of a plan for entrance markers to the Planning Commission prior to approval of the Final Plat, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed lot sizes meet or exceed the R-2 and R-3 Zoning District requirements. (2) The Subdivision is well laid out and provides good lot and street relationships with existing adjacent undeveloped lands, thus allowing for possible future development of those parcels. (3) The proposed Subdivision layout is well integrated with the previously approved Windridge Village Subdivision #1. 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 & Recreation Department. 6584 I[ - Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 1 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, it was #11-261-77 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Letter dated October 17, 1977 from the Livonia Trade Center requesting approval of a Revised Site Plan submitted in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 76-5-2-7 requesting waiver »se approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the . south side of Eight Mile Road between Middlebelt and Brentwood in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the revised site plan be denied, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed new location will bring the restaurant closer to the Convalescent Home located on the south and therefore will have adverse affects on the Convalescent Home due to the restaurant intensity of use and period of operation. (2) The proposed interior position of the restaurant use within the commercial building complex poses problems with respect to auto and pedestrian access that can be overcome by an end location. (3) The intensity and periods of operation of the proposed use poses a possible nuisance which would be noxious to the occupants of other nearby permitted uses by reason of noise, fumes and lights. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk and it was, 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 deny Petition 77-11-8-30P by Pic-Way Shoe Mart requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a building on the northeast corner of Joy and Middlebelt Roads in Section 36. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk NAYS: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew Mr. Andrew declared the motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and adopted, it was #11-262-77 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 recommends that Petition 77-11-8-30P by Pic-way Shoe Mart requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a building on the northeast corner of Joy and Middlebelt Road in Section 36, be tabled. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 6585 AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler ILNAYS: Kluver, DuBose, Andrew Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, it was #11-263-77 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission reconsider the tabling resolution on Petition 77-11-8-30P-submitted by Pic-Way Shoe Mart. AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Morrow, Wisler, An rew NAYS: Scurto, Falk Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-264-77 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 77-11-8-30P by Pic-Way Shoe Mart requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a building on the northeast Eorner of Joy and Middlebelt Roads in Section 36, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Landscape Plan showing all landscape materials proposed to be installed on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Commission within 30 days. (2) Relocation of entrance door to southwest corner of building at a 45° angle. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-265-77 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 77-10-8-29P by Nicholas Lubnik requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the east side of Farmington Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis in Section 10, subjec to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan dated 10/27/77, prepared by MCC, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That building elevations as shown on the approved site plan which are hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Department for approval within thirty days since the landscaping would be limited to only foundation plantings. (4) That all landscape materials shall be installed on the site no later than June 1, 1978 and permanently maintained in a healthy condition Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6586 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #11-266-77 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 77-11-8-32P by T. H. Marsh Construction Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection% with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Wayne Roads in Section 33, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #1532, prepared by T. H. Marsh Construction Company, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That building elevation as shown on the approved Site Plan which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That the landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed on the site no later than May 1, 1978 and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously approved, the 345th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the Livonia City Planning Commission on November 22, 1977 adjourned at 11:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION L t i� E t edrichs, Secretary ATTEST: / �� 4t Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman