Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-01-17 6605 MINUTES OF THE 347th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA IL On Tuesday, January 17, 1978, the Livonia City Planning Commission held its 347th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:15 p.m. , with approximately 20 interested citizens in the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Judith Scurto Robert L. Morrow Jerome Zimmer Herman Kluver William DuBose* (arrived 8:25 p.m.) MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph J. Falk Suzanne T. Wisler Messrs. H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Robert 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, who in turn willhold their own Public Hearing and then decide the question. If the petition involves a Waiver Use request, and the petition is denied by the Planning Commission, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Otherwise, the petition is terminated. There are no Public Hearings before the City Council on Preliminary Plat approvals. This Commission will hold the only Public IL Hearings on Preliminary Plat approvals, and forward recommendation to the City Council, who will then either accept or reject the Plat. Mr. Andrew then announced that in the absence of the Secretary, Mr. Joseph Falk, Mrs. Judith Scurto will be Acting Secretary for tonight's meeting. Mrs. Scurto announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 77-11-1-42 by Jack W. Belkin to rezone property located on the north side of the I-96 Expressway between Stark Road and Stamford in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Shane, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have a letter from our Engineering Division indicating no problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner or his representative here? Robert Serota: Yes, I am here to represent the petitioner. 16910 W. Ten Mi. Rd. Southfield Mr. Andrew: Mr. Serota, would you please explain to the audience the reason for this request for a change in zoning? t'l Mr. Serota: We feel that this request is a good transitional use for this property on the Schoolcraft service drive. We don't feel it is amenable for residential property. We do have a group of professional people who are interested in locating in this site. We feel that that would be good usage. Mr. Andrew: Do you know how long this petitioner has owned this property? Mr. Serota: Four or five years now. With the development of the freeway, he 140 did not feel it wise to develop this as residential. 4 Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Does the petitioner own any other property in the area? Mr. Serota: No, he does not. Mr. Andrew: Any other questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one else present wishing to speak further on the subject, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-11-1-42 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-1-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 17, 1978 on Petition 77-11-1-42 as submitted by Jack W. Belkin to rezone property located on the north side of the I-96 Expressway between Stark Road and Stamford in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21 from R-2 to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-11-1-42 be approved forthe following reasons: li; (1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the Planning Commission. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the land use policies and goals of the Planning Commission to have office zoning serve as a transitional and buffer use to protect residential areas from the adverse effects of incompatible land uses and heavily travelled thoroughfares and streets. (3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding use of this area as there are already established in the adjoining areas similar uses and zoning. (4) The proposed change of zoning does not represent an intrusion of office zoning into an area otherwise residential, but represents an extension of office zoning already established in the adjoining area. (5) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of supporting professional service zoning along the I-96 corridor on a "fill-in" basis between P.S. Districts as opposed to intruding into otherwise residential areas. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 12/22/77, 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. 140 A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: None ABSENT: Falk, Wisler, DuBose 6607 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 11440 Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-11-2-26 by Tuff-Kote Dinol, Inc., requesting waiver use approval to occupy property for the specific use of automobile rustproofing, painting and related services 4 on the south side of the I-96 Expressway between Henry Ruff and Melvin in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Shane, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: We have a letter from our Engineering Division indicating that there are no city-maintained storm sewers in the area to service this facility. . .etc. Also a letter from our Industrial Development Coordinator Mr. Dan Gilmartin, dated March 8, 1977, indicating no objections to the Merriman Road site as presented at that time, but a follow-up letter regarding this site opposes the request as there is mention of a retail sales operation being carried out which is not acceptable under the M-1 zoning district regulations. Mr. Andrew: Nothing from the the Police or Fire Department? Mr. Shane: Not yet, as of today. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner or his representative present? Fred Zehnder: Yes, I will be representing Tuff Kote. Rep. Tuff-Kote 14110 Mr. Andrew: Can you explain briefly to the Commission why Tuff Kote is now interested in this site as opposed to your original proposal? Mr. Zehnder: We have tried to establish a facility within the Livonia area for quite some time unsuccessfully. I believe the problems with the Merriman Road site were relative to objections from the neighbors - Allied Supermarkets for one - as well as the fact that we would have had to move a house. There were several reasons that that project was abandoned. We discussed setting up a facility at this site with Frank Kerby, and he indicated to us that there were probably no real problems as long as we we: along with all the local ordinances and requirements. So we went ahead witt our plans for an automobile rustproofing shop, as well as auto painting along with some products and services such as installing mud flaps, body side mouldings, etc. Those are the basic services that we intend to offer, Mr. Andrew: Does Tuff Kote presently own the property, or do they have a Purchase Agreement subject to approval of this waiver use request? Mr. Zehnder: They have a purchase agreement subject to this approval. Mr. Andrew: Did you discuss in any detail at all with Mr. Kerby your proposed retail sales operation on this site, and what were Mr. Kerby's comments? Mr. Zehnder: Mr. Kerby advised us that this idea of having retail sales on this 11110 site would be a drawback, and it would be a matter that we would have to a waiver use for. Mr. Andrew: I have to assume that Mr. Kerby has taken the position that this would 0 be an accessory use and therefore is permitted within an M-1 zoning 6608 liV district. That would be the only way you could handle retail sales in the district. Mr. Zehnder: The retail sales we are talking about would only be a very small part of our operation. The area invloved would not be more than 800 square feet, and the items to be sold would only be those that the customer could pick up and install himself. Such things as spray paint,sanders, etc. Mr. Andrew: What is the total area of the building? Mr. Zehnder: Approximately 21,000 sqare feet. Mr. Andrew: How do you plan to handle the storm sewer problem? Mr. Zehnder: This is something I am not qualified to answer. I would like to introduce our architect at this time, Mr. Gil Savage. Gil Savage: I must admit I am not prepared as to how we will handle that until such time as a storm sewer does become available. Mr. Andrew: The thing that bothers me, after a casual look at the site plan, is whether or not you would consider tapping into the catch basin of the Schoolcraft service drive. Mr. Savage: I am sure that something can be worked out. The way the land is zoned, ILsomewhere along the line, maybe a spur connection, something could be worked out. Mr. Andrew: What is the distance to Livonia Drain #26? Mr. Shane: There are two drains in the area and two storm sewers nearby. One 350' to the south along the Industrial Road right-of-way, and another 400' to the west, across property that the petitioner does not own. For this reason, he might be in limbo. Mr. Andrew: I feel this problem is putting this Commission into a position where it cannot directly act on this petition until we hear more from our Engineering Division as to how they might tie into that off-s:i_te storm sewer, some 400' away. I am sure this would cost the petitioner quite a bit of money. Mr. Savage: My client is aware of the problem. Mr. Andrew: Maybe it would be more logical to go west. Mr. Shane, another problem is with respect to the landscape front yard set back. I believe the ordinance reads that 50% of the front yard must be landscped, which is not true on this site plan. Mr. Shane: This site plan shows the building sets back further than it needs to be. It sets back 78' , and the requirement is only 50' . Landscaping must be 50% of the required 50' . 1[441, Mr. Andrew: I am concerned about using 50% of the 7,100 sq. ft. shown on the plan. It looks to me like they have taken a reverse position and landscaped whatever remains after they put in a driveway and parking lot. Maybe they should change their parking layout. 6609 li: Mr. Shane: The plan indicates 25 x 142 for landscaping, and with taking out that driveway, does give them 50% of the minimum front yard require- ment for landscaping. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Does this plan indicate a sign anywhere? Mr. Andrew: There is a sign indicated on the west side. Mr. Zimmer: What kind of sign is it? Mr. Zehnder: It would probably be a polyurethane illuminated sign indicating TUFF KOTE AUTOMOBILE RUSTPROOFING, that could be changed at any time. Mr. Zimmer: Must be restricted to the limits of the ordinance. Mr. Andrew: It seems to me I recall that under the Manufacturing Zoning District regulations that signage should be one square foot for each front foot of property. Mr. Zimmer: And how high would it be? Mr. Shane: Limit of 35 feet. Mr. Zimmer: And I presume that you will be attempting to appeal to passersby, as well as those travelling the freeway. Mr. Zehnder: I don't feel that we will have much visibility from the freeway. Might be rather diffcult to capture that traffic but we certainly IL would like as much exposure as we can get. Mrs. Scurto: I would like to question why it appears that the two handicapped spots are located in the middle of nowhere. I thought they were supposed to be as close to the entrance of a building as possible. Why are they so far away? Mr. Andrew: Maybe they feel they will never be used. Mrs. Scurto: There's always the chance. Mr. Savage: My reasoning for putting these handicapped parking spots off by them- selves is that I really felt that there would be less traffic in that area, would be used less often, and consequently would be safer. Mr. Andrew: Fred, does your company have any option or purchase agreement on the parcel of property to the east? Mr. Zehnder: Not at this time. Mr. Zimmer: What are the normal hours of operation? Mr. Zehnder: Monday thru Friday 8 to 5, Saturday 8 to 12, We have been known to i stick around until 6 or 7, cleaning up, but the normal operating hours are 8 to 5. 4 6610 Mr. Zimmer: Will you be having to dispose of large metal refuse, such as mufflers? Mr. Zehnder: None, whatsoever. Going to be strictly automobile rustproofing, auto painting, cleaning, waxing, maybe some minor repair work. Any painting will be of a decorative nature - cosmetic painting perhaps. Nothing costing more than $200 to $300. No major painting job, will not be a bump and paint shop. Mrs. Friedrichs: When the original petition came in for a location on Merriman Road, there was some consideration about air pollution in the area from paint fumes, and rustproofing fumes. How do you feel that you can take care of that here and not there? Mr. Zehnder: We will be using very sophisticated equipment at this facility. We have had the Wayne County Board of Health inspect our equipment, and they do not feel we will be giving off any harmful odors or irritants into the air. Mrs. Scurto: Have the Velvet Peanut Butter people been notified? Mr. Zehnder: Yes, they were. I contacted them myself. Mrs. Friedrichs: And what was their reaction? Mr. Zehnder: They had no complaints to our proposal. * Mr. DuBose: Mr. Zehnder, with regard to cosmetic painting, how do you differentiate between cosmetic painting and bump-shop painting? Mr. Zehnder: We would have to refuse any major bump painting. Our work would get backed up pretty bad. WeFare just thinking about touch-up painting. We started this type of service in a prototype building in Madison, Wisconsin about eight months ago, and it has been very successful. We would like to place about 4 or 5 in the Detroit Area. We have about. 40 or 50 in the Mideastern United States. Mr. DuBose: I guess my real conern is that this will change into just another bump and• paint shop, which we don't need any more of in Livonia along our I-96 and industrial corridor. Mr. Zehnder: Diversification and expansion is a strong basis for future growth, and what we really want to concentrate on is car preservation. At this point in time, we are not equipped to handle every single sort of repair work, just want to be a car preservation center. There will be waxing, painting, body side mouldings, mud flaps, etc. Mr. DuBose: Yes, you did mention retail sales of wax, polishes, etc. Mr. Zehnder: It won't be a retail sales store like Yesbicks. We will handle probably only four or five different types of items. Mr. DuBose: Would you really need to do this? Mr. Zehnder: Might be a way of adding a couple of dollars to the total. If we stuck to automobile rustproofing, it might be a bleak future. Mrs. Friedrichs; Do you plan to model this facility on the one you presently have in Madson, Wisconsin? 6611 Mr. Zehnder: The style of the building will be upgraded. Although we are presently concentrating on rustproofing and cosmetic painting, we would like to get into brake service and wheel balancing. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments? Mr. Morrow: Mr. Zehnder, would your company's idea of changing into this type of painting business be a result of the automobile companies starting to think about doing their own rustproofing? Mr. Zehnder: Yes, it is something we are concerned about. Mr. Morrow: What percentage of your business would you say depends upon drive-in trade? Mr. Zehnder: That is a pretty tough marketing question. Statistics show that a most ideal location will naturally bring in more trade, but we do advertise in newspapers also. Mr. Morrow: So you do depend upon advertising of some sort, whatever the medium might be. Not just word of mouth? 11r. Zehnder: Yes, that is true. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Savage, east of your site plan there appears to be either an improved or unimproved ingress and egress driveway which apparently served that residential structure on the east. Do you know whether or not it is improved? Mr. Savage: No, I do not know whether it is improved or not? Mr. Andrew: Gil, have you done any preliminary work as to the location of the pad mounted transformers, and where the service will be coming from? Mr. Savage: No, I cannot answer that at this time. Mr. Andrew: About those roof-mounted units, and the turnaround distance of the brick on the east and west. It appears that it extends 24' . Mr. Savage: Much like the last project we did. We can turn the brick at whatever site the Planning Commission so desires. Mr. Andrew: If you turn the brick around the corner 24' , that would take it back to the office area. Mr. Savage: Yes, that is right. Mr. Andrew: I would have to say at this point that it will be a requirement set forth by this Planning Commission that you will be painting the concrete block walls on the east, west and south elevations of the building. Mr. Savage: Yes, we will. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Shane, did any one in your department get a chance to review the landscape plan? Mr. Shane: No, we did not. We were primarily interested in the use of the property. 4 6612 Mr. Andrew: Any more questions or comments from the Commission? Is there anyone IL in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one else present wishing to speak any further on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-11-2-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was #1-2-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 17, 1978 on Petition 77-11-2-26 as submitted by Tuff Kote Dinol, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to occupy property for the specific use of automobile rustproofing, painting and related services on the south side of the I-96 Expressway between Henry Ruff and Melvin in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, the Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-11-2-26 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on February 7, 1978. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, DuBose ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. At this time, Mr. Andrew gave direction to Mr. Savage: Give consideration as to the location of the pad mounted transformer as IL well as any roof mounted air handling units, particularly in relationship to the Schoolcraft Road right-of-way lane. Also, I would suggest that you contact Mr. Shane in our Planning Department relative to possible changes in the landscaping of the front yard setback so that it conforms to the ordinance. Mr. Zimmer: Couldn't we also have something in writing from the Velvet Peanut Butter people? Mr. Andrew: Good idea. Mr. Zehnder, if you do have something in writing from them, would you please file it with this Commission? Mrs. Scurto, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-12-3-11 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #1048-77 to vacate a 10' `ieasement for surface drainage on property located at the southwest corner of Newburgh Road and Perth in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19. Mr. Andrew: Have we ever had any request for vacating this drain as it relates to Lot #36? Mr. Bakewell: No, there is already an existing structure on this lot. During construction, there was a relocation of the drain as it is just a surface drain. - Mr. Andrew: Technically then, we should just abandon the whole drain. Is the j 1[0 petitioner present? Donald Thor: Yes, I live here at 14175 Newburgh Road. 4 6613 Mr. Andrew: Mr. Thor, you own this property now, or are you in the process of 1[0 buying it? Mr. Thor: I own the property. There is a house there and I live in it. Mr. Andrew: You live in a house there now? How did you find out there was an easement there? Mr. Thor: In checking with the Engineering Department, they told me about the drain, saying that it had not been used for a long time. Was just shown on the map in Sec. 19. I guess it just went northward along Newburgh Road and then across into Castle Gardens Subdivision. I guess it was up to me to see that it be vacated and taken off the map, because Engineering told me it was no ionger in use. Mr. Andrew: So I assume Engineering has no objection to this petition? Mr. Shane; That is right. We have no other comments from any other City Department. Mr. Andrew: I feel that we should take a good look at the other lots that this Patter Drain goes through - Nos. 18, 31, 36 and, 52. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Are there any comments or questions from the Commission? There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-12-3-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-3-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 17, 1978 on Petition 77-12-3-11 as submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #1048-77, to vacate a 10' wide easement for surface drainage on property located at the southwest corner of Newburgh Road and Perth in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-12-3-11 be approved for the following reasons: (1) There is no reason to retain this surface drainage easement as it is no longer needed because the surface drainage is being intercepted upstream by storm sewers developed within the Perth Avenue right-of-way. (2) The Engineering Division, in their letter of 12/12/77, have indicated their support of the proposal to abandon this easement. (3) With the abandonment of this easement, the property is freed of this encumbrance and the property can be used in its entirety for single family residential purposes for which the land is zoned. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 12/22/77, 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. 11110 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6614 Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 77-12-2-27 by Richard C. Shuler for Allied Supermarkets requesting waiver use approval for the storage of recreational vehicles on property located west of Merriman Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Shane, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have a letter from Mrs. Caroline Rohde, 12077 Merriman Road, opposing this petition. Mr. Andrew: Ralph, could you indicate on the map where the existing Recreational Vehicle parking sites are? Mr. Bakewell: I am not sure exactly where they are, but I think they are on Lots G10 and 9b, and maybe on 7 and 8. Mr. Andrew: And where does Mrs. Rohde live? Mr. Shane: We have no parcel number for her, only an address. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner or his representative present? Mr. Richard Schuler of Allied Supermarkets, or any representative, was not present for discussion at the Public Hearing of January 17, 1978. It was then established that recreational vehicle storage lots were presently located on parcels 9b and 6a. IL Mrs. Scurto: Maybe no one can answer this, but isn't the back of all that private property fenced in? Mr. Shane: Yes, I believe it is, at least 6' , maybe higher. Mrs. Scurto: Is it barbed at the top? Mr. Shane: No, I am not sure about that. Mr. Andrew: Why isn't the petitioner or his representative present? Mr. Shane: I don't know why the petitioner hasn't shown up. He was certainly made aware of tonight's meeting. Mr. Zimmer: I am wondering just why they want to do this. As a convenience to their employees, or what? Mrs. Scurto: Couldn't we just withdraw this item from the agenda,we have fulfilled the requirement of notifying everyone of the Public Hearing, as required by the Ordinance. Why couldn't we bring it back to a Regular Meeting without any more advertising to the public? Mrs. Friedrichs: I was under the impression that this petitioner was only requesting to provide this service to his employees, that there would be only 10 word-of-mouth advertising of this service for recreational vehicle storage. The fence was already there, and I would think it would help the neighborhood. Who knows why the petitioner is not here tonight? What might have prevented him from appearing? Maybe he had an accident on the way. We should at least hear the neighbors comments and pursue thi: further at the next study session of January 24th. 6615 Mr. Andrew: What I would like to know is who exactly is the originator of this petition? Is it Richard C. Shuler, or Allied Supermarkets? Is Richard C. Shuler acting for his own sake, or as a representative of Allied Supermarkets? Mr. Shane: The signature on the petition reads "Richard C. Shuler for Allied Supermarkets" . Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Mary Garchow: I just want to say that there are trailers on both sides of us now 12055 Merri- and we certainly don't want any more. man Mr. Andrew: You own two lots there on Merriman? Mary Garchow: Yes, and they have surrounded me with trailers. Mr. Andrew: How long have you lived there? Mrs. Garchow: 37 years. Mrs. Friedrichs: What is the depth of your lot? Mrs. Garchow: I believe it is 396' . They took some from the front when they widened Merriman. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Garchow, would it inconvenience you any if we were to table this petition to our Study Session of January 24th. These study meetings are held at our Engineering Building on Farmington Road, and perhaps if you could come to that meeting and bring Mrs. Rohde, we could come to some settlement suitable to everyone. I have no objection to continuing discussing this for a few more minutes. Mrs. Scurto:, Mrs. Garchow, it was indicated in Mrs. Rohde's letter that there is a lot of pedestrian traffic in that area. Do you agree with that? Mrs. Garchow: Oh yes, there are always people walking in and out of those storage lots. Mrs. Scurto: There is no time limit on when people can go in and out of there? Mrs. Garchow: No, no time limit. Sometimes they even block her driveway with their cars while they go in and out. Mrs. Scurto: What about break-ins? Have you had any trouble with break-ins? Mrs. Garchow: My husband is presently on a hemo-dialysis machine, and we are home all the time. Nobody has tried to bother us that way. Mr. DuBose: Mrs. Garchow, would you really be terribly inconvenienced by people parking their recreational vehicles here since your back yard is already fenced in away from this nuisance? 1[410 Mrs. Garchow:Would you appreciate being surrounded by trailers, and having to look at nothing but trailers all day? 6616 Mr. Zimmer: Mrs. Garchow, what is directly behind you now? Mrs. Garchow: Allied Supermarkets. Mr. Zimmer: Yes, I know but are there any cars parked there against the fence? Mrs. Garchow: No cars, the bakery is directly behind us, and the bakery trucks are there. Mr. Andrew: Yes, the bakery operation of this complex is on the east side, and I believe there are some loading docks there too. Mrs. Friedrichs: With her having such a deep lot, I feel that some sort of landscape treatment could be put up. Mrs. Garchow: We did have a pretty yard back there at one time, but because of my husband's illness, we have not been able to keep it up. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Garchow, did your husband at one time work for the Wayne County Road Commission? Mrs. Garchow: Yes, he did. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak any further on this matter? There was no one else wishing to speak on this item, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-12-2-27 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted it was #1-4-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 17, 1978 on Petition 77-12-2-27 as submitted by Richard C. Shuler for Allied Supermarkets requesting waiver use approval for the storage of recreational vehicles on property located west of Merriman Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-12-2-27 until the study meeting scheduled to be held on January 24, 1978. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew then directed the Planning Department to invite Mr. Schuler to the Study Meeting of January 24, 1978, as well as extending an invitation to Mrs. Garchow to also attend the Study Meeting. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Quakertown Subdivision proposed to be located south of Six Mile Road east of Haggerty Road in the West 1/2 of Section 18. Ralph Bakewell then asked the Commission if anyone had any questions regarding the Preliminary Plat as shown on the screen. 6617 Mr. Andrew: Is that a stub street going off of Penn Drive into Northville Township? Mr. Bakewell: Yes, the street goes to the rear of the property that fronts on Haggerty Road at that location. Mrs. Scurto: Could you give me a rough estimate of the distance from the south end of the plat to Six Mile Road? Mr. Bakewell: Yes, there is approximately 3/4 of a mile in the north-south length of the plat. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Shane, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Shane: Yes, we have a letter from Ted Kovarik, the Fire Marshal, reviewing the plat and listing certain conditions he feels are necessary for fire protection to the subdivision. Also, a letter from Gary Clark, Assistant Superintendent of Engineering, indicating certain improvements in the area. . .etc. As well as a communication from Richard Widmaier of the Traffic Bureau, outlining possible traffic problems under present layout plans. We also have two letters from the Wayne County Road Commission from a William McGosh, one letter dated December 8, 1977 and the other dated January 17, 1978. Both letters relate to jurisdiction of streets in layout, as well as mention of possibility of traffic signal being installed on Six Mile Road at entrance to subdivision. We also have a letter from Mr. Wilson Grier, Supervisor of Northville Townshi: indicating support of layout as presented to him in connection with his planned improvements in this area. 10 Mr. Andrew: Would this Quakertown Lane run right into the southern exit of the college? Mr. Shane: Actually, the southern exit of Schoolcraft College is offset somewhat in a northwesterly direction of the proposed plat. I would say that the center lane for left-hand turns into either the subdivision or the college parking lot would be plus or minus 100 feet from each other, and should present no problems. Mr. Andrew: No, there probably won't be any conflict there because of the concrete islands on Six Mile Road. How will westbound Six Mile traffic make a left turn onto Quakertown Lane? Mr. Shane: At this time, we do not have a cross section of the traffic patterns in that area, and for that reason, I cannot answer your question. Mr. Andrew: Engineering Department says that the existing open drain running from Haggerty Road going eastward will be enclosed up to Quakertown Lane, and then become an open water course again and retention basin? Mr. Shane: Yes, that is correct. Plat does show a retention basin at the easterly part of the open space. Mr. Andrew: Doesn't our Ordinance require that a retention basin be fenced? Mr. Shane: Neither the Zoning Ordinance, nor Subdivision Rules and Regulations make any specific notation to this point. This question is up to the Engineering Department, and I believe the depth of the retention basin has a lot to do with whether or not is is to be fenced. Mr. Andrew: Is a representative of Republic Development here this evening? . 6618 Howard Binkow: It is our intent to go with this open drain through the entire park Republic Dev. site. If you insist that we fence it, then we will. Corp. 4 Mr. Andrew: I realize that a cyclone fence along this drain would not be too attractive. Are there any questions or comments from the Commission? Mrs. Friedrichs: Mr. Shane, in one of the letters you read, mention was made regarding street names, continuing the same names from streets elsewhere in the community. Mr. Shane: Ordinarily, the names of streets would continue along the same path as other streets in the community, but in this particular case, the plat is completely separated from the rest of the City by the Freeway. Mrs. Friedrichs: I really like the new names. Mr. Andrew: Any questions to the proprietor? Mr. DuBose: Mr. Binkow, what about the Fire Department's statement about their response time to that area in the south end of the subdivision? Mr. Binkow: I have no solution to that as yet. We spent a great deal of time in planning this subdivision, but we have found no way to solve that problem. 11110 Mrs. Scurto: Will the boulevard continue clear to Six Mile Road all the way from the residential section, through the multiples? Mr. Binkow: Yes, it will. Mr. Zimmer: The responsibility of maintaining that open space rests with the City? Mr. Binkow: It is a City park site. Mr. Andrew: Technically, it is shown as a city park. Mr. Zimmer: Does the city accept this responsibility without any question. Mr. Andrew: We do, but I don't know about Council. Mr. Shane: The Subdivision Rules and Regulations state that a certain amount of open space is to be set aside for parks, but this area exceeds that quite a bit. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak any further on thi matter? There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat Approval for Quakertown closed. (10 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and adopted, it was 6619 #1-5-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 17, 1978 on Preliminary Plat Approval for Quakertown Subdivision proposed to be located south of Six Mile Road east of Haggerty Road in the West 1/2 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that this Preliminary Plat be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Plat is drawn in full compliance with the R-2-C zoning district regulations. (2) The Plat is consistent with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia. (3) The Plat has the support of all City departments. (4) The Subdivision is well designed and well laid out so as to provide for a very attractive, functional and convenient residential sub- division. subject to the following conditions: (1) That a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission before the Final Plat is submitted showing landscape treatment and sound abatement controls for the greenbelt easement as shown on the plan. (2) A plan with the required entrance markers be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to submittal of the Final Plat. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and adopted, it was #1-6-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 16, 1977 on Petition 77-6-2-10 as submitted by Albert R. Lemieux requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant located on the west side of Farmington Road, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-6-2-10 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan, revised dated 1/12/78, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevation Plan #77-48, Sheet P-1, dated 12/2/77, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 6620 (3) The proposed use is in accord with the spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and is not inconsistent with or contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Ordinance and principles of sound planning. 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, Zimmer, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-8-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 16, 1977 on Petition 77-6-2-11 as submitted by Albert R. Lemieux requesting waiver use approval to operate a Class C Liquor Licensed establishxent within an existing restaurant located on the west side of Farmington Road, south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-6-2-11 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan, revised dated 1/12/78, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevation Plan #77-48, Sheet P-1, dated 12/2/77, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered, to. (3) That all landscape materials as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed on the site by June 1, 1978 and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. for the following reason: (1) The proposed use is in accord with the spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and is not inconsistent with or contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Ordinance and principles of sound planning. 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. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and adopted, it was 6621 1[: #1-7-78 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 recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-10-1-40 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed expansion of commercial zoning is a minor extension so as to have the new district lines more logically conform to physical boundary lines such as the centerline of Beatrice and/or squaring off the south boundary line of the commercial distrct. (2) With the proposed expansion of commercial zoning, it will facilitate the coordination of all parcels within the C-2 District into one unified, coordinated and harmonious commercial facility as the lands under petition as well as the adjacent lands to the east already within the C-2 District, are under common ownership and therefore are subject to one unified development plan. (3) The proposed expansion of commercial zoning will not provide for expansion of nonconforming uses but will provide an opportunity to develop the lands with uses that are permitted within the C-2 District which the majority of the lands within the area are presently zoned, thereby eliminating the nonconforming uses which have been detrimental to, incompatible with, and hazardous to the adjoining IL residential neighborhood to the west. (4) With the expansion of the C-2 zoning and with the provision for site plan approval, the development will be regulated, planned and controlled so as to have any new commercial development planned in such a way as to give proper attention to layout, traffic control, screening and building architecture so that future development will be more compatible with and sympathetic to adjoining residential development. 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, Consumers Power Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The Chairman announced that Petition 77-11-2-24 by Mario Fallone requesting waiver use approval to establish an S.D.D. Liquor Licensed operation in an existing commercial business located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, south of 110 Bretton Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, be removed from the agenda and rescheduled for Regular Meeting to be held on January 31, 1978. 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was 6622 #1-9-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 12/20/77 from Bedford Associates, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 77-8-1-26 as submitted by Bedford Associates to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 from M-1 to C-2 for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-10-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 12/20/77 from Bedford Associates the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of Petition 77-8-2-19 as submitted by Bedford Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant to be located on the east side of Middlebelt Road north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-11-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not/$ezone property located west of Farmington Road, south of the I/275/96 Freeway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, from P.L. to M-1. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and adopted, it was #1-12-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Council Resolution #544-77, the City Planning Commission having met with the City of Livonia Parks and Recreation Commission on January 10, 1978 and having further studied the matter regarding the feasibility of leasing a City-owned parcel of land for the construction of a square dance facilitity and required parking spaces at its Regular Meeting of January 17, 1978, does hereby advise the City Council of its ultimate conclusion that the Planning Commission does not support the concept contained within the subject Council Resolution for the following reasons: (1) There is no apparent precedent in the City of Livonia which would be comparable to allowing public lands to be used for the profit of a single named individual. (2) Council Resolution #554-77 names only one person, thereby limiting the proposal to a single-purpose facility under the operation of a single ownership. 6623 (3) The long-term aspect of amortization would provide, in all likelihood, for a perpetuity of ownership within one named family in that it would be possible for other members of the family, or heirs, to continue the operation throughout the life of the lease. (4) There exists the legal possibility that changing laws or changing social values would allow for the operation of this facility beyond any proposed amortization date. (5) The proposal in the form offered, binds the square dance facility to new construction without taking into consideration other methods which would give the resolution more latitude to compare with other proposals; namely the leasing of existing facilities which are publicly owned and which could be made available through a leasehold agreement. (6) Other leasehold agreements which the City has signed have allowed for any number of persons or business entities to bid on concession rights, thereby allowing those portions of leased public lands, such as the Golden Lantern and Idyl Wyld Restaurants, to reach maximum monetary potent' through the acceptable method of competitive bidding. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-13-78 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 345th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the City Planning Commission on November 22, 1977 be approved. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-14-78 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 346th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the City Planning Commission on December 13, 1977 be approved. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and adopted, it was #1-15-78 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 320th Special Meeting held by the City PLanning Commission on December 20, 1977 be approved. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Kluver ABSENT: Falk, Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6624 IL At this time, Mr. John Nagy gave a report of a Court Hearing held on Friday, afternoon, January 13, 1978, in Wayne Circuit Court concerning the JP Properties suit against the City of Livonia (Bill Knapps' Restaurant on Six Mile Road near Newburgh) . Mr. Nagy informed the Commission that the matter is still pending. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously approved, the 347th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the Livonia City Planning Commission on January 17, 1978 was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Zild-la /e-UPJ--- J ith M. curto, Acting Secretary Caol %Zt4r-- ATTEST: k Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman 1 • ir i ILO 110 •