Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-02-14 '' 6630 MINUTES OF THE 349th REGULAR MEETING L AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 14, 1978, the Livonia City Planning Commission held its 349th 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 8:05 p.m., with approximately 60 interested citizens in the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Jerome W. Zimmer Judith Scurto Joseph J. Falk Esther Friedrichs Herman H. Kluver Suzanne Wisler William DuBose MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Lee•Morrow (illness) Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant 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 will hold their own Public Hearing and then decide the question. If a 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 IL the petition is terminated. There are no Public Hearings held by the City Council on Preliminary Plat approvals. This Commission will hold the only Public Hearings on Preliminary Plat approvals, and forward a recommendation to the City Council, who will then either accept or reject the Plat. Mr. Falk, Secretary, then announced the first item on the agenda as Petition 77-12-1-43 by Leonard L. Veatch, D.D.S. , to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington Road and Lyndon in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, from A-2 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated December 20, 1977 from our Engineering Division indicating no problems connected with the proposal. Also we have a letter dated 2/11/78 from Milton Holley, 14821 Farmington Road, strongly opposed to this petition. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner, or his representative, present? Frank Perrin, I will be representing the petitioner. It seems that I misinformed Lindhout Assoc. him about the location of this Public Hearing; I sent him down to the Engineering Building on Farmington Road, and that is probably where he is right now. Mr. Andrew: Is it vitally important that he be present? Mr. Perrin: Not at this point. Mr. Andrew: Would you like us to adjourn this item until later in the evening? Mr. Perrin: I can give you no guarantee that I could find him. We could proceed. Maybe he will show up here. 6631 Mr. Andrew: OK; you tell us just whit the reasons are for this request for a change in zoning. Mr. Perrin: The petitioner's intended use for this property is to construct a series of medical suites. He himself is an orthondontist, and will be using one of these suites as his own office, along with others. I have a sketch here of what the complex will look like. Mr. Andrew: Even though we should not be talking about the Site Plan at this particular point, show your sketch to the audience. Mr. Perrin: The plan is to construct a series of buildings around this L-shaped lot, 5 medical suites. The parking will be around the perimeter of the buildings. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mrs. Scurto: Going back to Mr. Holley's letter, could I have some clarification on whether or not JA did actually purchase this land, or just have a Purchase Agreement? Edw. P.Nagel Yes, Junior Achievement did purchase this property about 2 1/2 years Rep. JA ago with the purpose of putting up a JA facility and office building. 21720 Gr.River The JA Center would provide opportunities for the young people of Detroit Livonia, and the office would have 16 to 18 staff people. Due to the economic circumstances at that time, we were forced to cancel this IL proposed construction. All of our building plans were approved by your Building Department, and the next step would have been to obtain a permit. But our Board of Directors determined that because economic conditions were so bad, there would have to be a temporary postponement. In the interim period, the S.S.Kresge Company donated their regional offic( to JA, which is on the southeast corner of Grand River and Lahser. We were located at Grand River and Hubbell, which is a little closer to town. As a result of this offer, our Board of Directors accepted that building for their offices. We still felt that we had an obligation to provide a job center at this location. Currently, we have been negotiating with the Livonia School people, and understand that Whitman Junior High will soon become available. I have had several meetings with Dr. Friedrichs, and have a letter from the School Board indicating that they will be making their Industrial Arts Section at Whitman School available in the near future. We are now finalizing our plans for the use of that facility, and feel that we have met our obligations to the young people of Livonia with that facility. We feel that this arrange- ment will work out very well for the City and for JA. Getting back to that letter, there are statements in there that are totally untrue. JA did not purchase this property solely for the purpose of making a profit. As a matter of fact, over $25,000 were spent in drawing up plans for our proposed construction, and now that is down the drain. I would like to point out that the doctor is planning on keeping the relative low- profile that we were going to use. This low-profile building complex will be complimentary to what is happening in the civic center area. And I would think that the residents in this neighborhood would certainly rather have a service of this nature - doctors' and dentists' offices - rather than a gas station. 6632 to Mr. Andrew: Thank you, Mr. Nagel. Appreciate the background information. Any more questions, Mrs. Scurto? Are there other questions from the Commission? Frank, if this petition is approved at the Council level, how soon do you anticipate starting construction? Mr. Perrin: This year - as soon as possible. The doctor would like to relocate from his present office. Mr. Andrew: And where is the doctor presently located - Detroit, Dearborn, where? Leonard L. My present office is located in that complex at Plymouth and Farmington Veatch Roads. Have been there for 15 years. Mr. Andrew: Thank you, Doctor. Are there any questions of the doctor? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Cooper Smith: I would like to know what they plan on putting up there that will 33470 Lyndon separate them from me? Mr. Andrew: The petition before us tonight is only a matter of rezoning. If this request is approved, the doctor will be required to appear before us again for Site Plan approval. I believe we talked about this with you before when the JA's were thinking about putting up a building. You will be notified when the request for Site Plan approval is on the agenda. 4 110 Mr. Andrew then directed the Planning Department to notify Mr. Cooper Smith when Site Plan approval is scheduled. Mrs. Friedrichs: I really don't have a question, but it seems to me that this use for this corner would be most appropriate, and the building design does seem to fit in with the adjacent Silver Village project. And I also feel that the traffic involved with this development would be less than that in comparison with what JA would have given. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions? Anyone else wishing to speak further on this matter? There was no one else wishing to comment on this subject and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-12-1-43 be closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Freidrichs, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #2-25-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 77-12-1-43 as submitted by Leonard L. Veatch, D.D.S, to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington Road and Lyndon in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-12-1-43 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia. (2) The proposed uses will be compatible to the surrounding uses of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's goals and policies for land use which are to encourage office uses as transitional and buffer zones separating established residential uses from the various impacts of heavily travelled thoroughfares. 6633 (4) The usero sed for this p po property is similar to the uses previously approved for the subject property at the time the Junior Achievement Association petitioned for its use of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/26/78, and that a 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: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: DuBose ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 77-12-1-45 by Richard E. Kahl and Lionel E. Shulman to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Fitzgerald Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, from RUFC to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Our Engineering Division indicates that the legal description is proper, and there are no,engineering problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Are the petitioners present? Richard Kahl Yes, we are here with our Architect, Maurice Miller, and would like Lionel Schulman to say that we have been located at 28200 Seven MilTsRoad address 28200 W. 7 Mi. for 9 years. It is our intention, if this rezoning/approved, to build a dentist office of about 2500 square feet, a one-story building used solely for our practice. Mr. Andrew: Doctors, are you the owners of this property at the present time? Richard Kahl: We have an offer to purchase, subject to the rezoning. Mr. Andrew: Your present location is between Inkster and Middlebelt? Richard Kahl: Yes, on the corner of Lathers. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: You are planning on using that building solely for your own use? Richard Kahl: Yes. Mr. Falk: Doctor, I am wondering if you are aware of how our Planning Department, our Planning Commission and the City Council feel about developing this particular area? 6634 Dr. Kahl:IL No, I am not sure that we are.. Mr. Falk: Livonia is a community unique with respect to its neighborhoods. A lot of people here take pride in their homes. We have had a lot of people come to these meetings and let us know exactly how they feel about spot zoning in a residential area. As you must know, there is nothing but residential in this area. I feel also that you probably will want to develop this even more in the future - expand your buildings. Let's face it, those people who live directly across the street on Seven Mile Road have 60, 70, maybe 80 thousand dollar homes, and they want this area to remain the way it is. We have had others come before us requesting a change to Commercial or Professional Service zoning, but I don't feel that would be fair to those people living there. Dr. Kahl: I was not aware that other petitioners has requested a change to Professional Service zoning. We were told that a catering hall had tried to move into that property, and were turned down. And we feel that we have something certainly less objectionable than a catering hall. Less traffic at night. It is desirable that we locate here because there is a need for our kind of service in this area. There are not a lot of dentists' offices there now, and it is fairly close to where we are now. We should not lose too many of our present patients. Since we are presently leasing the the space we have now, we are going to have to relocate within a few years. There is commercial in the area right now with Brose Electric on the corner of Newburgh Road, and a square dance hall adjacent to the east. We felt that a well-designed building would be compatible with the surrounding area, and that is the reason for our petition. IL Mr. Falk: How much more area would this new building encompass than you have right now? Dr. Kahl: Approximately double. Mr. Falk: Our City Council, as well as all our PlanningCommission have a certain responsibility to the citizens of this town, and as far as I know, they don't even want any P.S. zoning on Farmington Road. And I am sure tha they will want this area to remain residential as well. Mr. Andrew: Any other questions or comments from the Commission? Mrs. Friedrichs: I would just like to comment that I think there is quite a bit of difference in this request for a P.S. zoning than there would be for commercial. I don't think it is the same type of petition. As far as I am personally concerned, I feel that this could fit into this neighborhood very well. I certainly don't feel that this design would be detrimental in appearance, and their hours would not be difficult to live with from a traffic standpoint. As one Commission, I cannot see why it wouldn't be an attractive addition to that neighborhood. Mrs. Scurto: Is there more than one building on that property right now? Dr. Kahl:11 There is. a little green house. Mrs. Scurto: I hope that someone takes that down. Mr. Andrew: I must point out that this petition is in conflict with the Master Land Use Plan. The plan recommends that property along Seven Mile Road up to Newburgh except for Brose Electric remain in the residential classification. 6635 Mr. Zimmer: I notice that your development is proposed to be located on the most westerly of these three lots. What about the other two parcels what are you planning to do with that? IL Dr. Kahl: The entire parcel is up for sale. Actually, it is more land than we need. We have no plans for expansion at this time. Mr. Zimmer: Would you have any objection if we limited the rezoning to that particular parcel that you plan to put the building on? Dr. Kahl: No problem. Mrs. Wisler: I feel that if these doctors really want to stay in Livonia, they might be able to find property elsewhere already zoned Professional Services. I personally am opposed to any development along that area other than residential. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions from the Commission before going to the audience? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Thelma Brown: I live adjacent to Lot #39, and I am wondering about that 15' easement 36730 7 Mi that I use to get into my property. I certainly don't want to get boxed out. Mr. Shulman: Purchase Agreement insures her of her right to use that easement. She will not be boxed out. Mary Sorah: I live directly across the street from these lots. We cameinto Livonia IL 36697 7 Mi from out of state, and we bought here because we were told that this area would remain residential. I object to this petition for the same reasons that we voted against Mrs. Clark and her barn. Joan Meyers: I am an attorney and am here representing a number of home owners 859 Main St. living directly across Seven Mile Road, who are very much against Plymouth this rezoning. I would also like to point out to you that there are new homes going up on Lots #40 and those adjacent. The house on Lot #33 was just built in 1977. I understand that not too long ago there was a request for rezoning to Professional Services on Lots #34, 35, and 36, which was turned down. As far as that subdivision on Fitzgerald, north of Seven Mile Road, it has been there since early 1940's and there are deed restrictions that state that all that property is to be used solely for residences. I feel I should remind you of that. Those people living on Lots #315 thru #317 are also strongly opposed to this rezoning Please take this into consideration when you vote. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments from the audience or Commission? Dr. Kahl: I recall reading in the ]Livonia newspaper not too long ago that there is a major shopping center planned just a little bit west and north of this area, somewhere close to the 1-275 Freeway. . What about that? Mr. Andrew: Dr. Kahl, don't believe everthing you read. Did anyone make you aware of the deed restrictions running with this property? J 110 Dr. Kahl: No, I am not sure. There was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-12-1-45 closed. 6636 to On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, it was #2-26-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 77-12-1-45 as submitted by Richard E. Kahl and Lionel E. A Shulman to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Fitzgerald Avenue and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, from RUFC to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-12-1-45 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The uses permitted under the proposed zoning category are inconsistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia which recommends the retention of single family residential zoning and use of the subject property. (2) Approval of this petition would be adverse to the City Planning Commission's previously demonstrated position with regard to maintaining the residential uses and viability of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would not promote the orderly and appropriate residential development of the neighboring area, but would tend to encourage the further conversion of residentially zoned lands to that of nonresidential, strip development. (4) The proposed change of zoning represents spot zoning as the site is of limited size and not contiguous to and/or related to any other li; office development. It is surrounded on all sides by single family residential zoning and uses. (5) The proposed change of zoning is not in the long-range best interest of the neighborhood or the general area as the neighboring area is predominently of a residential character and office uses are inappropriate to the continued long-range use and enjoyment of the general neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the local official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/26/78, and that a 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: Kluver, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs, DuBose, Scurto ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 77-12-2-28 by Dimitrios and Sylvia Gotsis requesting waiver use approval to establish a Class C Liquor Licensed operation in a restaurant proposed to be located on the northeast 10 corner of Middlebelt Road and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner, or his representative, present? 4 Rodney Kropf: Yes, I will be representing the petitioner on this request for waiver 32510 Plymouth use approval to operate a restaurant that can serve alcoholic beverages in accordance with a Class C Liquor License that was granted by the 6637 legistlative body of this city. I have prepared a visual rendition of the interior of this restaurant which shows 148 seats. There are 8 seats devoted to the bar area of the restaurant. The plans prepared are ideal plans for this particular type of an expensive restaurant. My client feels that there are certain members of the public who desire a drink with their meal, thus the request to be able to serve liquor. This establishment will cost close to a quarter million dollars, and the exterior of the building will, more or less, go along with the existing design of the other buildings on Middlebelt Avenue, we sincerely ask for your approval of this petition. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions of the counsel by members of this Commission? Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Kropf, what will the prime serving time be at this restaurant, and how late will they be open? Mr. Kropf: I would assume that this would be strictly a restaurant operation, and would not stay open late like a bar. We certainly don't have these kind of plans for this establishment. Probably close around 1:00 a.m. Mrs. Scurto: I find it necessary to make this comment, and that is I have never seen such a fine job of making restaurant architecture compatible with housing, however, I still cannot support this waiver use petition. I feel the residents in this area should be protected from this type of business that serves liquor. The other businesses nearby have normal closing hours of 9:00 p.m. and I am sure the people in the area have no difficulty with that. But I feel I will have to vote against this type of business so close to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Kropf: It is my understanding that later on the agenda there is an item relative to a slight alteration in the site plan. I have copies of the site plan. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Kropf, would you be good enough to point out these changes to the Commission? Mr. Kropf: A change was needed on the original site plan because of an enlargement of the building by a length of 5' . We felt that we needed additional space in the kitchen and it was also determined that there no longer was a need for a propane tank, which was eliminated. There was some question as how the property to the north would be used, and with the hope of allaying some fears, it was decided that this land would be used as parking only. Consequently, the parking area has been increased as well as the seating area, and all requirements of the ordinance have been met. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, has your professional staff reviewed this change in the Site Plans? Are there any deficiencies? Mr. Nagy: None that we have detected. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions from the Commission, relative to the Site Plan? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against thi petition? 3 t Dorothy Bruce: I am here representing Madison Civic Association, and this looks to me 29218 Broad- like opening the door after the horse is gone. I have several letters he: MOOT I would like to read to you from the residents in the area. 6638 *Mrs. Bruce read a letter dated February 14, 1978 from the Madison Civic Association objecting to this petition, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference and made a permanent part of these minutes. We just don't want this. Very disappointed with the way the City has handled this situation. Mr. Andrew: You made your comments during your presentation. I Imderstand you very clearly. Now, about the location of the trash receptacle, where did you say it should be located: Mrs. Bruce: Put it in the back of the lot where no one will see it. It certainly doesn't belong there where they have put it. You know it will attract rodents. Put it back near the wooded area, not near the homes. It is not going to be kept up. The rats probably come in from the creek area, and the DPW should do something too about getting rid of that house. I have another suggestion --- if they are going to put in more parking why don't you have that property zoned parking so they can't put a building on it? Mr. Zimmer: Mrs. Bruce, you referred to other letters in your presentation. Who signed those letters? Are they all residents of your same Civic Association? Mrs. Bruce: Even the businessmen in this area are upset with you. Mr. Zimmer: Do we have any letters from any businessmen regarding this petition, or any other citizens other than this woman? 111; Mr. Nagy: We have received no correspondenoerelative to this petition other than what was indicated. Mrs. Bruce: We presented Mr. McCann with a letter objecting to this restaurant. Had many signatures on it as well as signatures from businessmen in the area, including Hammell Music. Mr. Andrew: The difficulty here is that the letter was presented to City Council. Our records do not contain any letters either for or against this petition. Nothing addressed to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Bruce: We delivered a letter last June, 1977 to the City Clerk's Office, directed to Mr. McCann. All the signatures indicated opposition to this restaurant bar. The City Council then took action in October without notifying us. Mr. Andrew: There will be no further discussion on this point. Are there any other questions from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: I would like some clarification as to the distance from a bar to a church - is it 300' , 500'? What is it? Mr. Feinberg: Had a discussion with the Liquor Control Commission, regarding this distance of 500 feet, and they advise that there is a provision for a waiver on the part of a church or school that might fall within 500' of a bar. They may either waive the petition or object to it, whatever they decide. If,in fact, they do object the Commission must then hold a Public Hearing. Based on the findings at the Public Hearing, it is then up to the Liquor Control Commission to make its determination. 6639 Also, there is a survey that must be taken of all those parties that fall within the 500' radius. After these procedures, the Commission then decides whether or not they will object, or waive the petition and then issue the license. Mr. Zimmer: Has the Liquor Control Commission granted this petition? Mr. Feinberg: I do not know. Mr. Zimmer: These requirements that you just stated are still to be finalized regarding this particular situation? Mr. Feinberg: I do not know. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Harry Von Ness: Why was the entrance door put on Broadmoor and not on the Middlebelt 29296 Wentworth Road side? Mr. Kropf: It was the choosing of the owner of the property to put the entrance on Broadmoor. He has the rightto choose to put the door at any point. Mrs. VonNess If they put the door on Middlebelt, they would be closer than 500' to the church. That's why they put it on Broadmoor. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Kropf, is that true? t: Mr. Kropf: I am not exactly sure of the question. Mr. Andrew: Why was the entrance door put .on the side street? Mr. Kropf: The entrance door was put on Broadmoor to maintain the existing address of the establishment. All addresses originate from the Detroit Edison Company, and they have designated 29300 Broadmoor as the address. Mrs. VonNess: With all the other businesses on Middlebelt, you would think they would put this business on Middlebelt as well. Maybe the Planning Commission could get that changed. Mr. Andrew: This Commission and any other Commission of the city has nothing to do with assigning addresses. That is strictly the responsibility of the Detroit Edison Company and Engineering Dept. Hartley House: We live in the first house across the street. We have been at the 29229 Broad- previous Public Hearings concerning the changing of this corner. Please moor bear in mind that my wife and myself have spent a lot of money in keeping our home nice. The area was residential when we bought it. Of course, that is changing now. When they first talked about rezoning that corner, and putting up a restaurant, there was no reference made to having a liquor license. At that time the petitioner said there was no request for a liquor license in the works, and none was anticipated. Mr. Kropf assured us that they would observe restaurant hours, not bar hours. Please don't do this to my wife and me. Please don't grant them a liquor license. Mr. Zimmer: Mr. House, does the furniture store have either an exit or an entrance on Broadmoor? • 6640 Mr. House: There is no access to the store from Broadmoor. I believe there is a service door leading out to the parking lot on Broadmoor. I4 . Mr. Zimmer: Could you get into the store building from Broadmoor? Mr. House: Yes, there is one door exiting on to Broadmoor, but that is not their main entrance to the store. Joseph Pepin: I am very strongly opposed to giving them a liquor license. There is a church on Sunnydale which is 500' from the proposed site if they had their entrance on Middlebelt. We all signed petitions and sent them to Lansing, and I think we should wait until we hear from them before you people decide anything. Mrs. ScurtoT Is there a representative of that church here tonight? Audience: He didn't get a notice. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Feinberg, is it the normal practice of the Liquor Control Commission to issue a license on the basis of a Council Resolution which says, in effect, that they have no objection to the issuance for a specific piece of property? Mr. Feinberg: They will make their own investigation regardless of what our Council does. Mr. Andrew: But without any resolution from our City Council, the Liquor Control Commission could not issue the license. Is that right? Mr. Feinberg: I cannot say for sure. Floyd Hinton: You people were against putting in dentists' offices in a residential 29614 Went= area, and now you are seriously considering putting a bar in a worth residential area. I don't understand. Mrs. Scurto: I for one will be voting against this. It annoys me as a Commissioner that some people feel they have to resort to rude remarks to make their point known. But even in spite of Mrs. Bruce's behavior, I will still be voting against this petition. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Falk: There is no busier thoroughfare in Livonia than Middlebelt Road, and I feel that Mr. Gotsis has a good thing going here. He may make a fortune there. He has already mentioned a cost of around a quarter of million dollars with attractive renderings of the building and interior. All aspects of his plans are compatible with our local ordinance, and he has stated that it will not be just another "bar", but will close around 11:30-12:00 p.m. but not later than 1:00 a.m. Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-12-2-28 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. DuBose, it was 4 #2-27-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 77-12-2-28 as submitted by Dimitrios and Sylvia Gotsis requesting waiver use approval to establish a Class C Liquor Licensed operation in a restaurant proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, low 6641 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-12-2-28 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #76-17, Sheet P-1, dated 2/7/78, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevation Plan #76-17, Sheet A-4, dated 2/7/78, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That a landscape plan showing all landscape materials proposed to be installed on the site shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed restaurant. for the following reasons: (1) The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the intended use. (2) The additional use will not adversely affect the surrounding uses of the area. (3) The plans submitted are in full compliance with all of the requirements of Zoning Ordinance #543 with respect to the C-2 District regulations, and the specific standards of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to waiver uses for restaurants and Class C Liquor Licensed operations. FURTHER RESOLVED that, this approval supersedes approval of all plans previously approved by Planning Commission Resolution #2-31-77, adopted on February 22, 1977, in connection with Petition 76-12-2-26, Conditions #1, #2 and #3, but that Conditions #4 and #5 are still valid and shall be adhered to. 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, DuBose, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto ABSTAIN: Friedrichs ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 78-1-1-2 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located west of Farmington Road, south of Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, from P.L. to M-1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition: Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no problems. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to put back into the manufacturing classification property that is not owned by the City of Livonia but rather is privately owned, either by a company 6642 or an individual. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Are there any comments or questions from the Commission? ti There was no one wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-1-2 closed. , On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-28-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-1-2 initiated by the City Planning Commission on its motion to rezone property located west of Farmington Road, south of Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, from P.L. to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-1-2 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The subject property is not under public ownership or public use but rather is privately owned and used as part of the parking facility of the Donald Blackburn Manufacturing Company. (2) This change of zoning will correct the Zoning Map of the City of Livonia to accurately reflect the private ownership and use of the subject property. (3) The M-1, Manufacturing, classification is consistent with the adjacent zoning on the principal portion of the Donald Blackburn Manufacturing Company property. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/26/78, and a 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 Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 78-1-1-3 by Bob Jenkins to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison Avenue, south of Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-2-B. After a lengthy discussion regarding the fact that a few abutting property owners were inadvertently not notified of this Public Hearing, as well as upon advice from the Law Department that since it has been the custom and practice of this Commission to notify all abutting property owners since 1970 of any requests for a change in rezoning, Mr. Andrew determined that another Public Hearing on this Petition 78-1-1-3 would be scheduled for March 14, 1978 as item #1, with all provisions for notification to take place according to past customs and practices. Mr. Andrew then called for a Recess at 10:15 p.m. At 10:20 p.m. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda as Petition 78-1-2-1 by Thomas S. Thompson and James LeCourt requesting waiver lase approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Garden in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36. 6643 Mr. Andrew: ti Mr. Nagy is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Police Division, indicating that they have reviewed this proposal and feel that there are many traffic difficulties to be straightened out before another restaurant is established in this area. . .etc. Letter is signed by Lt. Richard Widmaier. We also have a letter from Engineering indicating they have no problems with the proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner, or his representative, present? Al McCardle: Yes, I will be representing the petitioners. We believe this site is very good for our type of restaurant. The zoning is already correct, and we feel it would be a substantial improvement to this property. Mr. Andrew: Do you propose to demolish the existing structure on the property? Mr. McCardle: Yes, we do. There will be a totally new structui there. Mr. Andrew: The plan I am looking at shows four curb cuts, 2 on Garden and 2 on Plymouth. I thought I remembered something from the Study Meeting about not having any exits or entrances on Garden? Mr. McCardle: Yes, that is right. t4Mr. Andrew: These ingress and egress points on Garden have been eliminated? Mr. McCardle: Yes, they have. Mr. Andrew: Slump block - what is that? Mr. McCardle: Slump block is a kind of cast brick. Mr. Andrew: It doesn't have a type of weeping mortar then? Mr. McCardle: No, it doesn't. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: How many of these types of businesses do you already have? Mr. McCardle: Presently, there are four in the state of Michigan. Rawsonville, one on the Dix-Toledo highway, one in Flint, and one in Traverse City. Mrs. ScurtoF There is still a proposal for a carry-out or drive-thru, or whatever. Is that true? Mr. McCardle: Yes, there is a provision for a drive-thru, but will not be used at this site. Mr. Andrew: Looking at the architect's drawings of the entrance, a pick-up window is 110 indicated. Mr. McCardle: We are deleting this at this operation. We have them at the other locatioi but in this case, we will delete them from our formal plans. • _ 6644 I Mrs. Scurto: Is not a final setof plans to be submitted before we can act? 1[00 Mr. McCardle: The plans you have now are just a typical set of plans. Eliminating this drive-thrufeature would not have any effect on the rest of the interior of the building. Mr. Falk: I have a couple of questions. First - isn't this something like a Taco Bell? Mr. McCardle: We are not Taco Bell, but I suppose it does look like one. Mr. Falk; Sure looks like a Taco Bell. Mr. McCardle: This company originated in Louisville. Mr. Falk: What are your hours of operation? Mr. McCardle: We will be open from 11:00 a.m. til either 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Mr. Falk: So you will be catering to younger people. Mr. McCardle: No, this is a family oriented type of restaurant. Early evening and lunch hours. Possibly, peak times will be between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. Mr. Falk: Are you kidding? Have you ever tried to get down Plymouth Road between 5 and 7 o'clock in the afternoon? How many employees will you have? Mr. McCardle: At least 3 cooks, and a couple of girls at the counter. Customers will (10 come up to the counter and help themselves. Mr. Andrew: Any other questions of the petitioner? Will you be needing a liquor license? Mr. McCardle: Just to serve tequila. Not really. Do not need a liquor license. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Mary Segasser: We are strongly opposed to another restaurant along here on Plymouth Road. We already have Burger King, and Skylark and Chins. And you know that restaurants bring rats. We already have whiskey bottles thrown in our yard. When we bought here 20 years ago, there was a green area between our house and Plymouth Road. Now look at it. And the traffic there between 5 and 7. Steady stream down Garden - people trying to cut off the corner of Plymouth and Middlebelt. We live in the third house from the corner on Lot #18, and we see that traffic every day. Mrs. Wisler: I am concerned about that gas station. Don't you have any problems with that gas station on the corner now? Mrs. Segasser: Yes, I would like to see someone get rid of that gas station. It is 11, a real eyesore, and we would really like to see this old neighborhood just stay as a nice, clean neighborhood. 4 Mrs. Wisler: I really am in a quandry. I agree with the residents that something should be done here to improve the corner, but what? 6645 10 Robert Webber: I will agree that the gas station is an eyesore. I sold this 34648 Bristol property prior to the time these people bought it. The person I sold i to wanted to put in a party store, but he couldn't get a liquor license. I feel these people have a real good plan here. They will tear down the existing building, and I feel their plans will greatly improve that area. Bill LaPine: I live directly south of this property you are talking about, and the 10034 Camden traffic in that area is terrible. Sometimes I have to wait two or three minutes to make a left-hand turn onto Garden coming down Plymouth from Inkster' Road because of the traffic coming down Middlebelt making a left onto Plymouth from the racetrack. Also, we have about 10 or 12 restaurants there already, plus tire stores, plus gas stations. I think these people have a good idea but not here in this part of town. Mr. Zimmer: According to a survey taken not too long ago regarding restaurants in Sections 35 and 36, it was determine that there are .a total of 34 restaurants or places where you can get something to eat in this area. Totally agree that we definitely do not need another business of this kind here. Mrs. Scurto: I would like to commend you gentlemen on your plan and landscaping treatment, and I feel that this development would be an asset to the city. However, the traffic situation in that area is unbelieveable Anyone who has to travel in that area between 5 and 7 p.m. is taking a chance on their life and limbs. I feel that if you could find 110 - a more suitable spot in this city for your proposal, I could seriously } consider it; but definitely not in this particular spot that you are presently talking about. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #2-29-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-2-1 as submitted by Thomas S. Thompson and James LeCourt requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the southeast corner of Plymouth Road and Garden in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-2-1 be denied, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use as presented in plan form to the Planning Commission is in conflict with the C-2 zoning district regulations, Section 11.03(p) , in that no in-car customer service facility shall be provided. (2) The proposed use will be hazardous to the area with respect to the traffic flow to and from the site as based upon the findings of the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department in its report dated February 9, 1978. 10 (3) The hours of operation, the odors, lights, fumes and debris associated with the intended use will be such that it will be detrimental to the nearby establihhed uses of the area, particularly the residential uses located to the south of the area-under petition. 6646 IL (4) The proposed use is not in accord with the spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and is contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Zoning Ordinance and the principles of sound planning which is to achieve a mix and balance of land uses. The neighboring area and Plymouth Road in general is over saturated with similar type of uses as is represented by this petition. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: DuBose ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. At this time, Mr. Andrew suggested to the petitioners that they address a letter within 10 days to the City Council, requesting relief from this decision, if they so desired. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-1-2-2 by G.E.Associates, Architects, for Holy Cross Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting waiver use IL approval to construct an addition to the existing Church located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Only correspondence received is from Engineering indicating no problems connected with proposal. Mr. Andrew: Are we required to make an Environmental Impact Study on this church? A statement to this effect I read in the local newspaper. Mr. Nagy: Not that I am aware of. There are no federal or state monies involved which agencies generally require as a prerequisite to funding that a environmental impact study be made. Mr. Andrew: Please let the record show that in the case of this particular church no environmental impact study is required. Is the petitioner present? Ray Cupples: Yes, and I would also like the record to show that Ralph Peterson, Berg 32724 Barkley Erikson and Don Roth are here also in support of this petition for a waiver use. I should like to point out that your map is in error showing two homes on this property. There is really only one. I would like to present to you copies of the addition that we plan for our church. As you can see, we would like to provide a multi-purpose room addition, which could be converted at times to a gymnasium. We would also like four additional Sunday School rooms. 4 le Mr. Andrew: Is that the pastor's home on that corner piece of property? Mr. Cupples: No. Mr. Falk: I would just like to compliment this Lutheran Church on a well laid- out, well developed addition to their facility. I have no difficulty with this at all. 6647 i There was no one wishing to speak any further. on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-2-2 closed. 4 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #2-30-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-2-2 as submitted by G. E. Associates, Architects for Holy Cross Evangelical Lutheran Church requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to the existing Church located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Merriman Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-2-2 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #77010, dated 12/16/77, prepared by G.E. Associates Inc. , Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevation Plan #77-010, dated 12/16/77, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. for the following reasons: (1) The plans submitted are in full compliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and the use is fully compatible to the established uses of the property and adjoining areas. (2) The site has excess capacity to support the proposed expansion of use. IL (3) The plans submitted provide for a very attractive addition, architecturally which will be, in all respects, compatible with and complimentary to the existing church structure. 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 is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-1-3-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #1116-77 to vacate that portion of Graytona Avenue located between Farmington Road and Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy is there any correspondence regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: No, there is not. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Graytona Avenue. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Sherman Purvis: Yes, I own and operate the Veterinary Hospital on the corner, and our 33403 Graytona parking facilities are set up with the idea that people can exit onto IL Graytona, then to Farmington Road. I paid a paving contractor good money to pave that exit onto Graytona, and it would be a definite detriment to me and my clients if everyone had to come in and go out of the same spot. Mr. Andrew: The Commission did discuss this situation at a study meeting, whether or not is it really a good idea to vacate that portion of Graytona? Are there any questions of the doctor? 6648 i Mrs. Friedrichs: Dr. Purvis, you do prefer that it not be closed? 1[10Dr. Purvis: Yes, it would be to my advantage if it could remain open. Mr. Andrew: I feel this matter should be discussed further with our Engineering Department as well as our Department of Public Works. Dr. , if we were to discuss this at a Study Meeting at a later date, would you be able to attend that meeting? Dr. Purvis: Yes, I would be able to attend if given enough notice. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, would you please notify Dr. Purvis one week ahead of the Study Meeting at which time this petition will be discussed. Also, please make this item No. 1 on the Agenda for that night. Any further discussion on this matter? There was no one wishing to speak any further on this subject, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-2-2-closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-31-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-3-1 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #1116-77 to vacate that portion of Graytona Avenue 1[10 located between Farmington Road and Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-1-3-1. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Wellington Place Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Stark Road between Plymouth Road and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Andrew: Have all City departments indicated no objections to this Preliminary Plat? Any correspondence from adjoining property owners. Mr. Nagy: No correspondence from adjoining property owners. No other correspondence received. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present, or his representative? Jerry Goray: Yes, I am here with Jacob Menuck of Curtis Building. 32900 Five Mile Road Mr. Andrew: How many lots will there be in this sub? Mr. Goray: We have cut down the number of lots as shown on our original proposal. Presently we plan on 63 lots compared to our original plan of 65. Many lots will be made larger, which will exceed the minimum require- ments for the R-1-A district. Mr. Andrew: And you have eliminated the exit down to Orangelawn? 6649 Mr. Goray: Yes, we have. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: The Plat indicates roads going east and west at the bottom of the subdivision. Do you own any adjacent property to this plat? Mr. Goray: No, that ingress and egress possibility was provided at the suggestion of the Planning Department to accommodate any future development by others to the east. We have no interest in the land to the east. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this Preliminary Plat approval? Don Trost: Will there be some kind of retaining wall separating this subdivision 29560 Minton from my property? Mr. Andrew: When a residential subdivision abuts another commercial subdivision, the developer is not required to install a wall, although we have talked to him about some kind of landscaping. Between commercial and residential, there must be a clear line of demarcation, and he has proposed to install a greenbelt and a chain-link fence between your parents' commercial property and the residential subdivision, but not a wall. Mr. Trost: Thank you. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments? There was no one else wishing to speak at this time, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Wellington Place Subdivision closed. 1[0 On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-32-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 14, 1978 on Preliminary Plat approval for Wellington Place Subdivision proposed to be located on the east side of Stark Road between Plymouth Road and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the open space requirements of Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as they relate to the Wellington Place Subdivision for the following reasons: (1) The size of the Subdivision would require a park space of very limited size. (2) All of the lots in the subdivision either meet or exceed the minimum lot size required in the R-1 Zoning District regulations. (3) There are no additional lots to be gained as a result of the waiving of the open space requirements as lot depths and lot widths have been increased to afford greater protection to the proposed subdivision from the adjoining commercial area located to the north. t AND THAT, the Planning Commission also hereby does recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for the Wellington Place Subdivision be approved, subject to the following conditions: 6650 (1) that a plan showing the design of the required subdivision entrance 1 markers be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to Final Plat approval; and (2) that a plan showing the landscape treatment of the 20' easement areas indicated on the Preliminary Plat shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to Final Plat approval; for the following reasons; (1) The Preliminary Plat complies with the R-1 Zoning District regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) The Preliminary Plat complies with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission having waived the open space requirements of Section 9.09. (3) The Preliminary Plat represents good site planning and subdivision design standards which will promote the orderly and efficient development of the area. 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 notice, have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and Parks and Recreation Department. ILMr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-33-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated December 6, 1977 from Georgia A. Gumas requesting an extension of approval of Petition 76-8-2-14 requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing business operation located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Harrison in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one year extension, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Landscape Plan dated 2/14/78, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and the materials thereon shall be installed no later than May 30, 1978, and thereafter shall be permanently maintained in a healthy condition; subject tothe following conditions; (2) that parking lot lighting shall be installed no later than May 30, 1978; (3) that bumper blocks shall be placed in the parking lot no later than May 30, 1978; (4) that the parking lot shall be hard surfaced no later than October 1, 1978; . , (5) that any additional signs to be erected on the site or attached to the building shall be first approved by the Planning Commission, and 6651 (6) that a signed agreement allowing for the use of Chap's Feed Store's trash facilities be obtained by the petitioner, and in the event that such agreement should terminate, a permanent trash enclosure shall be installed by the petitioner, the location and design of which shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission; FURTHER RESOLVED that, Conditions #1 and #5 of the Planning Commission Resolution #12-260-76, adopted on December 14, 1976, are still valid and shall be adhered to. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Dubose, it was #2-34-78 RESOLVED that, having reviewed the revised Site Plan submitted in connection with Petition 76-12-2-26 by Demitrios and Sylvia Gotsis requesting waiver use approval to construct and operate a restaurant on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant approval of the revised site plan, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #76-17, Sheet P-1, dated 2/7/78, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 1[10 (2) that Building Elevation Plan #76-17, Sheet A-4, dated 2/7/78, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and (3) that a landscape plan showing all landscape materials proposed to be installed on the site shall be submitted for Planning Commission approval prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed alteration and enlargement of the structure is of a minor extent, being limited to only 5' . (2) The site has surplus property to accommodate the enlargement of the parking area and a generous quantity of land is still being reserved for landscaping around the building as well as around the peripheral area of the site to provide good landscaping and screening of the parking area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, this approval supersedes approval of all plans previously approved by Planning Commission Resolution #2-31-77, adopted on February 22, 1977, in connection with Conditions #1, #2, and #3; however, Conditions #4 and #5 are still valid and shall be adhered to. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew t NAYS: Scurto ABSENT: Morrow 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 unanimously adopted, it was 6652 #2-35-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for the Windridge Village Subdivision proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Gill Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Engineering Division of the City of Livonia recommends approval of the Final Plat. (3) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmers, seconded by Mr. Dubose, it was #2-36-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 347th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the Planning Commission on January 17, 1978 are approved. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Falk, Wisler ABSENT: Morrow ILMr. Andrew declared the above motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded, by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-37-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 348th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 31, 1978 are approved. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 349th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 14, 1978 was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Jo--ph J/ Fa Secretary ATTEST: �22e6 Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman E