Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-03-14 6653 MINUTES OF THE 350th REGULAR MEETING 1[0 AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 4 On Tuesday, March 14, 1978, the Livonia City Planning Commission held its 350th 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 8:00 p.m. , with approximately 70 interested citizens in the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Jerome Zimmer Judith A. Scurto Joseph J. Falk Esther Friedrichs Herman H. Kluver Suzanne Wisler William DuBose MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Morrow (out of town business) Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney; and John T. Dufour, Superintendent of the Parks and Recreation Department 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 the petition is terminated. Mr. Falk, Secretary, then announced the first item on the agenda as Petition 78-1-1-3 by Bob Jenkins to rezone property west of Harrison Avenue, south of Six 4 Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-2-B. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding the petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a considerable amount of correspondence from the residents in this area all opposed to this rezoning for the reason that this location has always been zoned RUF, and they would like it to remain that way. In addition to the 15 letters received from local residents we also have a petition signed by 65 people, all opposing this rezoning. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence from any City Departments? Mr. Nagy: Just from Engineering and they state there are no engineering problems. Mr. Andrew: Is Mr. Jenkins here? Bob Jenkins: Yes 33580 Five MI Rd. Mr. Andrew: I think in the interest of time, since this is the second Public Hearing on this Petition, you might just outline your reasons for this request in rezoning this land. 4 Bob Jenkins: Yes, Mike Priest owns one of these four parcels covered by the rezoning request, with an option to purchase the other three. We feel that one of the main points in favor of this rezoning is the density of the a 6654 proposed plan for developing this land. As indicated, we are pro= IL posing a yield of 2.73 lots per acre, which according to accepted standards, would place these lots somewhere between an R-3 and R-4 zoning classification as far as density is concerned. The reasons for planning this area this way are: 1) a flood plain does encroach on part of the area; 2) the width of the property allows only one street into area; and 3) the existing homes on the property necessitate consideration for conformance. The type of homes that my client wants to put on these lots will be in the 60 to 65 thousand dollar price range, which he feels is consistent with the neighborhood. The lots would be generally in the area of 70' wide, but very deep. I would like to point out that many lots in the development to the east of this are approximately 70' in width, and our development would be consistent with the existing area. We feel this would be an excellent opportunity for the city to exercise control of the development of these parcels. There are almost seventeen acres here, and the city could exercise control of a coordinated development. Many folks are opposed to this development because they see more traffic on Harrison. I feel that this fear is unjustified, and there will probably be relief in the traffic flow on Harrison because of our development. We do not feel that we will be upsetting the natural environment of the area. With putting 2.73 homes per acre in this development, we are almost coming up to the R-4 classification, and lots larger than that, such as RUF is simply not economically feasible. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Jenkins, you say Mr. Priest owns one parcel and has an option to purchase the other three, would you point this out on the map? 4 10 Mr. Jenkins: The remaining three parcels are right here. Mr. Andrew: Does he live there? Mr. Jenkins: No, but he does live in Livonia. Mrs. Scurto: Would you consider amending your petition to at least an R-3 classificatior Mr. Jenkins: We already have an R-3 density. Would not want to amend petition at this time. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Harry Booth: In regard to this proposal, I would like to express my views. The 16797 Harrison complete area surrounding us on the east, and also further west, is on half-acre lots or larger. We do not want a housing project in the middle of this area. That would take away from the neighborhood completely. Many of the homes in this area are situated on 2,3, maybe 4 lots - all owned by one person. I am trying to say that one owner may.own more than one lot, which makes his property that much larger. Also, concerning additional traffic on Harrison. I have heard that Wayne County Road Commission has plans to install a light at Harrison. You can be sure there will be more traffic once the light is in. Morning and evening. Also - many people in this area have fruit trees and gardens, and you know for sure that houses on smaller lots will a bring in children. I believe that children should have open spaces to play, but I also believe that they will at times spill over into other peoples' yards and gardens. This could be quite a problem. I talked to a real estate man from Martin, Ketchum and Martin, and he 6655 • 4 • says that he doesn't see why this property couldn't be developed 110 into half-acre lots and still sold at a profit. You know there are retired people in this area and they have been here for some 25 to 30 yearE and if it were decided to pave Harrison, many of these people would be faced with a real hardship. Some of them have probably close to 200 feet of frontage. That alone would cause some of them to have to move out. Some of those people,,would have five or six back yards behind them, and these people right here would have four back yards, plus three houses. surrounding them. Plus the fact that developing this land will certainly drive out the wild life - foxes, squirrels, pheasants, coons, etc. And what about the flood plain here? The drainage now is very bad. Right now I have at least 6" of water in my back yard. Members of the Commission; the people in this area bought this property many years ago for the reason that it was zoned RUF, and we all liked the country atmosphere. We certainly would like to keep it that way. We feel it would be unfair to change it at this time. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Any more comments from the Commission? Mrs. Friedrichs: It is my opinion that good quality single family homes could be built in this area; perhaps the lots could just be made a little wider, perhaps 80 feet. Certainly houses built on lots of this size could be consistent in dollar value with those houses there right now. And I really don't feel that children would be that much of a problem as far as running into other peoples' gardens. Couples are just not having large families any more, and if the developer could compromise a little and develop larger lots, the children would have enough of their own back yards to play in. I feel it is unrealistic to say that this property should remain in an RUF classification, but I do feel 'that the people in the ' areaand the developer could possibly come up with some sort of agreement compatible to both parties. Chas. Lorenz: In answer to this question, I cannot speak for everyone because I really don't know how many people are opposed to this development, but I do feel that many people would really like to keep the area the same as it is now. As far as children spilling over into other peoples yards, they do it now. They take a bite of fruit, then throw it away. When they feel like walking through someone's yard, they just do it. Mrs. Friedrichs: No matter what size lot is developed, there will always be children. Mr. Lorenz: But if they build smaller lots, there will be more children thus, on larger lots. There is really no where around there for them to go and play. Mrs. Friedrichs: What about the creek area? Mr. Lorenz: It is flooded a lot of the time. Plus they walk through everyone's yards to get there. to Mr. Andrew: I tend to agree with Mr. Lorenz. It appears he is not opposed to the development so much as he is opposed to the R-2-B classification. I would like to hear from the petitioner whether or not he would consider amending the petition now before this Commission. Mr. Jenkins? 6656 to Mr. Jenkins: As I indicated earlier, the density involved in the plan already submitted would be very similar to that of an R-3 classification, almost as much as that of an R-4, and because of that, we do not wish to amend our petition. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments or questions from the Commission? Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #3-38-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, • 1978 on Petition 78-1-1-3 as submitted by Bob Jenkins to rezone property ' located west of Harrison Avenue, south of Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-2-B, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-1-3 be denied, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is not in harmony with, compatible with, or in keeping with the surrounding and established zoning of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning and lot sizes permitted therewith are not consistent with the established lot sizes of the neighborhoring residential area. (3) The proposed change of zoning and lot sizes as permitted by the R-2 Zoning District regulations will provide for lot sizes that will a diminish and detract from the open character of the established residential neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78. and that notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, DuBose, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs ABSTAIN: Wisler ABSENT: Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-1-1-6 by the City Planning Commission on its motion to rezone property located on the west side of Levan Road between Grove and Sunnydale in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, from R-2-B to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: No, there isn't. 6657 0 Mr. Andrew:(10 This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to rezone property currently being used for city park purposes into the Public lands classification in order to let the people become aware that the property is owned by the City and not by any private individual who might want to develop it for residential construction. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? William Stacy: Yes, I live on Lot #274, and I am concerned as to how this land is 36615 Munger going to be used. Drive Mr. Andrew: Mr. Stacy, we have with us tonight Mr. Dufour, Superintendent of our Parks and Recreation Department, and I am sure he can answer all questions for you. Mr. Stacy: There are four baseball diamonds on 9.22 acres back there, and we are experiencing a lot of problems. Balls are being hit into our back yard, some landing on our family room roof. Little League competition going on, all residents on Munger feel this is a real nuisance, especially with the parking on our street. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Dufour, can you tell us of any long range plans your department may have regarding a parking lot and access to these ball diamonds? Mr. Dufour: I met with this gentleman and his wife last week regarding some of these problems at Kingsbury Park. When we developed this park site, 111; we constructed four ball diamonds plus a parking lot off of Levan to accommodate 30-35 cars. The parking lot was built to alleviate parking on Levan Road itself, but I do realize there is a bad situation there with Little League programs coming in. There are four ball diamonds and a few tennis courts on 9.22 acres, and that will be the extent of our development. There are 3,000 youngsters in the Junior Baseball Program and an equal number of parents. Parking is a problem, and I really don't know what the answer is. Most of the kids that play 'here come from that neighborhood. Some come from Holmes Junior High to the west. Many tons of dirt have been brought in to bring the diamonds up to snuff. And with this diamond and the field in the Castle Gardens Subdivision, those are the only ones in that part of the City. The kids really have to have a good diamond to play ball. The backstop in this area does run up against Lots #272, 273, and 274. And I suppose some of the little kids can't even hit too far. We certainly cannot supervise each playfield in the city, and I suppose when the big kids come in, well - what can you do? Registration is down this year, just like it is at the Board of Education. I suppose some day in the future we will be turning itback into a grassy area. Mrs. Scruto: Could you please tell me how long that baseball field has been in an operable condition? Mr. Dufour: About four years. 110 Mrs. Scurto: Mr. Stacy, how long have you lived there? Mr. Stacy: Since 1969. You know over at Bicentennial Park there are 230 acres, and only ten ball diamonds. That's 30 acres per diamond. Behind us here is 4 really too narrow for a diamond; real problem. • 6658 IlMrs. Scurto: Would you prefer that they remove the ball diamond completely? 1 Mr. Stacy: It was a sort of natural setting when we purchased the home, and we really like it that way. Mr. Andrew: These problems should be taken up with and discussed with the Parks and Recreation people. Mr. Dufour: I realize this is not a Planning Commission problem. The first time I was aware of this was when Mr. Stacy walked into my office last week. Give us time and we will study the situation. When he says there are ten diamonds at Bicentennial Park, he has a point, but I will not take all these diamonds away from the kids who live in that neighborhood. Some should remain for the local children. Mrs. Stacy: It was a natural park until the diamonds went in. We did contact Mr. Dufour and Mr. Reinke before this, but they never returned our calls. We pay our taxes, and feel we should not have to put up with baseballs bumping off our roof. This is supposed to be a natural park, and we are having to put up with a lot of harassment. We have no peace of mind. Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Stacy, this problem should be discussed with the Parks and Recreation Department. The Planning Commission is involved solely in the rezoning of this land to reflect ownership. Mrs. Friedrichs: I do appreciate the conflict that exists here. Many times we have parents coming in here asking us to keep certain areas open so that the neighborhood kids will have a place to play ball in their own neighborhood The little ones cannot go to places that are far away. 4 Mrs. Stacy: Why don't they just change this into a playground area? Mr. Andrew: That is a moot question before this Commission, but we do appreciate your comments. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Mrs. Dyer: I am also harassed by the kids playing ball back there, but I do feel that 36511 Munger we are side-stepping the basic issue. I do feel that this land should be converted officially to show public ownership rather than residential. I certainly don't want another string of houses behind me. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions from anyone? There was no one else wishing to speak further on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-1-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-39-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-1-6 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the west side of Levan Road between 1[4, Grove and Sunnydale in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, from R-2-B to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-1-6 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) This park site is owned by the City and is used for park purposes. (2) The Zoning Map should be corrected to indicate this property as public property. • 6659 (3) This change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having all public lands zoned in a Public Lands classification L and so shown on the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is petition 78-1-1-7 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Ellen Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 and P.L. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: No correspondence. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to rezone land, currently owned by the City zoned as R-2, to the P.L. classification in order to reflect public ownership. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? 100 Siragan Marderosian: I would just like to know what the area is going to be made into. 14477 Yale 4 Mr. Andrew: Its present use is park land, and I would assume it will remain that way. Mr. Dufour, is that right? Mr. Dufour: Yes, this particular piece of property is so narrow that there really is nothing worthwhile that we can do with it. The bottom third is heavily wooded, and it is our intention to just keep it as a greenbelt. Mr.Mosky: About two years I called someone in the City, and asked them how this 14603 Ellen Dr. was zoned and they told me it was zoned P.L. Now I find out it isn't, and has never been. Why does it have to be rezoned now? Mr. Andrew: All property owned by the City is supposed to be zoned P.L. in order to reflect public use. True, this should have been done more than two years ago. Mr.Mosky:. Well, what advantage does it give us, or disadvantage, to have it zoned P.L.? Mr. Andrew: No particular advantage. It's use that if someone were thinking about. putting a home in that area, they could see that it is not zoned R-2 or R-3, but P.L. owned by the City. I: Mr. Mosky: Will they be putting a fence in? Mr. Andrew: Nothing will be changed. a Mr. Dufour: We have no plans to change the area. 6660 1 ,00 Mr. Mosky: Will any signs be posted? Would like to see no motorcycles or snow- 4 mobiles allowed in there. 4 Mr. Dufour: No motorized vehicles of any kind are allowed in any park site in the City of Livonia. But that is a police problem. It is up to you to call the police if they become a nuisance to you. Mr. MoskY: I have seen some people come in there with their dogs, some on leashes, and these dogs do upset the wildlife. We do enjoy the wildlife, even the skunks at times. Mr. Dufour: We would rather not have the dogs go in there and do their business. That is a rather difficult thing to control. J. Gravenstein: Is there any possibility of this ever being developed for homes? 15093 Yale Mr. Andrew: No. Mr. Gravenstein: I hope not. This area is quite densely populated, and getting onto Five Mile Road is becoming quite a problem. There is no light there. Mr. Andrew: Our Planning Director advises me that federal funds were used to acquire this land, and because of that, this area will never be developed for residential purposes. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? 1 There was no one else wishing to speak either for or against this matter, Mr. Andrew 1[0 4 declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-1-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-40-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-1-7 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Lyndon Avenue between Ellen Drive and Yale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-1-7 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) This park site is owned by the City and is maintained as passive recreation area. (2) The Zoning Map should be corrected to indicate this property as public property. (3) This change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of having all public lands classification and so shown on the Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Livonia. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers I Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 6661 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. o Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-2-1-10 by Terrence 0 Company to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Terrence and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no problems. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Roy Johnston: Yes. Proprietor of Terrence Corners Mr. Andrew: Would you please give us your reasons for this rezoning request? Mr. Johnston: If this rezoning request is granted, we would then ask for a waiver use request to allow a sit-down family-type restaurant, similar,to a delicatessen or a Sanders store. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions of the petitioner from the Commission? Mrs. Scurto: Have we determined that parking would be sufficient if they were to come in for a waiver use request? IL Mr. Nagy: Tie staff has not as yet made that determination because parking requirements are based upon the number of seats in the proposed restaurant. Mrs. Scurto: At this particular shopping center, is there enough parking available that is flexible? Mr. Nagy: Yes, there is surplus parking available there now. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Resident: I am Secretary of the Board of Directors at the Condominiums in that 16535 Middle- area on the map shown as R-7. And already across the street from us belt there is a Pizza place that doesn't have adequate parking. And trying to get onto Middlebelt from our place is really terrible. Already we have had three accidents. There are 48 units in our complex, and ever sincf the Pizza place went in, the traffic has been very bad. Mr. Andrew: Is there a traffic light there? Resident: No. Two places that serve food in there are sufficient. Certainly don't need another place that serves food. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments? t4 Herbert Winegarden: I am definitely opposed to this C-2 zoning. All the neighbors 29181 Grove on Grove have been upset since the Pizza Parlor' went in. We keep 4 finding garbage the Pizza place is dumping down the hill. We went to the Zoning Board of Appeals asking for some sort of a wall around there. 6662 1[ But they told us it would not be feasible to put up such a wall. Two years ago we wanted to bring in some dirt and fill in part of the flood plain, but were told we couldn't do that. But this year, someone put some dirt in the flood plan. If they do get this zoned C-2, anything can go in there. And then the traffic will be bad. More traffic - more accidents. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Johnston, the neighbors seem to be quite concerned about the existing Pizza Parlor. What are the Pizza Parlor hours? Audience: All day. Mr. Johnston: 10:00 a.m. to late at night. My parents have lived in this area, on Greenland, for the past 50 years and there were no traffic problems there until that condominium want in near the end of their street. We have certainly cleaned up any mess that was there. I don't think you will find a cleaner shopping center in all of Livonia than Terrence Corners - outside and inside. We clean up everything we can, if we don't my mom and dad give me heck. I will admit there are two shops in there that are not doing too well. But there is a clearly visable sign in the front of the center with my phone number on the sign, and if anyone has any problems, they should call me right away and we will take care of it. Mr. Winegarden: Do you realize that there is not any access around the building. No roadway at all around the Pizza Parlor. What would the Fire IfDepartment do if they had to get around the back? Mr. Andrew: That is not a City Ordinance requirement, but I would say the Fire Marshall should look into it. Mrs. Blaharski: I have a question about rezoning this from C-1 to C-2. I went down 29225 Grove to City Hall and obtained Xerox copies of the C-1 and C-2 regulations. I am sure this gentleman is quite reputable and means what he says about the type of restaurant he wants to put in. But, what if some time in the future, he decides to sell this property and from what I read in the city regulations, anything could go into a C-2 district. Anything, like a bar, dance hall, who knows. Mr. Andrew: In order for anyone to go in there and put a dance hall or bar, they must file a waiver use request petition with this Commission, which request must include a Site Plan, Landscape Plan, etc. We hold a Public Hearing on this request, and if there is anything the neighborhood doesn't like, we try to take that into consideration when we make our decision. We do attempt to control any nuisances that might come up. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one else present wishing to speak on this item, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-2-1-10 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and adopted, it was 1; #3-41-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-2-1-10 as submitted by the Terrence Company to rezone property located at the northeast corner of Terrence and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-2-1-10 be approved, for the following reasons: 6663 I; (1) This change in zoning will provide for additional uses to serve the surrounding area. (2) A change in zoning• to the C-2 classification would be consistent with similar zoning occurring along Middlebelt Road. (3) The potential broadening of uses as would be permitted by C-2 zoning and/or the waiver use options available thereto would be beneficial to the Center in attracting certain commercial facilities that would add to the economic stability of the Center and Shopping appeal. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were 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 resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, DuBose, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto, Wisler ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Morrow ILMr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-2-2-3 by Arnold's Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to establish an SDD Liquor Licensed operation in an existing commercial business located south of Eight Mile Road, east of Angling Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no problems. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Mr. Kron: Yes, I am Secretary of Arnold's Inc. This is an existing drug store in a rather large shopping center, and I hope I can answer any questions you might have. Mr. Andrew: The way I understand it - you already have an SDM license, and you simply want tc be able to add liquor for take out. Is that right? Mr. Kron: Yes, that is it exactly. Mr. Andrew: Are there any comments or questions from any member of 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 on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-2-2-3 closed. 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was • 6664 t4 #3-42-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-2-2-3 as submitted by Arnold's, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to establish an SDD Liquor Licensed operation in an existing commercial business located south of Eight Mile Road, east of Angling Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-2-2-3 be approved, for the following reasons: • (1) The proposed use complies with Section 11.03(r) , waiver use standards, of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The site has the capacity to support the added use. (3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining uses, but will be complementary to the already implemented use of the SDM operation currently established within the facility. 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. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-2-2-4 by Ralph A Reis requesting waiver use approval to establish a construction management office in the existing building located on the northwest corner of Green Lane and ,IL Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering advises no problems connected with proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Would you briefly explain to the audience your reasons for this waiver use request? Ralph A. Reis: Yes, I am the owner and president of a small construction management 33630 Wood firm, and the difference between us and a general contracting business is simply that we do not employ any field personnel whatsoever. Our intent for the use of this property, subject to the approval of this Waiver Use request is for administrative offices only. We feel we can service our clients much more adequately and conveniently with this type of business in this location since the availibility of the newly opened_ expressways of I-96 and I-275. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Isthere anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this? Viola McCutcheon: I live directly to the rear of this piece of property, and I am 15317 Greenlane wondering just what they intend to do with all the land between them and me. Mr. Nagy: We have a Site Plan showing that for you to look at. Ms. McCutcheon: Does he have to put up a wall there? 6665 ILMr. Andrew: Yes, he is required by the ordinance to build a wall. Of course, he could appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and they might waive that requirement. Then he will put up a greenbelt along that line. Ms. McCutcheon: I would certainly rather have a line of trees along that line, rather than a brick wall. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one else wishing to speak further on this item, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-2-2-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-43-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-2-2-4 as submitted by Ralph A. Reis requesting waiver use approval to establish a construction management business in the existing building located on the northwest corner of Green Lane and Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-2-2-4 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan received 3/6/78, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan received 3/6/78, which is hereby approved, 11; shall be adhered to; (3) that any free-standing signs proposed to be installed on the site or facility shall be low-profile; (4) there shall be no roof-mounted equipment such as, but not limited to, ventilating and air conditioning equipment visible to public view; (5) there shall be no outdoor refuse, trash or building products and/or materials, exposed to public view; and (6) there shall be no contractor's equipment of any kind allowed to be parked, stored and housed on the premises. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Section 9.03(a) , Waiver Uses, of the P.S. District regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The site has capacity to support the planned use. (3) The proposal will make beneficial use of the building and property as there is little planned alteration either to the building, or the site. 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. 1[0; Mr. Andrew declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6666 Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-2-1-13 by Rest-in-the-Son, 1: Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF-B to R-3. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering outlining certain deficiencies and appropriate improvements that should be made with regard to this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? John Mahn: Yes, I will try to answer any questions from the Commission, or the audience. Mr. Andrew: I understand there is a fifteen acre parcel that is owned by the Livonia Board of Education, which lies to the northwest of this site. Does anyone know if this land is considered "surplus" land as far as the Board of Education is concerned? Mrs. Scurto: I cannot speak officially for the Board of Education, but I do think that they have declared this as surplus land. Mr. Andrew: Any questions of the petitioner? Mr. Falk: I have only one - according' to the letter from Engineering, there are ILcertain conditions that would have to be met if this property is developed. These conditions would be a requirement for approval not for this rezoning but for the subdivision to follow. You have no reservations about complying with the necessary.requirements? Mr. Mahn: No. Mr. Zimmer: That last condition I did not understand. Something about an easement through the property? Mr. Andrew: Yes, the Bietz drain runs from the northwest to the southeast directly through the proposed subdivision. Will have to be enclosed from the southern boundary down to the inlet that leads to the Gold Manor Subdivision. Any other questions from the Commission? Is there t anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this petition? Stanley Hapiak: I live on that first parcel from the park. And we have had water problems with the storm sewer in that area, which has affected our sanitary system, the septic tank and field. I am hoping that we could tie into a sewer when and if this developer is able to put one in. The water problem is so bad, since the park was developed that we had to call the Wayne County Health Department, and they advised we call an attorney. I have to pump out my septic tank three times a year, so much water fills the field, certainly creating a health problem. The City agrees that the problem never existed until the park was built. 10 Would certainly like to get a sewer in there to take care of the problem. Mr. Andrew: Your neighbors have the same problem? Mr. Hapiak: Yes, one fellow had to put in 18" of dirt in order to keep water out of his basement. His house was completely surrounded by water. But the problem is still there. • 6667 Mr. Andrew: So you are saying that you are not opposed to R-3 zoning? 4 Mr. Hapiak: Would certainly like to see nice homes go in there. Something that would be marketable under the present tax structure. I really don't suppose he could build larger lots very easily. I have no strong objections to R-3. And I don't think any of my neighbors would have any objections. Walter Sielinski: What parcel are you referring to that would have the sewer go 34320 W. Seven through? Mile Mr. Andrew: No definitive mention about which parcel. Mr. Nagy: Sewer is located 200' west of Gill Road. Therefore, the drain runs between Lots #13b and 13c1. Mr. Sielinski: What about a sanitary sewer? Mr. Nagy: Sanitary sewer is located east of Gill Road to service Windridge Village Subdivision. It would have to be extended from the Windridge Village Subdivision to the site of this rezoning petition. Keith Reynolds: I live on this lot just north of the property to be rezoned. 19751 Gill Rd. Will that property be left RUF? 1[00 Mr. Andrew: Yes, it will. Mr. Reynolds: I talked to Mr. Franklin who is developing Windridge Village just last week, and he is talking about paving Gill Road. I hope we get sone of his help with this. Mr. Andrew: I am sure you will get a lot of help from him. Mrs. Scurto: I feel we will be opening a can of worms by rezoning this land to R-3 - could continue all the way to the I-275 expressway. I simply cannot live with an R-3 zoning here in view of the other areas being developed nearby. Mrs. Wisler: I certainly agree with Mrs. Scurto, and feel that since this area already has predominatly larger lots, any future development should certainly be at least R-4 or even R-5. Sure, the lots east of Gill Road are R-3, but once you cross Gill Road, that is a different story. I feel we should ask the developer to consider R-5. Mr. Mahn: Once a developer improves his property, he naturally wants to sell to a builder. With building costs being what they are, as well as interest rates, we feel it would not be realistic rates, we feel it would not be realistic to develop this as R-5. In view of the dollars and cents involved, we just cannot do this. Mrs. Wisler:IL If you are saying NO to R-5, what about R-4? Mr. Mahn: NO - also. 6668 to Mr. Kluver: I feel that this area is probably one of the last areas in Livonia to be developed, and I feel very strong that it should be developed into large lots, certainly something larger than R-2 or R-3. Larger lot development would not only benefit the city, but would also help in future zoning of this part of the city. Mr. Andrew: The Legislative Body of this city, namely the City Council, encourages development of R-3 Zoning Districts in this sector of the City, and in their judgment are also encouraging R-3 zoning immediately north of the quarter line east of Gill Road, which quarter section line is 500' north of the property we are now discussing. The City Council established the R-1 and R-2 zoning within the Windridge Village Subdivision. R-3 zoning was stipulated in a consent judgment and agreed to by the City Council for lands controlled by Livonia Associates south of Windridge Village Subdivision. Mrs. Wisler: I recognize what you are saying. However, those lands have been tried to be developed for years. This area is virtually untouched. Just because there are smaller lots east of Gill Road doesn't necessarily mean there has to be smaller lots west of Gill Road. Mrs. Scurto: May I also point out the quite large lot development further down the road, with large lots and a lot of open space, a beautiful area I must say. I feel that subject area shows a large difference from the commercial zoning to the east which is adjacent to the Windridge Village area. ILMr. Andrew: What particular piece of property are you referring to? Mrs. Scurto: That property off of Curtis - Sheffield Estates. Mr. Andrew: Any further discussion from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Briefly, I have no problems with the R-3. There is a very large city park to the west of this that would certainly service this neighborhood adequately, and I really see nothing wrong with the R-3 zoning. Mr. Falk: I talked to a builder just last week, and the cost factor involved in such a project is really high. It will take a lot of money to go in there, even with an R-3 zoning. Personally, I would rather see R-4 go in there, but I do not have any problems with the R-3. Let's face it, everybody would like to see half-acre lots. But I don't think many people could afford those homes that would go on half-acre lots. Mr. D'Orazio: Do you realize that it will cost close to $300,000 to enclose the drain, 17823 Country as well as the improvement of Gill Road on top of that? Engineering Club Dr. requires an 84" pipe - that alone will cost $160,000. Mrs. Friedrichs: John, what effect does the flood plain have in this area? Mr. Nagy: There is not an established flood plain in this area. 10 Mr. Falk: Why does the drain have to be enclosed? Mr. Nagy: It will be an intercepter, leading into an already established under- ground system. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions? There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-2-1-13 closed. 6669 110 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was #3-44-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-2-1-13 as submitted by Rest-in-the-Son, Inc. , to rezone property located on the west side of Gill Road, north of Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 4, from RUFB to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-2-1-13 be denied, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning will not promote the orderly growth and development of the surrounding area at a lot size compatible to the established housing patterns presently existing within the area but, rather, would tend to encourage the rezoning of these acreage parcels to the R-3 or lesser zoning classification. (2) The proposed change of zoning does not maximize on the unique, natural, physical and locational potential of the area for larger lot development as would be achieved as a result of the preservation of the RUF zoning classification for the area and this potential would be lost as a result of conventional R-3 type housing development. (3) This area represents one of the last remaining areas of the City of Livonia for larger lot residential development and therefore every effort should be made to preserve the established zoning of the area so as to achieve a broader balance and range in type of lot sizes within the City of Livonia. (4) By preserving and maintaining the present zoning classification of RUF, there will be less burden upon the area, the roads and utilities 111:010and there will be a less adverse affect upon the neighboring residential areas. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were 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, DuBose, Scurto, Wisler NAYS: Zimmer, Falk, Andrew ABSTAIN: None 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 78-2-3-2 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion requesting the vacating of a water main easement and a sanitary sewer easement located on the south side of St. Martins Avenue, west of Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 ofSection 2. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Engineering recommending approval. • 6670 Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission requesting the vacating of two easements in Section 2. Is there anyone wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-2-3-2 closed. 10 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-45-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-2-3-2 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion requesting the vacating of a water main easement and sanitary sewer easement located on the south side of St. Martins Avenue, west of Purlingbrook in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission ' does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-2-3-2 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) The easements are no longer required to accommodate utilities. (2) The easement, vacatings are recommended by the Division of Engineering. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Consumers Power Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. ' Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-1-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #176-77 to amend Section 9.02, 9.03, 10.02, 10.03, 11.02 and 11.03 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide standardization and uniformity with respect to site plan approval requirements in P.S. , C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Is there anyone wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-46-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-6-1 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #176-77 to amend Sections 9.02, 9.03, 10.02, 10.03 11.02 and 11.03 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide standard - ization and uniformity with respect to site plan approval requirements in P.S. , C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby IL recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-6-1 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is necessary to clarify the Zoning Ordinance with respect to requirements for Site Plan Approval. 6671 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice,of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-1-6-2 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #176-77 to amend Section 18.58, Site Plan Approval, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide standardization and uniformity to site plan approval requirements in P.S. , C-i and C-2 Districts, Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution, to amend the Zoning Ordinance. Is there anyone present wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-1-6-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-47-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on March 14, 1[0 1978 as Petition 78-1-6-2 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #176-77 to amend Sectioh 18.58, Site Plan Approval, or Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide standard- ization and unfiormity to site plan approval requirements in P.S. , C-1 and C-2 Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-1-6-2 be approved for the following reason: . (1) This amendment is necessary in order to clarify the specific requirements for Site Plan Approval contained in Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 2/23/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-48-78 RESOLVED that, having held a public hearing on February 14, 1978 on Petition 78-1-3-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #1113-77 to vacate that portion of Graytona Avenue located between Farmington 1110 Road and Surrey Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28; and having met with abutting property owners who indicated their desire to retain the subject street; and further, having met with City Departments wherein the results of a survey showed that an overwhelming majority of the supervisory foremen in the Operations Division recommend the retention of the street due to the fact that there is a storm sewer and a sanitary sewer located ' 6672 t ' within the right-of-way which would, in the event the street were vacated, necessitate the preservation of a full-width easement for the frequent servicing of the utilities located therein, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the City's interest in the subject portion of Graytona Avenue should not be vacated at this time and that as a result of this request having been initiated by certain City Departments recommends to the City Council that Petition 78-1-3-1 be withdrawn. 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 notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by. Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-49-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 20, 1977 on Petition 77-7-3-8 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Parkdale Avenue located south of Plymouth Road between Levan Road and Edward Hines Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that te Petition 77-7-3-8 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Parkdale Avenue in this location serves no practical purpose. (2) The subject area can better be utilized in conjunction with the adjoining parking uses of the area than to have the City of Livonia maintain the subject right-of-way. (3) With the vacating, the subject area can be put on the tax rolls, thereby serving a more beneficial purpose to the City. (4) The Engineering Division in a letter dated August 2, 1977 recommends the vacating of this area subject to retention of a full-width easement to protect existing utilities. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/1/77, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and unanimously adopted, it was 10 #3-50-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City Hall of the City of Livonia, to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located north of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. 6673 116-40 FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia, and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or rail- road within the City of Livonia in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmers, seconded by Mr. DuBose, and. unanimously adopted, it was #3-51-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City Hall of the City of Livonia, to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located on the south side of Lyndon Avenue between Levan Road and Park in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia, and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or rail- road within the City of Livonia; in accordnance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. At this time, Mrs. Scurto asked that the minutes of the 349th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 14, 1978 be changed 1[0 with reference to the statement that she made, regarding Petition 77-12-2-8, that she had never seen a finer job of making a restaurant's appearance compatible with a residential area, but that she stil-1 could not support the petition for a waiver use request for a Class C Liquor license. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-52-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 349th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 14, 1978 be approved as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. DuBose, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-53-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1306, the City Planning. Commission does hereby approve Petition 78-2-8-2P as 1[ submitted by Leo J. LeMay requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 in connection with a proposal to remodel and construct an addition to the existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Levan and Newburgh Roads in Section 32, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #G5772, Sheet P-1, prepared by Clark W. Corey, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; ' 6674 IL (2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan C5772, Sheet 4B, prepared Clark W. Corey, Architect, which are 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 November 1, 1978 and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and (4) that no parking signs and one way signs shall be placed along the service drive in front of the building. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #3-54-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-3-8-4P by Bob Bickle requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1306, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Savoie in Section 13, until the Special Meeting scheduled for March 21, 1978. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously approved, the 350th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the Livonia City Planning Commission on March 14, 1978 1[10 were adjourned at 11:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING 'COMMISSION IL2ici ` ji-& Jo ph Ji/Fa Secretary ATTEST: G / Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman l/