Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-05-09 6705 MINUTES OF THE 353rd REGULAR MEETING $ AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF. LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 9, 1978, the Livonia City Planning Commission held its 353rd 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 70 interested citizens in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J. Falk Suzanne Wisler Esther Friedrichs R. Lee Morrow C. Russ Smith Members absent: Herman H. Kluver Judith Scurto Jerome Zimmer (I11) 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 the petition is terminated. t Mr. Falk, Secretary, then announced the first item on the agenda Petition 78-3-1-15 by Dr. Alan R. Ettinger to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Sunset in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, from R-1 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division indicates no problems connected with proposal. We also have a letter dated May 8, 1978 from Eddie Salem representing the Hillcrest Gardens Civic Association advising of their opposition to this petition. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Dr. A. Ettinger; Yes. 37680 Northland Mr. Andrew: Dr. Ettinger, do you plan to build a medical office on this property? Dr. Ettinger: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any questions from the Commission? 1 4 Mrs. Wisler: 4 Doctor, do you plan to use this office solely for your own uses, or will there be other suites for lease? { Dr. Ettinger: At this time, there is one physician who will be in there with me. Mrs. Wisler: Thank you. 6706 Mr. Andrew: Any other questions from the Commission? Doctor, how soon do you 0 anticipate construction if this petition is approved? Dr. Ettinger: I would like to start immediately. I have been practicing in Livonia for twenty-seven years, and my current lease is up. Mr. Andrew: Where is your present location? " Dr. Ettinger: Currently, I am located on Middlebelt near West Chicago. Mrs. Wisler: Doctor, have you looked at any other properties in the City already zoned P.S.? Dr. Ettinger: Yes, I have but they are unattractive for one reason or another. This particular piece of property is close to where I live as well patients in the area. Mr. Falk: Doctor, I think you are probably aware of the fact that this particular property is not indicated as P.S. on our Future Land Use Plan. And I really am not in favor of injecting additional P.S. zoning into an area which is completely residential except for an office across Sunset. This Commission is very concerned about introducing P.S. into any area which is predominately residential. I think you should be aware of our concerns. Ii Dr. Ettinger: Yes, I can appreciate your concerns, but we are planning on building a real attractive medical suite, and I am sure the people in the area would find our services real handy. Mrs. Friedrichs: Do you already have an established practice here in Livonia? Dr. Ettinger: Yes, I do. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments or questions from the Commission? Could some one from the professional staff indicate to this Commission how many new homes have been constructed on the south side of Seven Mile Road between the Mall area and Merriman Road in the last year? Mr. Nagy: I would estimate 7 new homes on Seven Mile Road. Mr. Andrew: So that would indicate that there still is residential development taking place on Seven Mile Road in this area? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Are there any more comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-3-1-15 closed. j On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #5-82-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 10 on Petition 78-3-1-15 as submitted by Dr. Alan R. Ettinger, to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Sunset in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, from R-1 to P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-3-1-15 be denied, for the following reasons: 67071[40 (1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission. 4 (2) The proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to the adjoining residential neighborhoods of the area as the petition represents an encroachment into a developed residential area. (3) The proposed change of zoning would detract from the continued residential use and enjoyment of the neighboring residential area and would not promote the orderly growth and development of the area in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan as the change of zoning would tend to encourage further expansion and/or conversion of residential zoning to nonresidential uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/20/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway 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: Falk, Morrow, Wisler, and Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs, Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto, Zimmer Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-3-1-16 by Walter & Anne Zielinski and George & Helen Constantine to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Gill Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated April 10, 1978 from Engineering indicating that the adjacent lots on Gill Road and Seven Mile Road have not been dedicated to the fullest extent, as well as there is no storm sewer to service this site. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? George Constantine: Yes, I am here to represent the petitioners. George & Helen 424 North Center St. Constantine are my parents, and I am an Attorney currently Northville located in Northville. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Constantine, would you briefly explain to the Commission and the audience the reasons for this request. Mr. Constantine: This property is currently zoned RUF, and has two large structures 1[0 existing there right now. This property on the east is bordered by R-1 zoning, and the plans are to develop 14 lots alongside the property. Our total depth is 1100 feet. It is really a large farm with fruit trees, shrubbery, garden, etc. We are bordered on the west by Gill Road, and the whole area seems to be changing fast. I understand that 70 ft. lots with the R-2 zoning have been approved to the west for the Plymouth Investment Company to develop. We feel that this will become a high traffic area. Seven Mile Road has not been dedicated to its , 6708 IL fullest width as yet, and the same with Gill Road. With these new • subdivisions going in, Gill Road will certainly have a large amount of traffic going north. It is our request at this time that in view of all this recent development, our request for the change in zoning to P.S. be deferred, perhaps we could have a 30-day adjournment. We also understand that some sort of off site storm sewer would have to be installed before any type of professional development can be put in. Therefore, we would request that you consider this petition at a later time Mr. Andrew: Mr. Constantine, we will be happy to consider your request for the delay, but since this was advertised, we will continue with this Public Hearing. Mr. Constantine: We feel that P.S. zoning in this area would be an added convenience to all those people who will be buying homes in these new developments. There are not too many P.S. buildings in Livonia. It is really quite difficult to find an area that would house such an, office. P.S. zoning here would not be innoucuous. I really don't think anyone would want to build a home right on Seven Mile Road. Either R-1 or R-2 lots would not be saleable. Consider those houses across the street that face Seven Mile Road. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Constantine, you have indicated that your family owns tax parcel 4HH5 and that it is 5 1/2 acres in size? Mr. Constantine: That is correct. 10 Mr. Andrew: Does the other petitioner, Mr. Zielinski, own HH4B with three acres and also HH4a above that? 1 Mr. Constantine: That is correct. Mr. Andrew: Does the other. petitioner, Mr. Zielinski, own HH4b with three acres, and also HH4a above that? Mr. Constantine: He owns 4b and not 4a. Mr. Andrew: What does the present property owner intend to do with that land between the newly zoned land and his north property line? Mr. Constantine: That has been discussed, but I couldn't say for certain what the use of that property would be. It is our thinking that this road will dead-end at that point. Mr. Andrew: Our Planning staff has done some lay-out work which showed that residential construction could be undertaken on that piece of property which is part of this petition. If we could prove to you that residential construction was feasible, do you think you might consider selling this property for that purpose? Mr. Constantine: I really cannot answer that at this time. I do not feel that this land lends itself to saleable lots in the area. It is difficult for me to see this without first checking the drawings. o Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, to the best of your knowledge, has Engineering given any consideration to installing a storm sewer that would service this particular piece of property? 6709 Mr. Nagy: Yes, the sewer as well as other related utilities have been provided 4 for within the Windridge Subdivision, and I believe they are of 4 sufficient capacity to accommodate any additional drainage of the i land to the west. a Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions or comments from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Nagy, is it correct that there is nothing other than residential or park land or agricultural zoning from Gill Road all the way west to Newburgh, with the exception of Brose Electric? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is correct. The Future Land Use Plancbes call for residential zoning along that strip. Mr. Falk: I would like to tell this gentleman that he is wrong about people not wanting to live directly on some of our mile roads. We have proven this with the Francavilla Subdivision on Six Mile Road. Residential zoning is in compliance with our Future Land Use Plan and we should stick with that. I really feel that people should check with our Future Land Use Plan before they come in with their requests for re- zoning. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, would you please indicate to the Commission the size of the remainder of lot HH4b after the proposed rezoning? Mr. Nagy: This parcel is 220' wide, with approximately 180' running along Gill Road. Mr. Andrew: So it will continue to meet the RUF zoning requirements? 4 Mr: Nagy: Yes. Mr. Andrew: . Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? M. Wilmot: I am very much opposed to this proposal based on a couple of factors: 18966 South- 1) if you will look closely at that section you will note that there hampton is a rather large shopping center right adjacent to the new residential development, and I feel that this change in zoning to P.S. would encourage more spot zoning in an already residential area; and 2) with the shopping center there and the new residential development, there will definitely be an increase in traffic, which we certaihly don't need. I am definitely opposed to this change in zoning. There was no one else present wishing to speak any further on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-3-1-16 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Firedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #5-83-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-3-1-16 as submitted by Walter& Anne Zielinski and George & Helen Constantine to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile and Gill Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-3-1-16 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be held on June 27, 1978. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. i . . 6710 Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-3-1-17 by Richard M. 1[0 Lewiston to rezone property located on the south side of Margareta Drive between Newburgh and the 1-275 Freeway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, from R-5 to R-3. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated April 10, 1978 from Engineering advising that the only means of ingress and egress to this proposed subdivision would be via Blue Skies Drive. It is a Class C road, and they feel that the weight restrictions imposed on such a road would hinder the general building operations of such a development. No other engineering problems connected with this proposal. We also have a letter from the Board of Directors of the Woods Condo units dated April 26, 1978, signed by R. H. Wilhelmsen, indicating that 200 occupants of the Woods Condo- miniums oppose this petition. There is another letter dated May 1, 1978 from Chas. D. Akey of the Livonia Board of Trustees urging the approval of this petition for the sake of the Livonia School system. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Richard M. Lewiston: This petition involves 17.6 acres of land located between 21970 Coolidge Hwy. the Woods Condominiums and Margareta Drive with the I-275 Freeway Oak Park to the west and the Northville Golf Course to the east. Our reasons for the request to change the zoning to R-3 are to enable us to develop this site into good quality single-family homes. We negotiated an option to purchase this property from the school district on March 9, 1978 following public advertising of the property. Immediately following acquisition we contacted all of the members of the City Council indicating to them by letter that we would be consistent with good design and make available to the City three acres of park land inside the property. The School board indicated that they felt this was good business, as they didn't know what effect this would have on any subsequent sale of the property. We then effected a layout of the property which would indicate 45 single family residences in accordance with R-3 requirements Approximately 3.3 acres of park land would be so designated by us following subdivision rules and regulations. We feel that this designation will help alleviate some of the problems that have occurred with respect • to this property. Development of a parcel of this size is difficult when trying to come up with an attractive facility. We feel that there will be easy access to this park for the children in Melody Manor who will be using it. Mr. Andrew: The plan that we have before us indicates a dashed line east of the quarter corner line. Mr. Lewiston: I believe that is the property of the Highway Department. I think it is approximately 80' x 30' . Really haven't isolated that property as yet. Discussed this with the Highway Department and they have indicated that this really is of no useful purpose to them. Just a bermed area. I am sure it will fit in with the park land. Mr. Andrew: I assume your option to purchase is contingent upon approval of the change to R-3 zoning. 4 Mr. Lewiston: Yes. . 6711 Mr. Andrew: In your negotiations with the School District, were any references 4 made regarding the encumbrance of eight acres. 4 Mr. Lewiston: No, there wasn't. Mr. Andrew: Was a title search made showing the encumbrance on this property? Mr. Nagy, would you please recite from the Wayne County records the liber and page number of the recording designating the encumbrance on this property. Mr. Nagy: Date recorded: September 5, 1972, at 9:21.a.m. by Bernard J. Youngblood; Liber 18177, page 305. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mrs. Friedrichs: Has Parks & Recreation responded as to whether or not they would consider purchasing this as park land? Mr. Nagy: Parks & Recreation has not responded to our request. No action by them as yet. Mr. Falk: Mr. Nagy, how much land has Parks & Recreation actually purchased that has been designated as park land in the last two to five years? Mr. Nagy: The City of Livonia, pursuant to a bond issue, has acquired close to 1400 acres for Parks & Recreation purposes. That includes the golf course as well as neighborhood park land. Mr. Falk: Well the golf course would include large parcels. What about smaller pieces of land? Mr. Nagy: There was a five-acre site at the end of Hix Road in Blue Grass Farms. Mr. Falk: It seems we are always listening to people who want park land for recreational purposes I am just wondering tonight about this particular parcel. Do we have the money to purchase it? Are the necessary funds available? 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? Neil Sutton: I am here representing the Melody Manor Civic Association, and we have 37812 Marg- been before you on the same parcel of land when the School District areta originally petitioned for change in zoning. At that time we indicated to you how we feel about that eight acres of park land. We still feel the same way about that particular area. We thought we were working in good faith with the Council and the Planning Commission regarding this. I must remind you of our previous agreement. In 1966 this area was designated on the Master Land Use Plan as park area, with half to be purchased by the school and the other half by the City. But this land was never zoned Public Land, and last November the School Board decided they wanted to rid themselves of this so-called excess 11: land. We are strongly supportive of zoning this as Public Land and feel the petition before us tonight should be amended. As you can see, the area is landlocked, and being adjacent to the freeway does serve slightly as a noise abatement device. We sincerely ask the Planning Commission to consider these arguments as well as the previous committments 6712 regarding the eight acres of park land. We do appreciate Mr. Lewiston's interest in the community, and do feel our area would benefit by his development. Mr. Andrew: Inasmuch as Mr. Lewiston has filed a petition with the City, we are required to act on that petition unless Mr. Lewiston intends to amend his petition. Mr. Falk: Mr. Sutton, you mentioned talking to people in Lansing about the noise problem along the freeway. Who did you talk to? Mr. Sutton: I talked to some environmental people, a Mr. Paul Milliman. He said he was very interested in our problem, and would offer help in resolving this problem. Mr. Falk: Financial help? Mr. Sutton: He didn't say financial help for sure. Mr. Falk: It seems to me that everyone wants park land around their homes. People along Six Mile, Seven Mile, Eight Mile Roads, they all want park land. But what about the people in the other parts of the City where there is no open space left. We are all taxpayers in this town, and I feel what you are asking is unfair. I just want you to appreciate my position. E Mr. Sutton: I cannot speak about funding. I merely want to remind you of committments An easy way of funding the purchase of this land would be to have the dirt dug out for basements dumped in this spot. Mr. Andrew: Have you had an opportunity to review the plans that Mr. Lewiston has presented? Mr. Sutton: No, I haven't. Would certainly appreciate some copies for the residents in the area. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak ? ' Gus Tawil: The developer is talking about three acres for open space. Personally, 18830 Nola Dr. I feel this should be four or more acres of land. And what does an R-3 zoning mean? Mr. Andrew: Lot sizes 80' x 120' . Mr. Tawil: We are in an R-3 zone, but all the lots on Nola Drive are 80 x 150, and I feel the new subdivision should have something bigger than R-3. Mr. Andrew: R-4 would require frontage of 90 feet. Mr. Tawil, could you support R-3 zoning if the developer would give or sell 3 .1/2 acres of land for a park site along the freeway?. Mr. Tawil: You are talking about net available space for park? 4 Mr. Andrew: 3 1/2 acres for park. I am not talking about a sound barrier. Mr. Lewiston has indicated he is prepared to sell approximately 3 1/2 acres I along the freeway for park land. Mr. TawiL: I cannot answer that right now. 6713 IIMr. Andrew: Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? 0 Jos.Lemieux This is the first time I have had a chance to see the Site Plan. r 18839 Blue As you know I spoke before this Commission last fall when the School Skies wanted a change in zoning on this property. As I see it, there is an eight-to-ten acre park parcel being dropped down to a three-acre sound barrier. Right, a sound barrier - not a park site. Will have to be bermed. It is our intention to protect our subdivision, and I feel this proposed park site is totally inadequate. Mr. Falk: I would like to ask Mr. Lewiston that since people in Melody Manor and the Woods are opposed to the location Of this park site, would he consider relocating the park? Mr. Lewiston: We acquired this land on March 9, 1978, and were not aware of any recording problem with regard to an encumbrance on the property. If there is an. encumbrance on the property, then the School District had nothing to sell. Our design of the area requires that we be consistent with your subdivision rules and regulations. We feel that with this location as it is, there is easy access for the children of Melody Manor, directly off of Margareta Drive. Mr. Morrow: Did the Melody Manor Subdivision receive some sort of waiver regarding open space requirements when it was developed? Mr. Nagy: The Melody Manor Subdivision predates our present day Subdivision Rules and Regulations. No applicable open space requirement was stated at II: that time. Delmar Schaffer: The encumbrance as indicated is on my deed - right on my Certificate 18469 University of Title. What about that? Park Drive Mr. Andrew: I would suggest that you contact an attorney and find out what this is all about. Mr. Shaffer: If the encumbrance is on my deed, how was the school board able to sell this property? Mr. Andrew: Possibly the School Board owned the property at the time the encumbrance was recorded. I would strongly recommend that you contact your lawyer tomorrow morning and check this entire matter with them. There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-3-1-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was #5-84-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-3-1-17 as submitted by Richard M. Lewiston to rezone property located on the south side of Margareta Drive between Newburgh and the I=275 Freeway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, from R-5 to R-3. the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-3-1-17 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be held on June 13, 1978. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 140 AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Wisler 6714 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 44 Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-3-1-18 by Eugene F. Pulice requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Hubbard Road, north of Five Mile Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated February 9, 1978 from Cardinal Realty indicating no objection to proposal. Engineering Division advises in their letter dated April 10, 1978, no problems connected with this rezoning proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the Petitioner present? Would you please indicate your reasons for this rezoning request? E. Pulice: As you know, there is P.S. zoning all along Five Mile Road, and we 15326 Loveland feel that if P.S. zoning is put in here, something that looks real nice could be put in there. Mr. Andrew: Do you own any other property in the immediate area? Mr. Pulice: No. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Falk: Mr. Pulice, just what type of development do you have for this property? 1 Mr. Pulice: We don't have anything specific in mind right now, but we were thinking 1 about some kind of offices in a good looking building. 4 Mr. Falk: And your reasons being because of all the other P.S. zoning along Five Mile Road. People came in here requesting P.S. zoning along that strip claiming it would help the City. Well, I feel we made a mistake with all those real estate offices in that location. Somewhere along the line we missed the boat. Perhaps some commercial should go in there to serve the people who live in the area, not just those people who are looking for houses elsewhere in the City. There are a lot of older people in this town who want to stay where they are, and don't want a lot of noise from traffic or lights from cars. They want their neigh- borhood to stay quiet. I have nothing personal against you, but that is the way I feel about this town. Mr. Morrow: In that letter from the neighborhood from all those people living on Hubbard, are those people who live on Lots #159 and #160 on Fairfield included? Mr. Pulice: I see that those people are here in the audience. Neither of them signed the petition. I cannot say for sure whether they are for this or against it. Mr. Morrow: They are not among the 16 listed? o Mr. Pulice: No. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? 6715 i Mr. Micallei: We live on Lot #159b, and we have got a building right across the I: 15334 Fair- street from us - an office building that has been there for two years field now and still is not fully occupied. I certainly don't want another building behind me. I do not want to have to look at a wall or a two story building. And I don't think the neighbors on both sides of me want that either. Arthur Herman: . I live just south of this gentleman on Lot #160, and I am opposed 15316 Fair- to this because I believe that we already have enough professional field service property in the area. I have taken a little survey of my own regarding businesses along Five Mile Road, and do you know that there are 10 dentists' offices, 2 professional service buildings, 3 doctors' offices, 2 banks, 4 real estate offices, 1 lawyer's office, 2 lunch parlors, and 2 good shopping centers. We don't need any more professional buildings. Mr. Andrew: Where did you take this survey? Mr. Herman: From Levan Road right on down to Middlebelt. Russ Drury: I live on Lot #159a and I am opposed to this proposal. We don't need 15380 Fair- any more office buildings in this neighborhood. No one has said any- field thing about a greenbelt across the back fence, and with the small children who live next door, I don't like the idea of an office building behind us. Certainly would not enhance the value of our property and as Mr. Falk stated, I really would like to stay in this house for some time. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Pulice, when did you purchase this property? L Mr. Pulice: Approximately two years ago. Mr. Andrew: Any more questions or comments? Mrs. Friedrichs: I would just like to make one comment concerning that particular corner at Five Mile and Hubbard. Isn't there something that can be done about that building, like removing it or something? Perhaps if this were torn down and a good looking building put in there, it could tie in with these people's intentions. ' Mrs. Wisler: I agree with Mrs. Friedrichs that the corner of Five Mile and Hubbard Roads definitely needs improvement, but since the Pulice brothers do not own this particular piece of land, I feel we cannot discuss that at this time. There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing on Petition 78-3-1-18 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #5-85-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-3-1-18 as submitted by Eugene F. Pulice requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Hubbard Road, north of Five Mile Road, ILin the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-3-1-18 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on May 16, 1978. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Seurtn, Zimmer 6716 1[: Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-3-1-19 by Neboll and Shirley Appicelli to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Puritan Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to C-1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Engineering indicating no problems connected with proposal. We also have a letter dated May 5, 1978 from the petitioner advising that the above mentioned request is in error, and should read from RUF to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Neil Appicelli: We are requesting this change to P.S. zoning so that we might 36081 Barkley erect an office building with certainly one tenant in mind and another possibility. Purchased this land two years ago for this specific purpose, and plan to install a real estate office on the site. I think I may have a CPA or an attorney also interested in locating there. We are thinking about Early American architecture such as the Hearthside across the street - something on that order. I have been a resident of Livonia for thirty years and I have seen a lot of buildings come and go, and I feel that this particular change in ILzoning would enhance that corner considerably. Mr. Andrew: Does any member of your family presently live in the house on that property? Mr. Appicelli: No one is living in the house at this time. Has been vacant since last fall. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Dale Macey: We have been on this property since 1972 and did not receive any notice 29500 Puritan of a Public Hearing on this item. Mr. Andrew: There are any number of reasons why you did not receive a notice -1) if you purchased the property under a Land Contract, the notice was sent to the holder of the Land Contract. Another possibility might be that the Mortgage Company received the notice instead of you, or we made a boo-boo. We will check into this for you. Mr. Macey: I do not have any objections to what he is doing just as long as he provides some sort of protection to separate our RUF and his P.S. lot. Our lot is 70' x 298' and I feel whatever is done alongside this property will have to continue down our whole lot. I have three children under six years old, and have already spent close to $1000 to fence in my back yard. I feel there should be a retaining wall between my property and the parking area of this proposed office building. I; r Mr. Andrew: Mr. Macey, if this petition should be approved, it is not required that a wall be constructed between your property and his until such a time as he develops the property. He must come before us again with a Site plan. At that time we can make it a condition of our approval of a Site Plan that a wall be so erected, and the Zoning Board of Appeals would not be able to waive that requirement. Mr. Shane, did you find out who the notification was sent to? 6717 1[0 Mr. Shane: According to our records, a Charles W. Mather owns lots 297b and 298a, but of course this list may be outdated. Mr. Andrew: Please make a note of Dale's name and address for your latest records so that he will receive notification of our meeting on the site plan approval. There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-3-1-19 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-86-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-3-1-19 as submitted by Neboll and Shirley Appicelli to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Puritan Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF and C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-3-1-19 be approved, as amended, for the following reasons: (1) Professional service zoning would provide for uses that would not be detrimental to or incompatible with the surrounding and established uses of the area. (2) Professional service zoning and related uses will provide for transitional and buffer uses which would protect the residential neighborhood from 10 the adverse affects of the heavily travelled mile road thoroughfare. (3) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's goals and policies to have professional service uses serve as transitional and buffer uses between residential neighborhoods and incompatible land uses. (4) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Plan to provide for a continuous professional service zone in the subject area on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Puritan Avenue on the south and Greenland Avenue on the north. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/20/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers 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 78-4-1-20 by Plymouth Investment Company to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road west of Gill Road, in the West 1/2 of Section 4, from RUFB to R-3. li: Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering dated April 11, 1978 indicating no objection to proposed rezoning. They do advise that they would definitely want to review Preliminary Plat when it comes in. 6718 1[: Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Gil Franklin: As indicated in the petition, this is a request for rezoning which Plymouth is a continuation of a proposed series of subdivisions, starting Investment with Windridge Village #1 and #2, across Gill Road into the west 2900 Maple Rd half of Section 4. The complete parcel consists of 83 acres with Troy, MI some of the property having access to Gill Road, and from there running all the way up to Eight Mile Road. We feel that this proposal is consistent with what we obtained directly across Gill Road. Would like to point out that the lot sizes and the type of homes built on them would be substantially greater than what is presently there. We feel that these homes, which will run close to- $100,00 will enhance the entire area. Also, a petition has been filed for the vacating of Wayne Road in the northwest corner of this property. Mr. Andrew: To the best of your knowledge, are there any restrictions running with the Fairway Subdivision? Mr. Franklin: Yes, we looked into that very thoroughly, and there are some restrictions but they are so ancient --- they do not allow outhouses, dog houses, etc. Mr. Andrew: Nothing in the title search they wouldn't insure against? Mr. Franklin: Right. 1[0 Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: Mr. Franklin, have you considered an R-5 zoning? Mr. Franklin: No, not at all. I got the impression when we started Windridge Village #2 that the R-3 zoning was adequate and consistent with any future development contemplated for the west side of Gill Road. I feel that R-3 is totally consistent with what is happening in that area. Mrs. Wisler: Since you state that you have not as yet considered R-5, would you consider R-5? Mr. Franklin: I myself cannot make that decision. I would have to get back with my • company and discuss this with the others. Mrs. Friedrichs: In view of the fact that this is such a large parcel, I would like to see something a little more unique developed here. I would like to see more diversity, rather than regimented R-3. I think a P.U.D. development here would be favorable - break up the sameness we always see. Mr. Franklin: I believe we talked about that before, and frankly it is just not being done around here. We do what we think will work. Mr. Falk: Naturally you people want to realize the maximum amount of profit on your investment. Mr. Franklin: Actually it is a case of market availability. There is no point in building homes that no one can afford to buy. 6719 1!: Mr. Falk: Those homes in Sheffield Estates just down the road are going for more than $100,000 right now, and I really feel that you people could go further than R-3 with this piece of land. Mr. Franklin: I cannot make that decision myself. Mr. Andrew: In looking over this layout, I see that there are two lots just north of Lot #5 along Gill Road - #3 and #4 are not part of this petition; are they part of the petition included in that of the Rest-in-the-Son, Inc.? Mr. Andrew: Mr. Franklin, was any attempt made by your company to acquire lots #3 and #4? Mr. Franklin: We were not able to acquire these lots. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Larry Rosen: I am real happy that you are looking at something more than R-3 34805 Norfolk zoning on property west of Gill Road. All of the lots there now are half-acre or more. Mr. Franklin has never considered anything more than R-3. I feel the Commission is taking the right step in making him consider something more than R-3 in that area. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, it is my understanding that the rezoning request of the 1[0 property owned by Rest-in-the-Son is currently before the City Council. Mr. Nagy: Yes, the first hearing on this petition is scheduled for May 15th. There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-1-20 closed. Mr. Franklin: Would you table the petition until I have time to consult with my company on your request to consider the R-5 zoning classification. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #5-87-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-1-20 as submitted by the Plymouth Investment Company to rezone property located south of Eight Mile Road, west,of Gill Road in the West 1/2 of Section 4, from RUFB to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby' determine to table Petition 78-4-1-20. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto, Zimmer I[: Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-4-1-21 by James R. Gysel to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Fremont and Hugh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, from R-1 to C-1. 6720 4 Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? i Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Engineering dated April 19, 1978 advising that there is no off-street parking along Joy Road provided . . .etc. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? James Gysel: The reason I am requesting this change in zoning is because this building has been vacant for the last three years, and I would like to see it changed to commercial. It is just a cinder block building that was used as a drapery shop. I really don't understand why it wasn't zoned C-1 or C-2 when that business was ir] there. I have asked the barber next door to split Lot #119, 10 feet of which is mine and zoned residential, and the other 10 feet is his and zoned commercial. Mr. Andrew: Jim, does it bother you at all that Engineering has advised that because of the proposed road widening project, there would be'no parking permitted on Joy Road? Mr. Gysel: No, not at all. There is 30' of space behind the building plus the alley. Also there is 20' between the barber shop and the other building. This is supposed to be public access, but someone put up a fence. My attorney told me that his would have to be removed, should remain as public access for parking behind the building. 4 Mr. Andrew: Do you own all the property on Joy Road down to Hugh? 4 Mr. Gysel: Yes, I do. Russ Smith: Mr. Gysel, is it your intention to open up an auto body and parts repair shop in that building? Are you not involved in that right now? Mr. Gysel: No, I am not and I am not right now involved in that. Mr. Smith: What about all those cars in front of the house next to this location? Mr. Gysel: I rent that to someone, and I will admit there are a lot of cars in front. Mr. Andrew: Any more questions or comments from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Roman Micalacean: I am the barber next door, and this whole thing is real confusing 29512 Joy Rd. to me right now. I have some pictures here that shows cars all over the place, one on top of each other. Joseph Sergi: I own all that property along Joy Road from Fremont to Middlebelt 8992 Oporto and some others in the back. I don't like them using my property for a parking area. Now, this boy comes in here and wants to use this building for a garage. Cars and trucks parked everywhere j 1[0 never have seen so many cars parked around a residential building. 4 Mr. Gysel: I cannot understand why the barber is so upset about these cars. They are not parked in front of his building. They are parked in front of the house two doors down, and I like to work on cars. I 1 feel his argument is irrelevant. 6721 141 Mrs. Micalacean: I am the barber's wife and we tried to buy this building, but was told by someone at City Hall that all we could use it for would be storage. I am sure there is an apartment upstairs. How much frontage is required for C-1 zoning? Mr. Andrew: There is no minimum frontage - just 400 square feet minimum building size. Mr. Falk: In listening to Mr. Smith's input, asking those questions of the petitioner, I feel that maybe all the facts are not being brought out in the open. Perhaps we should table this until our staff has had an opportunity to look into this situation further. Mr. Micalacean: There is no alley back there, just an easement. Mr. Gysel: In previous years, the City has come to me and said it was my responsibility to clean up this alley. Two weeks ago, they even gave me a ticket and said "Get it cleaned up" . I have tried to move the fence. As far as an apartment in that building, I would like to make it into an office. Nobody is going to live up there. There was no one wishing to speak any further on the matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously 1-0 adopted, it was 4 #5-88-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-1-21 as submitted by James R. Gysel to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Fremont and Hugh in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, from R-1 to C-1, the City Planning Commission hereby determines to table Petition 78-4-1-21 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be conducted on June 13, 1978. - Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-4-1-22 by Clarence R. Charest to rezone property located on the northeast corner of the I-96 Service Drive and Stamford Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no problems connected with proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? C.Charest: I feel there is not much I can say about this petition, other than 32437 Five I would like to put up an office'building on the property. There is 1[ Mile P.S. zoning on the west, and RE on the east, and I personally can't 4 see why there should be objections to this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Do you presently own the property? Mr. Charest: Yes, I do. • 6722 4 4 Mr. Andrew: Anycomments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-1-22 closed. , On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Freidrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-89-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-1-22 by Clarence R. Charest to rezone property located on the northeast corner of the I-96 Service Drive and Stamford Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-1-22 be approved, for the following reasons: io (1) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the Planning Commission. (2) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the land use policies and goals of the Planning Commission to have office zoning serve as a transitional and buffer use to protect residential areas from the adverse effects of incompatible land uses and heavily travelled thoroughfares and streets. (410 (3) The proposed use will not adversely affect the surrounding uses of the area as there are already established in the adjoining areas similar uses and zoning. (4) The proposed change of zoning does not represent an intrusion of office zoning into an area otherwise residential, but represents an expansion of office zoning already established in the adjoining area. (5) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Planning Commission's policy of supporting professional service zoning along the I-96 corridor on a "fill-in" basis between existing P.S. districts as opposed to intruding into otherwise residential areas. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/24/78, and 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 Petition 78-4-2-8 by the Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold an Annual Spring Carnival within the Wonderland Shopping Center parking area located on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. g Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Are there any comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? 6723 4 There was no one present wishing to be heard and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-2-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #5-90-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-2-8 as submitted by the Livonia Jaycees requesting waiver use approval to hold an Annual Spring Carnival within the Wonderland Shopping Center parking area located on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-2-8 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) The Police and Fire Departments have no objections to the petition. (2) The use of the property for carnival purposes will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and use of land for parking.purposes. 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. 1[: Mr. Falk announced thenext item on the agenda is Petition 78-4-2-9 by Joe Feldman requesting waiver use approval to locate general office uses within an existing building located on the northwest corner of Lathers and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering advising no problems connected with proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Joe Feldman: This building has been leased out to four medical suites, and I would • 30050 Wildbrook hope that it could be used for general office space as well. Mr. Andrew: I note that you have been cited for a violation by the Bureau of Inspection. Mr. Feldman: Yes, during the time of the heavy snow storm, there were a few trucks parked on the property. I was told this is not allowed. Mr. Andrew: John, could you shed a little light on this? Mr. Nagy: Yes, the zoning here is P.S. which ordinarily does not allow general administrative offices, and based on the fact that there were heavy- duty trucks parked on the property, the Bureau of Inspection issued + a citation. Mr. Andrew: Seems to be a little bit of problem also with the trash container not 1[0 being enclosed. 6724 [.4 Mr. Feldman: Yes, someone from the Planning Department did mention this. I really cannot see any reason for screening this container as it is already 130' from the street. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, someone from your professional staff reviewed this site when the petition was submitted - there is some problem with the trash receptacle. Mr. Nagy: Yes, Mr. Shane and myself visited the property, and noticed the condition of the trash container. Also we noticed that some panels on the building itself, made of marble, have been damaged, and we feel there is a maintenance problem in this area. Mr. Feldman: As far as those marble panels are concerned, I ordered new ones six months ago. My supplier informed me two weeks ago regarding the delay. Material comes from Italy. I don't usually wait for someone to tell me to fix my building. I do it myself. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mr. Falk: Mr. Nagy, are you pretty much determined that this dumpster should be enclosed? You are trying to be consistent? Mr. Nagy: Yes, I think it has been policy to have these dumpsters concealed from public view. Just placing them in the back of a building is not enough. A minimum amount of screening is all that would be required. 1[0' Mr. Feldman: The dumpster has been in this same spot ever since the building has been there. It is clean - sometimes kids come along and throw trash in there, but I really didn't realize that it was an eyesore. Mr. Falk: Mr. Feldman, are you reluctant to screen this container? We have had a beautification program along Plymouth Road, and everyone down there seemed to go along with the City's recommendation to make the area aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Feldman: If you think enclosing the trash container will beautify thearea yes, I will do it. Mr. Falk: Would you do it as a condition for approval of this petition? Mr. Feldman: If everyone else is doing it, yes I will do it too. I really don't think it will beautify the area, but I will do it. Mr. Andrew: Are there any more comments or questions from the Commission? Is there there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? There was no one present wishing to be heard on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-2-9 closed. too On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #5-91-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-2-9 as submitted by Joe Feldman requesting waiver use approval to locate general office uses within an existing building located on the northwest corner of Lathers and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-2-9 be approved, subject :, 1'.,:. fr.11'..... .... . .....'.i 4 .-.--• 6725 4 3 (1) that the dumpster located on the site shall be enclosed within an appropriate screen with gate so as to conceal the dumpster from public view; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Section 9.03(a) of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use will not adversely affect the site, the surrounding buildings or area as the site is fully developed with an attractive office building. (3) The size has the capacity to support general office uses. 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 Petition 78-4-2-10 by Fred J. Armour requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of Plymouth Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27. 4 Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated April 20, 1978 from Engineering referring to difficulties with traffic in the area as well as location of sewer on the property. We have letters from Police Traffic Bureau and Fire Dept. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Fred J. Armour: Yes, Taco Bell is interested in this piece of property. They feel 2751 Joy Rd. this property would be conducive to this type of establishement rather Dearborn Hgts. than any other type of building because of the storm sewer that runs • underneath. There is only one other restaurant nearby for people who work in the area, such as Michigan Bell, to run' to fcr lunch. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: How far does the left-turn lane go to the north? Mr. Andrew: All the way up Merriman. Mrs. Wisler: There appears to be a lot of driveways between this property and Plymouth Road. 1 110, Mr. Nagy: At the corner of Merriman and Plymouth, the Comm-Brake Center will be abandoning two of their accesses onto Merriman. 4 • 6726 Mrs. Friedrichs: I. think it is only fair to state at this time that I am against this because of the over abundance of eating establishments in this area. I do not have the restaurant survey in front of me right now, but it seems to me that there are certainly a lot of eating places in that two mile stretch • along Plymouth Road on either side of Merriman. I sympathize with the owner of the property, and feel that something should be. done to develop it, but another fast-food operation. Would certainly create more traffic. Mr. Falk: I too feel that the proposed use of this property is not in keeping with the spirit of good planning. In good conscience, another restaurant such as Taco Bell is not really what we want in this spot. it is not fair to the people who live near there, not good as far as planning is concerned and is not consistent with the Future Land Use-Plan of the, City. Noway will I be voting for this. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Armour, how long has this land been up for sale? Mr. Armour: I have no idea how long it is has _been for sale. Mr. Morrow: What other uses were suggested for this land? Mr. Armour: • I believe Pizza Hut wanted it some time ago - I guess they have been primarily food establishments. Mrs. Wisler: Just where is the storm drain located? Mr. Armour: I believe it runs directly across the property. 4 Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions from the Commission: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one else present wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-2-10 closed. • On a motion duly made by Mrs. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-92-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-2-10 as submitted by Fred J. Armour requesting waiver • use approval to construct a restaurant on property located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of Plymouth Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section ,27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-2-10 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use does not comply with the general requirements and general standards of Section 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) A traffic analysis by the Police and Fire Departments indicates that there will be additional traffic hazards and additional traffic congestion as a result of this proposed use locating in this area due to the proximity of the use with respect to the intersection of Merriman and Plymouth Roads which would impede their emergency vehicles from responding properly to emergency situations. i (3) There is an over-abundance of restaurants in this area and no market feasibility study, or other data, has been furnished to the Planning Commission to justify a need for another restaurant facility in this location. 6727 (4) The proposed use will be hazardous and detrimental to the area due to its high intensity of use, traffic generation, hours of operation odors, fumes, lights and noise which would cause a problem to the nearby permitted, established uses of the area. (5) 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 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. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-4-6-6 initiated by Council Resolution #256-78, pursuant to Section 23.01 (a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to amend Section 21.05 of Ordinance #543, with regard to compensation paid the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. • Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by Council Resolution to amend a section of the Zoning Ordinance. Is there anyone present wishing 1[: to speak either- for or against this petition? There was no-one else wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-6-6 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-93-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 9, 1978 on Petition 78-4-6-6 initiated by Council Resolution #25-6-78, pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of the Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, to amend Section 21.05 of Ordinance #543, with regard to compensation paid the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-6-6 be approved for the following reason: (1) The proposed amendment will allow the City Council greater flexibility in determining the appropriate compensation to be paid to members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 4/24/78, 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. 4 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was 6728 ,4 ;4 #5-94-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May I1, 1978 on Petition 78-2-6-3 as submitted by the City Planning 1! Commission on its own motion to amend Section 11.03, Waiver Uses within the C-2 Zoning District, by amending the present standards and adding new standards for gasoline service stations; restaurants; new and used car lots and showrooms, new or used mobile home sales; open-air sales; display and/or rental of utility trailers and buildings . of 30,000 square feet or more, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-2-6-3 be approved, for the following reason.: (1) This comprehensive amendment to the C-2 Zoning District regulations will provide for additional and substantially more adequate special standards regarding the various waiver uses affected. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 3/23/78, 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. Friedrichs, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously 110 adopted, it was #5-95-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #251-78, does hereby determine to hold a Public Hearing on Petition 76-8-6-7, as amended by the City Planning Commission, to amend Section 10.02(b) , Permitted Uses, and Section 10.03, Waiver Uses, of Zoning Ordinance #543, to provide standards for determining the use of bakeries, ice cream stores, etc. , as permitted uses or waiver uses in C-1 Zoning Districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and adopted, it was #5-96-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 351st Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 11, 1978 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Falk, Wider, Andrew " NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith, Morrow 4 ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto, Zimmer 4 • 1 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted it was ' 6729 4 44 #5-97-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 352nd Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on April 25, 1978 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith, Morrow ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto, Zimmer Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-98-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated April 26, 1978 from Lindhout Associates requesting an extension of approval of Petition 77-3-8-7 requesting approval of all plans required by Section 11.02 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #957, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a two-building addition to an existing commercial development located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Grand River and Angling in Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension of six months be granted to allow the architect sufficient time to prepare and process a revised site plan. Ifi Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 353rd Regular Meeting ' and Public Hearings held by the Planning Commission on May 9, 1978 were adjourned at 11:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION t_ . . o lk cretary ATTEST: /' //6 .d:O"' Allir Daniel R. Andrew, Chair' an Ea 4 4