Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-06-06 6734 MINUTES OF THE 355th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 4 LIVONIA i On Tuesday, June 6, 1978, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 355th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile, Livonia, Michigan. ' Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:00 p.m. , with approximately 90 interested citizens in the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J. Falk Jerome Zimmer R. Lee Morrow C. Russ Smith Esther Friedrichs Suzanne T Wisler ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Herman H. Kluver (company business) Judith A. Scurto (personal business) Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, the Commission only makes a recommendation to the .City Council who in turn will hold their own Public Hearing and then decide the question. If a II: petition involves a waiver use request, and the Petition.is denied, the petitioner then z has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Otherwise, the petition is terminated. This will be the only Public Hearing on a Preliminary. Plat, and this Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their final concurrence or rejection. . Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Rehearing of Petition 77-9-1-31, as amended by Council Resolution #411-78 to rezone property located south of Seven Mile Road, west of Merriman Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, from P.L. & RUFC to R-3. • ' Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: New correspondence received regarding this petition includes letters from area residents indicating support of the rezoning from P.L. to R-3. Letters are signed by various residents along Seven Mile. Road ' as well as on Flamingo. Mr. Andrew: How far away is Flamingo? Mr. Nagy: About one-half mile. Mr. Andrew: Actually, this is a rehearing of this petition based upon the request of the City 'Council? Ii:r. Nagy: Yes, this is pursuant to a Council Resolution, No. 411-78. r. Andrew: Mr. Paciocco, would you please step to the' mike, and explain to everyone just what is happening at 'this time. It appears that your purchase of this property is contingent upon certain conditions, one of which is the change in zoning to R-3.. Is. that correct? • 6735, Mr. Paciocco: Yes, that is correct. 11 Mr. Andrew: Were you the only bidder on this piece of property? Mr. Paciocco: I understand that outside of me there were only two other land developers bidding'on this piece of property, and because of the shape of this property they found it difficult to develop as R-3. Maybe'it could even go as R=1, 60' lots. Mr. Andrew:. But you are willing to try and develop as R-3, in spite of the odd shape of the property? Mr. Paciocco: Yes, I feel that I can develop it similar to Francavilla on Six Mile Road and Farmington with the same type of houses and lots, same size frontage. I' talked to some of the abutting property owners along Seven Mile Road and Merriman, and some of the people are in favor of this, and someare not. Of all the people I contacted,' I would say there were only two who were totally against it. The others just said that whatever happens they will accept. I am quoting what they told me. Some felt that since the School Board could not afford to build there, they should leave it as park land, but most of them are in favor of the R-3 zoning. Mr. Andrew: This petition appears to be a little different from others in that at the last hearing, the people in the neighborhood indicated. they would . _ settle only for R-5zoning. Mr. Paciocco, you have indicated that you will be the land developer in this project; will you also be the housing developer? Mr. Paciocco: Yes, I will build the houses also. In talking 'with some of the area residents last night, one gentleman mentioned that he didn't like the idea of ninety to one hundred thousand dollar homes in his neighborhood. I am just quoting what'he said, and he is afraid his taxes will go . up if we put big homes in there. I told him no matter what goes back there it will not affect his taxes. Will bigger houses back there have any effect on his taxes? Mr. Andrew: All I could say at this time is NO COMMENT. That is up to the Assessor. Mr. Paciocco: I have been. in this business for seventeen years and things are still going up all the time. Bricklayers used to get $130 for 1000 bricks, now they are getting $230 for 1000. I tried to tell these people that. I would like to put up something around $60,000, 'but with the cost of land now days and the cost of construction, I can just do what I can. Mr. Andrew: Bob, so you are saying that you will. be developing the houses as well as the land? Mr. Paciocco: We intend to develop this property the same as Francavilla. Mr. Andrew: Are there any questions of Mr. Paciocco from the Commission? Morrow: Mr. Paciocco, you made reference to 60' .lots, R-1 I would suppose; why - because of the shape of the property or what? [Mr. Mr. Paciocco: I think the property has some problems regarding the shape and size, , but where it is satisfactory we will try to put .in 80' lots. I do all the 'work myself, and I am sure that I can do the best job of any' other land developer around. . • 6736 Mrs. Friedrichs: Mr. Paciocco, how many houses do you anticipate putting there? IMr. Mr. Paciocco: I would probably guess around 75, maybe 77, maybe even 70. - somewhere in that area., Could be off 5%, I am not sure at this' tme. Falk: How many homes are there in Francavilla? Mr. Paciocco: 217 Mrs. Friedrichs: So you are talking about this being_ about 1/3 as big. Mr. Paciocco: Right. Mr. Morrow: How does the size of this property compare to Francavilla? Mr. Paciocco: We had seventy-seven acres in Francavilla compared to'about twenty- six here. 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 petitition? • William.Taylor: I am opposed to the zoning of this property as R-3. There is not one 19021 Merri- piece of property around there that is .R-3 or R-4 or even R-5. At the. man. Road last hearing I thought I understood that you people were thinking about - voting this as R-5 or, RUF. 'Illy the change now? Maybe it's because this gentleman offered the school board an extra $20,000 if he could 11 have the R-3 zoning. I understand that with the R-5 zoning there would be about 55 homes put in there as compared to 80 with the R-3. Why should we have to put up with R-3 zoning when everything else around. there is either R-5 or RUF? I talked to this gentleman last night and I told him I have no objection to him putting in $150,000 houses if they are on big lots. What happens when they put a house on a lot with only 120' . depth and there has to be 30 or 40 feet in the front of the house, plus the depth of the house - what happens to my back yard when they are only about 50 or 60 feet away? ' We bought his property because we were told that'it would never be developed. It's just school property, we were told. My objections are not to the rezoning - just to the type of zoning. I feel the zoning should be the same as that what surrounds this piece of property: Mr. Andrew: Anyone else? George Christie: I am against this R-3 zoning also. I. talked to this' gentleman and 18881 Merriman I told him that I would not sign any letters saying I didn't care what he put in there. I would really like to .see bigger lots than R-3. There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing closed on Petition 77-9-1-31. On 'a motion duly made by Mx. Falk and seconded by .Mr. Morrow., it was • #6-107-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Re-hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 77-9-1-31, as amended, by Council Resolution #411-78 to rezone property located south Of Seven Mile Road, west of Merriman Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, from P.L. and RUFC to R-3, the Planning Commission 4,0' does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-9-1-31 be approved for the following reasons: • . - 6737 170 (1) The Livonia Board of Education has determined that the subject . ; property is no longer needed for school purposes and the Parks and Recreation Commission by letter has indicated there is no need to acquire the lands for park purposes as the neighboring area is adequately served by parks and open space. (2) The R-3 classification will provide for the single-family residential development of the area with housing consistent with or exceeding the developed residential subdivisions located within the neighboring area. (3) The proposed residential development would not adversely affect the adjoining area as the area has good access to the adjoining mile roads of either Seven Mile or Merriman Road to handle traffic to and from the proposed area, and the area is separated and buffered from adjoining residential areas to the south and west by the abutting lands of . Rotary Park. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia' Observer, under date of 5/18/78, 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: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Morrow NAYS: Zimmer, Andrew ABSTAIN: Wisler ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-4-1-23 by Robert German to rezone property located on the west side of Purlingbrook between St. Martins and Bretton Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-3. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: We have a petition dated June 1, 1978 addressed to the Livonia Planning Commission from the Hillcrest Civic Association opposed to Petition 78-4-1-23 by Robert German signed by twenty-one residents, principally on Milburn, Flamingo, St. Martins and Purlingbrook. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Could you briefly explain the reasons for your request to change this zoning from RUF to R-3? Mr. German: I would like to make this property into more desirable building sites. As the property is laid out, now, there are two 72' x 300' lots, but they • are not desirable building sites. I propose to divide the property so that there would be six lots each having 100' x 135' , the' other lots being 14; ' made into 82.5' x 135. I would like to point out that even. though this area is designated as RUF, which means at least half-acre, lots, approximatel 70% of the lots in this subdivision do not meet these RUF zoning req'zirement Mr. Andrew: Yes,. I see they are .42of an acre. Mr. Nagy, assuming that Mr. German is successful in this rezoning petition, would he have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to build on Lot 19a, that lot being quite a bit less than one-half-acre? • • 6738 I: Mr, Nagy: Yes, he would. I Mr. Andrew: Are there any comments or questions of Mr. German from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: In looking at the larger parcel, I am wondering if dividing this into four lots, would that still conform. It doesn't look possible. Mir. Nagy: Dividing this into four lots would comply with all the requirements of RUF zoning, as well as dividing into six lots will conform with R-3 zoning. Mr. Zimmer: Maybe this gentleman would consider dividing this into lots compatible with the R-5 zoning? What would that require? Mr. Nagy: R-5 lots require 150' in depth, and any deficiency in terms of lot size in this area would be negligible. Mrs. Wisler: Are there any off-site improvements required to develop this property? Mr. Nagy: Engineering advises that Fairfax would havetobe extended in order to service Lot #18, and those lots facing on St. Martins would require road improvements to the extent of• a gravel road surface 18' wide with ,open ditches alongside 8" deep. Mr. Andrew: _ Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? I4t William Mills: I am the president• of the Hillcrest Garden Civic Association, and 19651 Flamingo actually we are not against four houses on four lots. We are against six houses on four lots'. Mr. Andrew: Can you tell me how old this subdivision is?' Mr. Mills: I would say it is about 25 years old. James A. Colsher: I am definitely against the rezoning of this subdivision from RUF 19850 Flamingo to R-3. This is spot zoning, and we do not like this in our area. Shirley Quinn: , Mrs. Quinn read a letter from a Mrs. Nellie Springle who was too ill 19651 Milburn to attend tonight's meeting. The letter stated opposition to this rezoning & that she purchased her property in 1929, and is quite satisfied with the way the property is arranged now. Has always been in support of Livonia's development, but definitely does not want to see this particular area made 'into smaller lots. Mrs. Quinn agreed wholeheartedly with all of Mrs. Springle's remarks. • Mr. Zimmer: Someone has indicated that these lots were originally divided into 5/8 of an acre lots. I cannot find such a one on the map. Mr. Mills: When the lots were originally platted, the property to the center of the road was included. The corner lots may have some deficiency. Mr. Andrew: Mr. German, do you own all the property, or do you have an option to buy? .1[0 Mr. German: I own all the property. Mr. Andrew: Including Lot #18. 67.39 German: Yes. 0 4Humm: I purchased this property on June 3, 1977, and at that time I was told 4548 Flamingo that all the lots in Hillcrest Gardens were at least half-acre. You can be sure that was a strong selling* point. When they came around with the petition last night, I wasn't home, but i really can't see putting six houses into those four lots, that would definitely be against RUF zoning. Robert Tweady 19750 Flamingo: When we purchased this property last year we too were impressed with the openness of the area, and were sold on this particular piece because of . that. I feel that putting in smaller lots here would detract from our property values, and I certainly do not like the idea of splitting that lot on Fairfax into two smaller lots. Mr. Mills: As you people_ can see, there are many people here tonight against 19651 Flamingo this rezoning.. Why_ don't we just have all of them stand up, and show you how many of us there are? The people in the audience who were opposed to this petition stood. Mr. Andrew: Any more questions of the Planning Commission? Mr. Morrow: - How many lots would you say are in there now on the larger lots? Mills: I would say about 85% of them are on the larger lots. s. Wisler: . As I see this, Purlingbrook doesn't go through all the way between Fairfax and St. Martins. It looks to me like it dead ends. What about construction vehicles getting in and out? Mr. Nagy: Purlingbrook doesn't front along the property, and all access would come off of Flamingo. Mrs. Wisler: , I also see on the east side of Purlingbrook there are lots quite a bit smaller than half-acre. I. realize they are separated by Purlingbrook, but they are in the vicinity and are smaller than half-acre lots. Mrs. Quinn: I would like to point out to Mrs. Wisler thatthose lots are not in our subdivision. I really feel that those lots over there have nothing to do with this petition. Mr. German: That property across Purlingbrook is in the R-1 zoning district, and those lots are only 60' wide. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-4-1-23 by Robert German to rezone property located on the west side of Purlingbrook between St. Martins' and Bretton Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City 1 Council that Petition 78-4-1-23 be denied. . 6740 `oll call vote resulted. in the following: I AYES: Zimmer, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Wisler ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto , Mr. Andrew declared the above motion failed for lack of support. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #6-108-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-4-1-23 as submitted by Robert German to rezoneproperty located on the west side. of Purlingbrook between St. Martins and Bretton Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-1-23 be approved only to the extent that the portion of property legally described as follows be rezoned from RUFA to R-3: West 1/2 of Northeast 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, except the North 174 feet and also except the South 30 feet. East 1/2 of Northeast 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, except the South 30 feet and also except the East 30 feet and also except the North 174 feet. II' South 72 feet of North 102 feet of Northeast 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of 1 Northeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 2., except the East 30 feet. 1 South 72 feet of North 174 feet of Northeast 1/4 of Southeast 1/4 of Northeast 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 2. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would promote the orderly growth and development of the area. (2) The proposed change of zoning and minimum lot sizes required by the R-3 Zoning District regulations would not be inconsistent with the lot .sizes of the immediately adjoining neighborhood. (3) The proposed change of zoning would not be detrimental to or inappropriate with the surrounding zoning of the area. (4) The proposed change of zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia as adopted by the City Planning Commission. AND THAT, the request for: a change of zoning on the balance of property (lot 418) covered by Petition 78-4-1-23 from RUFA to R-3 be denied for the following reasons: IL (1) The location of the subject area is internal to the Hillcrest Gardens Subdivision and the proposed zoning would be inappropriate and not in harmony with the established zoning of the neighboring area. 6741 15 (2) The proposed change of zoning would permit a residential lot at a size incompatible with the majority of the lots within the Hillcrest Gardens Subdivision and the immediate neighboring area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 5/18/78, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. - A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Wisler NAYS: Zimmer, Morrow, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto Mr. Andrew declared the 'above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 78-4-2-11 by Concrete Control Corporation requesting waiver use approval to park trucks and construction equipment on property located on the west side of Brook- field between Capitol and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27. r. Andrew: Any, correspondence in the file regarding this petition? fir. Nagy,: We have a letter dated May 23, 1978 from our Industrial Development Coordinator recommending tabling of this petition in order to obtain additional information. Also, a letter from Engineering dated 5/1/78 indicating no engineering problems connected with proposal. We also have .a letter dated June 1, 1978 from the Monarch-Mutual Machine Tool Company indicating opposition to the granting of this petition, letter being signed by a Mr. M. K. Jamison, 11863 Brookfield, Livonia, Mi. • Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Frank Rea: I would like to make a comment to that letter that was read, those Concrete Control unsightly trucks do not belong to us. They belong to another con- 11889 Brookfield tractor, and I would like- to point out that we keep our property clean at all times. When those other people moved out, they left a lot of junk behind. We only want this property for parking the trucks on weekends. During the day they are out on the job site. Mr. Andrew: This is a multiple tenant building? Mr. Rea: Yes. Mr. Andrew: How manyemployees do you have? "Ir. Rea: We have approximately four to six people. We might have more during i the summer months. Ir. Andrew: What do you plan to store in the rear yard? 6742 F1hr. Rea: Mostly trucks, utility trailers. All the scrap steel is kept behind the building, and when it starts to accumulate, we take 10 it to the scrap yard. Mr. Andrew: How large are your trucks? . Mr. Rea: I would say the largest truck is about 24' long. Mt. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: Is this something you have beendoing for some time? Mr. Rea: We have been in this business for five years. This is the third year in this building. Nothing has changed over the years, maybe just a few more trucks. Mr. Falk: I am opposed to storing equipment like this where every one can see it. I think it is an eye sore with all those trucks parked outside. We have a beautiful industrial area, and I can see no reason for tabling this petition. Everytime I look at Eight 'Mile Road I get disappointed. I am opposed togranting this petition. Mr. Smith: I see this as an industrial area, and it certainly is obvious that - those businesses need a place to park their trucks. This man says that the trucks move in and out every day, and the parking will just take place at the end of the day and on weekends. I ' see no objection to that. tlr. Andrew: I feel we should get some more background information on this. Why has this gentleman been allowed to operate this way for three years, then all of a sudden there is a violation against him? Dan Gilmartin: May I say a word here? This building belongs to Mr. Rea's father. In essence, you could say he is the landlord. Currently there are two tenants in the building, but it didn't start out as a multiple. I am certain that any violation of the Ordinance was not intentional. The accumulation of trucks parked on this property is just a normal result of growth. Mr. Andrew: What about the neighbor to the south? Maybe he will put a fence up. Mr. Gilmartin: There are times 'during the day when there is an exchange of work vehicles for personal vehicles. That could be a problem. Mr. Andrew: Do you feel that these people are violating the Ordinance? Mr. Gilmartin: I feel any violation is unintentional. I know they are more than willing to try and comply with all City requirements. They tried to buy the property next door, but it wasn't for sale. r. Morrow: Under these circumstances., would he still require the waiver? II:: r. Gilmartin: Yes. r. Morrow: And the waiver runs with the land? 6743 Andrew: Yes, and he is also required to fence it. Is there anyone else I wishing to speak on. this petition? il4r. frank Rea: I just want to say that we have no immediate plans to relocate. We have been looking at other parcels .in the City, but right now our budget is very slim and it will be at least two years before we can make any change in location. Mr. Andrew: We appreciate your comments and frankness. There was no one else present wishing to be heard and Mr. Andrew declared Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-2-11 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #6-109-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-4-2-11 by. Concrete Control Corporation requesting waiver use approva: to park trucks and construction equipment on property located on the west side of Brookfield between Capitol and Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-4-2-11 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be held on .July 18, 1978. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as 1 Petition 78-4-2-12 by Arthur and Eugene Pulice requesting waiver use approval to 1 const.ruct'a building for general office uses on property located on the northeast ° corner of Five Mile Road and Loveland in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. 4 r. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no objections. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Pulice, as I understand, you are requesting this waiver use so that this building can be used for general office businesses. Is that right? Mr. Pulice: Yes. ' Mr. Andrew: Rather than have them used for professional uses, you just want them for general office purposes? Mr. Pulice: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any 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 present wishing to be heard, Mr. Andrew declared Public Hearing on Petition 78-4-2-12 closed. n a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, /twas #6-110-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-4-2-12 by Arthur and Eugene Pulice requesting waiver use approval to construct a building for general office uses on property located on the north- 6744 1r; east corner of Five Mile Road and Loveland in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that d Petition 78-4-2-12 be approved for the following reasons: 1) The proposed general office uses will not adversely affect the established or surrounding uses of' the area. 2) The site has been pre-planned to accommodate office expansion. 3) The proposed waiver use will not alter, in any way; those previously approved plans. 4) The site has the capacity to support general office uses. subject to the following conditions: . 1) that Revised Site Plan, Sheet 1, revised 2/27/78 and revised Landscape Plan, Sheet No. L-1, revised 2/16/78, previously approved by City Council Resolu- • . tion ##168-78, shall be adhered to; and 2) that revised Building Elevations- as shown on Sheets No. 2, No. 3, No. 4 and No. 5, revised 2/16/78, previously approved by.City Council Resolution ##168-78, shall be adhered to. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner, and. all City Departments as listed in the Proof 'of Service. . Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 11:: Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next itemon the Agenda as ' Petition 78-4-2-13 by Albert J. Charlet requesting waiver use approval to operate a muffler, brakes, shocks and- tires sales and installation business on property located on the northwest corner .of Plymouth Road and Camden in the Southwest _1/4 of Section 25. ' Mr. Andrew,: Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: . We have a letter from Engineering dated May 1, 1978 indicating that Plymouth Road has yet to be dedicated to its fullest width. An additional 27' will be needed for the right of way. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Mr. Charlet, I assume that you want to be able to sell brakes, shocks and mufflers at this location? Mr. A. J.. Charlet: Yes, right now the emphasis is on tires and we would like to 1940 Hawthorne switch that from tires to mufflers, shocks and brakes. But we Dearborn, Mi. will continue with the tires. Mr. Andrew: You mean continue to sell.tires and mount them? Charlet: Yes. But we also want to install mufflers and the others. 4 . Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? 6745 'r. Zimmer: Mr. Charlet, do you represent any muffler chain? #. Charlet: We are opening a company known as Wear Master, franchises being mainly located in the Detroit area. . Falk: And what brand tires will you be selling? Mr. Charlet: Mainly Michelin. Mr. Morrow: Are they asking for a waiver petition for something that is already going on at the site? . Mr. Andrew: Mr. Charlet, you have indicated that 90% of your sales right now are tires. And you want now to be able to install mufflers and shocks. Mr. Nagy, is this allowable in this district? Mr. Nagy: Yes, this would be allowed in the C-2 district. Mr. Falk: This gentleman claims the building will not be changed, but I feel that with the installation of mufflers in there, there would be additional noise that might be objectionable to the surrounding neighborhood. Isn't muffler installation' a noisy thing? - Mr. Charlet: No, there would not be any additional noise connected with this - operation. There might even be less noise than with tire installa- tion. I don't feel this would be any worse than what is happening now. fir. Falk: Mr. Charlet, .are you directly familiar with this sort of work? Have you been in a garage lately? I feel they are very noisy and would be most objectionable to the Nursing Home next door. Mrs. Wisler: I, too, am a little reluctant to approving this waiver use for this kind of operation, especially next to a nursing home. Has anyone checked with the Nursing Home? Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, did you receive anycommunication from the Nursing Home? Were they sent a notice of the Public Hearing? Mr. Nagy: Yes, the Livonia Convalescent Home was notified, but we have received no communications from them. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Charlet, is all the work done on the inside of the building? Mr. Charlet: Yes, it is. Mr. Morrow: How do you handle the waste materials, that refuse that is left after the installations? Mr. Charlet: All waste materials are picked up by a junk man. We are paid for the scrap metal. It is picked up once, sometimes twice a day. 4. T. Andrew: Any more comments or questions? .esident: I just want to say that I live in this neighborhood, and I have no 035 Camden objections to this operation, this new development, just as long as there is no outside storage of parts or junk. 6746 Where was no one else wishing to be heard on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared Public Tearing on Petition 78-4-2-13 closed. [here motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was 6-111-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6,1978 on Petition 78-4-2-13 as submitted by Albert J. Charlet requesting waiver use approval to operate a muffler, brakes, shocks and tire sales and installa- tion business on property located on the northwest corner of Plymouth Road and Camden in the southwest 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-4-2-13 be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1) that Site Plan dated April 25, 1978, which,is hereby approved shall be adhered to; 2) that Building Elevation Plans dated April 25, 1978, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; 3) that all auto service repair work shall be carried on entirely within. the structure; 4) that all trash, used auto parts and related trash materials shall be placed in a screened area and removed from the site regularly to avoid any excessive accumulation of same; IL 5) that all signs shall comply to those shown on the approved Building Elevation Plans and any additional signs or alterations proposed shall first be reviewed and approved by the City Planning Commission; and 6) that auto repair services shall be limited to those as petitioned for and identified on the application; for the following reasons:' 1) The proposed use complies with Section 11.03(m) of the C-2 Zoning District Regulations of Zoning Ordinance 41543. 2) The proposed use will not be detrimental to the surrounding uses of the area. 3) The site has excess capacity to support the proposed use. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Falk, Wisler ABSTAIN: None ;ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto i Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 6747 r. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as i Petition 78-3-3-4 by Plymouth Investment Company requesting the vacating of that portion of Wayne Road located within Fairway Subdivision on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Gill Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Andrew: 'Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Engineering advises there are no -City-maintained utilities within the right-of-way. We also have a letter from the Glen Eden Lutheran Memorial Park who advise no objections to the proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Gil Franklin: We have recently acquired Lots #1; #2, and #3, which is adjacent Plymouth Invest. to that property currently covered by the rezoning petition. This request for the vacating is corollary to the other petition, and it is our intention to use land in these three lots as an entrance to the proposed subdivision, rather than have an entrance directly next to the cemetery. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Franklin, I will suggest a tabling motion for this petition so that we can talk about the whole package at a study meeting. Is 'that alright with you? r. Franklin: Yes, that would be fine. ' n a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Morrow,' and unanimously adopted, it was 6-112-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-3-3-4 by Plymouth Investment Company requesting the vacating of that portion of Wayne Road located within Fairway Subdivision on the south side of Eight Mile Road, west of Gill Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 78-3-3-4 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be held on June 13, 1978. -Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 78-5-3-5 by Mr. and Mrs. William J. Schaffer requestingthe vacating of alley located east of Fremont between Dover and Grandon in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: None. • Mr. Andrew: Mrs. Schaffer, why do you want this alley vacated? is. Schaffer: 062 Fremont The alley is no longer in use. We would like to put a fence in. . Andrew: No garage? -s. Schaffer: No. 6748 'r. Andrew: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this $ petition? here was no one present wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared Public earing on Petition 78-5-3-5 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #6-113-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-5-3-5 as submitted by Mr. & Mrs. William J. Schaffer requesting the vacating of an alley located east of Fremont between Dover and Grandon in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby ,recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-5-3-5 be approved for the following 'reasons: 1) No useful purpose could be gained by maintaining an undeveloped public alley right-of-way in this location. 2) The additional ten (10) feet to be attached to each abutting property would provide added depth for future use and/or property developments. 3) No objections have been received from any public utility or any City department provided a full width easement is retained. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 5/18/76, 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 all City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 'r. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announcedthe next item on the Agenda as Petition 76-8-6-7 as amended by Council Resolution #251-78 to amend Section 10.02(b) , Permitted Uses, and Section 10.03, Waiver Uses, of 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. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition to amend the language in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia. Is there anyone in the audience wishing - to speak either for or against this petition? Ramon Castaneda: I have a carry-out restaurant on the south side of Five Mile, and 28470 Five Mile we have been trying to put tablesin there for about six months. Right now we serve nachos and tacos on a carry-out basis, but would like to serve people right inside. - Mr. Shane: At the present time this operation is a bakery type carry-out sort of operation which is allowed in the C-1 District. Currently they are not allowed any seats or tables, and this amendment would 11:: allow that type of operation. g . Andrew: So this gentleman is here in support of this petition. 6749 Ikr. Shane: That is right. r. Andrew: Good. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this matter? here was no one else present wishing to be heard on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared Public Hearing on Petition 76-8-6-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #6-114-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 76-8-6-7 as amended by Council Resolution #251-78 to amend Section 10.02(b) , Permitted Uses, and Section 10.03, Waiver Uses, of 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, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 76-8-6-7 be approved for the following reason: 1) This amendment will provide the City with additional control in the location and operation of particular commercial uses with special characteristics. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 5/18/78, 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 Department as listed in the Proof of Service. r. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Petition 78-2-6-4 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 19.06, General Waiver Requirements and General Standards, paragraph (c) , by adding additional standards for the storage of refuse and the screening of mechanical equipment. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition to amend the language in the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia. Is there -anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Since there was no one present wishing to be heard on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared Public Hearing on Petition 78-2-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #6-115-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on June 6, 1978 on Petition 78-2-6-4 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 19.06, General Waiver Requirements and General Standards, .paragraph (c) , by adding additional standards for the storage of refuse, and the screening of mechanical equipment, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-2-6-4 be approved for the following reason: 6750 • 1) This proposed amendment would give the City added control with regard to the storage of refuse, and the location and treatment of mechanical • I equipment. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 5/18/78, 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, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as Preliminary Plat Approval for Cureter Industrial -Subdivision, proposed to be located west of Stark Road between the C&O Railway and the I-96 Service Drive in Section 28. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? 'Mr. Gilmartin, would you care to give us a little background on this? Mr. Daniel J. Gilmartin, Industrial Development Coordinator, gave the history and background regarding the proposed industrial subdivision. Neither the petitioner nor his Engineer were .presen't at the Public Hearing 'and it was suggested that matter be tabled until a representative would be able to attend. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously .adopted, it was #6--116-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to' a Public Hearing having' been held on June 6, 1978 on the Preliminary Plat approval for Cureter Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located west of Stark Road between the C&O Railway and the I-96 Service Drive in Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to_ table Preliminary Plat approval for Cureter Industrial Subdivision until the Study Meeting scheduled to be held on June 13; 1978. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and` the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made. by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was #6-117-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 353rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on May 9, 1978 be approved. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Morrow, Wisler', 'Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Zimmer ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #6-118-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 354th Regular Meeting held by the City 6751 Planning Commission on May 23, 1978 be approved. roll call vote resulted in the following: YES: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Morrow, Wisler,• Andrew AYS: None I e ABSTAIN: Zimmer ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • ' On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was ' #6-119-78 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 78-5-8-12P by Arthur Carmichael requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in Section 6; subject to the following conditions: 1) that Site Plan 78-0, Sheet 1, prepared by Arthur 0. Carmichael, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; • IL . 2) that Building Elevations as shown on Plan 78-0, Sheets 4 and 5, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and 3) that a detailed landscape plan be submitted for Planning Commission approval within thirty days of this date. 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 adopted, it was • #6-120-78 RESOLVED. that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning_Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance 41306, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 78-5-8-13P by Fred J. Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Lathers and Brentwood in Section 12, subject to the following conditions: 1) that Site Plan 78-D-501, Sheet 1, by Affiliated Engineers Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 2) that Building. Elevations as shown on Plan 78-D-501, Sheet 3, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and 3) that the landscaping as shown on the Site Plan, which is hereby approved, ' shall be installed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and there- after maintained in a ,healthy condition. E' 4 • 6752 4r. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 1. 't this time, Mr._ Andrew passed the gavel to Mr. Zimmer, Vice-Chairman, and abstained rom discussion and voting on the following item: On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was #6-121-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance ##543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-5-8-14 by Kal Jabara and David Phipps requesting approval of all plans required by . Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a Bill Knapp's Restaurant on the south side of Six Mile Road between Laurel Park Drive South and the I-275 Freeway be approved, subject to the following • conditions: • • 1) that the Site Plan prepared by James Peltier, dated 6/5/78, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 2) that the Building Elevations, as shown on Plan 908-77, Sheet 4, by • Sarvis Associates, Architects, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; 3) that the Landscape Plan as shown on the drawing prepared by James ' IL Peltier, dated 6/5/7.8, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and 4) that the approved landscaping shall be installed 'prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. - A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: • AYES: Smith, Morrow, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Friedrichs NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. - Falk and seconded by Mr. Smith, it was #6-122-78 RESOLVED that pursuant to Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning Commission's Rules of Procedure, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the seven-day waiting period for notification of approval to the City Council in connection with Petition 78-5-8-14 by Kal Jabara and David Phipps requesting approval of allplans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a Bill Knapp's Restaurant on the south side of Six Mile Road between Laurel Park Drive South and the I-275 Freeway be approved. . A roll call vote on the. foregoing resolution resulted in the following: [ i AYES: • Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer; Falk, Morrow, Wisler NAYS:. ' NONE ABSTAIN: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver, Scurto S i 6753 r. -Zimmer declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 Ir. Zimmer returned the gavel to the Chairman Mr. Andrew. n a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 355th Regular Meeting nd Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on June 6, 1978 was adjourned at 11:30 pay. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION C ,/ / Secretary ATTEST: Daniel. R. Andrew, Chairman mk . 11[11 ' ' ' ' ' •[ : . ' , . I�I .