Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-07-18 6755 MINUTES OF THE 357th REGULAR MEETING • AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF 1[ j LIVONIA 40 On Tuesday, July 18, 1978, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 357th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in 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 8:10 p.m. , with approximately 40 interested citizens in the audience. Members Present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J. Falk Esther Friedrichs Suzanne Wisler Herman Kluver Jerome Zimmer Robert L. Morrow Judith Scurto Members Absent: C. Russ Smith - Company Business Messrs. -John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and David Stoker, 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 petition involves a waiver use request, and the petition is denied by the Planning Commission, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Otherwise the petition is terminated. Mr. Falk, Secretary announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 78-6-2-16 by Fred .Armour requesting waiver use approval to construct two car bays and a storage addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. ' Mr. Andrew: Mr. .Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from our Engineering Division indicating no engineering problems connected with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Fred J. Armour: Yes. 27251 Joy Rd. Mr. Andrew: Fred, one of the concerns of this Commission, discussed at the Study -Meeting of last Tuesday, is whether or not your trash dumpster will be of sufficient capacity to handle additional refuse that will accumulate - muffler, brakes, etc. Mr. Armour: . You will note on the Plan that we have increased the size of the dumpster considerably. Mr. Andrew: Yes, OK, I see that now. Are there any questions or comments from the Commission for Mr. Armour? Mr. Zimmer: You feel that the chain fence along the side lot line is adequate? Mr. Armour: Nobody will run through that fence with a car. There certainly will be a lot of damage if they do. 6756 r Mr. Zimmer: Maybe some concrete 4 x 8 posts would do the job? Mr. Armour: That certainly would not look as good. I feel the fence will 40 provide adequate separation between this facility and the people in the east. Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions? ,Mr. Morrow: In looking at this plan, I see some existing passageways between the ' two sites, I am referring to -the business on the east. Or is that • • completely blocked off? Mr. Armour: There is proposed a 6' area of asphalt plus curbing running the entire depth of the property. But there is no break between the two .sites now. Mr. Morrow: No interchange at all. Mr. Armour: There shouldn't be with' the new curb installation. 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? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-6-2-16 closed. ILOn'a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-143-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1978 on Petition 78-6-2-16 by Fred Armour requesting waiver use approval to construct two car bays and a storage addition to an existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Milburn in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-6-2-16 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site and Landscape Plan #78D-509, revised date 7/14/78, . prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to, and that all landscape materials as shown on the • • approved Site Plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; (2) that Building Elevation Plan #78D-509, dated 5/22/78, prepared by Affiliated' Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and • • (3) that any future signage proposed to be located on the site shall be approved by the City Planning Commission 11110 for .the following reasons: (1) The site has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed building expansion of use and added parking area. 4 6757 (2) The expansion will not adversely affect the surrounding area by way of this minor addition in the way of traffic, hours of operation or changes in operation. (3) This proposed expansion proposes a substantial upgrading of the site in the way of major landscaping and additional paved parking areas. (4) The proposal complies 3_n every respect to the special and general standards of the Zoning Ordinance. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-6-2-17 by Seymour J. Levine Architects, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail commercial development on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Middlebelt Roads in the North 1/3 of Section 23. Mr. Andrew: Mr: Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a. letter from our Engineering Division, dated June 23, . 1978, indicating legal description meets with their approval. Also, a letter dated June 27, 1978 from the Wayne County Road Commission outlining certain improvements in roads adjacent to this development, 4 . signed by Wm. L. Lagosh. Mr, Andrew: Mr. Nagy, as I understand it, Wayne County Road Commission is requesting that the left turn lane south of Five Mile Road on Middlebelt be extended. Is that correct? Mr. Nagy: Yes, that is right. Mr. Andrew: And they are also requesting a deceleration lane in that same area, which would mean two more lanes of pavement. What about the right-of- way needed? Mr. Nagy: Petitioner has indicated that he will dedicate his right-of-way in order to make Middlebelt Road 60' in width. But they have also ' taken the position of hiring another traffic consultant in order to evaluate those concerns raised by the Wayne County Road Commission. This trafic consultant has come up with a counter proposal, and this counter proposal has been presented to Wayne County for their review. ' The architect, who is here tonight, feels reasonably certain that they will accept the alternative. Mr. Andrew: Yes, Mr. Levine, will you please. approach the mike? And just briefly explain to this Commission what alternative your traffic consultant has proposed relative to Middlebelt Road as opposed to those suggestions from Wayne County Road Commission? Seymour Levine: My client has indicated that he will dedicate that right-of-way 23777 Green- adjacent to his property. Our traffic consultant has proposed to 4 field provide a deceleration lane on the west side of Middlebelt, as, well Southfield as widening a strip of land on the east side of Middlebelt which would provide room for a turning lane into the shopping center. We have (j J'? ; presented these plans to the Wayne County Road Commission and they seem to be in agreement. They are waiting for our actual drawings to review. Therefore, we would ask that this be held in abeyance until such time as theyare ready to make a decision. Mr. Andrew: What are the recommendations of your traffic consultant as relates to the most southerly driveway off of Middlebelt, perhaps to handle truck traffic? - Mr. kevine: There will be a 25' wide driveway with a 30' radius on the north and 20' on the south, as well as a 50' long strip that would flow into the acceleration lanes. Mr. Andrew: Would this be in line with Elsie? Mr. Levine.: Almost exactly in line with Elsie Avenue. We would eliminate left, turns into Elsie,, and the City Engineering office has indicated that this would be acceptable because Elsie now handles very little traffic. Mr. Andrew: Are there any comments or questions of Mr. Levine from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: There has been discussion regarding another lane of traffic on the east side of Middlebelt. Is there enough property there to add another lane? Mr. Andrew: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: So in other words, the current curb on the east side gets moved eastward. Is that the plan? I: Mr. Levine: Yes. In combination with additional width on the west side we hope 4 to widen whole thing. We need sufficient width to provide for the left turn lane. Mr.. Andrew: Any other comments from the Commission? Mr. Kluver: I am just wondering if we couldn't have some more details on the parking lot lights. Mr. Levine: Yes, I have, sketches here that show the type of lighting proposed. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, do we have Site Plans on this petition? -Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have revised Site Plans. As well as Building Elevation plans. Mr. Kluver: Well, I am just wondering whether it is in the best interests to go through these details of the parking lot lights at a public hearing. They should be studied in depth at some other meeting so that all details can be resolved. Perhaps we should reschedule thispetition to some other time for study purposes. Mrs. Scurto: I am in support of Mr. Kluver's suggestion, because I still have some questions regarding the site, the traffic, etc. I wouldcbfinitely recommend a tabling motion. i 3 J • • 6759 Mr. Levine: I would like to comment that this new site plan is essentially the same as the one submitted some time .ago with some revisions as recommended by your City Planners with all the improvements they [40 suggested. Mr. Kluver: Maybe those residents concerned could attend the Study Meeting. Mr. Andrew: Would those residents interested in this petition indicate by a show 4 of hands the number involved? Would it be possible for you to attend a study meeting of the Commission on August 1, 1978 down at the Engi- neering Building? Mrs. Wisler: There are two things about this that bother me - and the first is that this is a waiver use request because of the size of the grocery store - right? Appooval of Site Plans is usually a condition of waiver use approval. Also, I am concerned about the architecture, the facia on the adjacent stores. And what about the rear of the buildings, those at the south end. Perhaps there should be a mansard type roof treatment here the same as the north side has. People coming north on Middlebelt will be seeing this side and I feel it should be dressed up the same. There certainly will be as many people travelling north as travelling south. Mr., Levine: At the recommendation of the Planning Department, we have indicated extension of the mansard roof and brick on the south side for a distance of 60 to 70 feet. Mrs. Wisler: Yes, I ,can see that, but I really feel that that is not enough. Mr. Levine: In time, there will be commercial buidings on the C-2 property to the south. Those buildings willscreen our buildings. That was our rationale in not putting in the mansard roof and brick at this time. Mrs. Wisler: Have you ever taken a good look at that commercial development at Five Mile and Merriman - the way that Pier 1 and Radio Shack are constructed? I feel that is a very unsightly piece of development. I definitely would like to see this mansard roof extended further, but I really can't say how much further. Mrs. Scurto: I tend to agree with Mrs. Wisler about the appearance of this south side. What: about that development at Five Mile and Newburgh - what is on the back wall of that one, brick or split rock? Mr. Nagy: I know there is split rock on the front and sides, but I am not too sure about the back wall. Mr. Shane: I think the back wall is painted a very dark color. But there also is a brick wall that divides this complex from the church property behind it. Mr. Zimmer: I too am in agreement with Mrs. Wisler's comments about the appearance on the south side of this development. Sure, there is a good chance that something more will go in there sometime in the future, and I a also know, Mr. Levine, that it will probably be beyond your juris- t diction, but I feel very strong that a good looking development_along 4 Middlebelt Road in this town is very important. 6760 Mr. Kluwer:i . I too share much of the thoughts of the other Commissioners regarding this particular development. But I also feel a more in-depth analysis should ,be made., 11-0 44 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? • Mary McDonald: I live directly across from this property, and everything you say is 2961Q Hoy fine and dandy, but when do you start considering how it looks to the ' people who live in the area? Seems like all you are worried about is how it looks to those people driving up and down Middlebelt? Mr. Falk: That is why we have asked1,you people to come to the Study Meeting. • We definitely are interested in all the input of the residents. Mrs. McDonald: We are fighting for.a mere 40 feet. We would like to see it left in the rough. We don't want to have to look at a brick wall. Some of those trees in there are twenty-thirty years old. Really, I almost would just as soon have weeds than a brick wall. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Levin, just what are your plans regarding the landscaping along Beatrice Avenue, do you plan on natural growth or what? `Mr. Levine: We have no intention of knocking down trees that are 20 years old. We do not have a Landscape Plan at this time. We were waiting until got the main area's site plan approved.. I suppose we could work with what is there now. We do plan to enhance the area. We will Ewe do everything we can to satisfy the residents as far as landscaping is concerned. Sylvia Braithwaite: If we have to have this thing what about the merchants who have 29263 Hoy been in this area right along, what about the. man who owns the hardware across the street, and the lady who just bought the pharmacy? Sure, we don't have a supermarket, but we don't need one. There are enough close by. Mr. Loeffler has had his hardware for the last twenty years and now we understand there is going to be an ACE Hardware in this shopping center. These little business people just can't fight back. This used to be a beautiful City, but it sure isn't any more with all the supermarkets and gas stations. Mr. Andrew: Sylvia, as one Commissioner I truly feel that if we can't allow people the right to compete, then we are really in trouble. Mrs. Wisler: Would it be possible to have some indication as to the signage on these buildings? • Mr. Levine: I have noted on the Site Plan that the signage will be a maximum of 2 square feet of signage per front feet of store. Mrs. Scurto: I certainly hope the roof-mounted ventilating units will be more attractive than those that appear on that shopping center on Seven Mile Road before you hit the railroad tracks in Northville. 11 6761 Mrs. McDonald: I wonder if you people are aware of the traffic problems in this area. With Michigan Bell and McDonald's not too far from this corner, there is an awful lot of traffic. We fought the paving on our street, but that didn't seem to do any good. There are too many accidents because there are too many people travelling in this area. Since they paved Beatrice, you wouldn't believe the .traffic we get down there. Mrs. Scurto: ' ' Isn't there a "NO THRU TRAFFIC" sign at Beatrice? Mrs. McDonald: I really don't know for sure. But we even have school busses going down Beatrice with no kids in them. Garbage trucks that don't pick up in our neighborhood go through there. They avoid making a left turn at the corner. Just too much traffic. Mr. Levine: In answer to Mrs. Scurto's comment,. all our heating and air conditioning units mounted on the roof will be screened. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this petition? ' There wasno one else present wishing to be heard on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the public hearing on Petition 78-6-2-17 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was I: #6-14.4-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1978 on Petition 78-6-2-17 as submitted by Seymour J. Levine Architects, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a retail commercial development at the southwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in the North 1/2 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition. 78-6-2-17 until the Study Meeting scheduled to be held on August 1, 1978. ; Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and ,the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-6-3-6 by Dr. Michael Nicola requesting to vacate a portion of Outlot C in Stark Gardens Subdivision located north of Schoolcraft Service Drive between Riverside and Ellen Drives in the Southwest 1/4' of Section 21. After a lengthy discussion regarding the validity of the submission of this particular petition, Mr. Andrew declared the Petition 78-6-3-6 removed from the agenda. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-6-7-4 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located south of Margareta Drive between Newburgh Road and the I-275 Freeway .in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: No correspondence. . • 100•1 Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission in order to amend the Master School and Park Plan of the City. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? • 6762 tHenry Lemieux: I would like to ask this Planning Commission and Department 18839 Blue Skies just what the reasons are for deleting this park site? Mr. Andrew: Well, No. 1, there has been a Purchase Agreement made between the present owner, the Livonia Board of Education and a prospective buyer. Second, this open space is an encumbrance upon the title. I am not certain who the title company is. No. 3, if I were the 4 purchaser, I would want this particular area removed from the Park Plan of the City. No. 4, Livonia Parks & Recreation .Commission has indicated that they do not have enough funds to acquire this property. ` They also feel this should be removed from the Master Schooland Park Plan of the City. Because of all these things, we are here to take action to eliminate this particular parcel. Mr. Lemieux: Are you aware of the fact that this Section 7 has noopen space designated as such in the entire section? And whether or not the City has enough money to purchase it- is, irrelevant. This particular parcel of land is the only one left in the whole section. What about the children who live in Melody Manor Subdivision? In order for them to get to a park, they would have to walk a mile and a half down Seven Mile Road to get to Bicentennial Park, but you are telling us that this is what they can do or go without a ,park. ' Mr. Andrew: Surely, Henry, you are aware that should the prospective purchaser acquire this entire 17 or more acres, he has indicated that he will convey a little more then three acres of land on the west to the City for park purposes: i Dan Cotterman: I have checked over Mr. Lewiston's plot and upon investigating the 37712 Dardan- . 3.3 acres of park land he has proposed, I find that there is a ella sound barrier in that portion right now. The presently existing sound barrier takes in one-half of the park. There is only 120 feet between the back of the lot lines to the beginning of the sound barrier. Maybe he thinks it is OK for the kids to play on the freeway. Mr. Andrew: You are saying that half of the three acres is sound barrier? Mr. Gotterman: Certainly, there is only 120 feet left for the kids to play. That is not enough. Mr. Andrew: Thank you. I appreciate these comments. Mr. Zimmer: . Is there a fence there? Mr. Gotterman: Just past the sound barrier. Mr. Lemieux: Part of the site is freeway right-of-way. The most westerly part. The sound barrier encroaches on the park site. Mr. Andrew: How did you determine this? Mr. Lemieux: We started from a point on Nola and measured. I feel we are accurate within 4 or 5 feet. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? IL • 6763' Cecil Harris: Yes, I live in the Woods Condominiums to the south of this property, 18238 University and I have two major concerns. No. I, we are wondering about the Park Drive water running off'on the north side of our property. On the south side of this property in question there is a ditch and we are wonder ing what the developer -is planning to do about making sure exactly where any water will go. Is he going to make another ditch or what? No. 2, as far as snow removal in the wintertime, all the snow is pushed to the north. How does the developer feel about that he's not here tonight, and we want to make sure that all the snow is placed somewhere so we can get in and out of our property. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Harris, all these problems will be worked out between our Engineering Division and the developer. You can be sure Engineering will come up with suitable solutions. , Mr. Andrew: Anyone else? Neil Sutton: I just want to say that I feel this is totally unacceptable. What is left is just a narrow strip of park land, too narrow for any kind of recreation for the kidslike a baseball diamond. Let's face it, balls will certainly be flying into peoples' back yards. I am not satisfied with this arrangement. Mrs. Friedrichs: It appears to me that we really have very little choice in the matter if Parks &Recreations has no intention of buying the land. We certainly have no authority to do anything about it if they have no intention to purchase it. If it isn'-t going to be purchased, it certainly shouldn't be designated as such. 4 Mr. Andrew: If I ,remember correctly in going back into history a little bit, back in 1972 when this particular piece of property was first 'considered to be put on the Master School and Park Plan, this Commission decided at that time that it would be so designated for two specific reasons: No. 1, we wanted to preserve the woods as . they existed on the property at that tithe, and No. 2, we wanted to impede further residential development. Now, here we are in 1978, considering to remove this property from the Master School and Park Plan when we ,know that someone is attempting to develop it residentiall} • As One Commissioner I find it quite difficult to turn around and take tt off the original plan. I just don't know. Sometimes history is real interesting. ' , There was no -one else wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-6-7-4 closed. . 1 4 6763a 170 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was 4 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1978 on Petition 78-6-7-4 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, 4,• the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located south of . Margareta Drive between Newburgh Road and the I-175 Freeway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-6-7-4 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow NAYS: Kluver, Andrew ABSTAIN: Friedrichs, Wisler Mr. Andrew, Chairma, declared the resoltuion fails for lack of support inasmuch as a 2/3 affirmative vote is required in order to amend the Master Plan. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #7-145-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public' Hearing having been held on July 18, ' 1978 on Petition 78-6-7-4 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, to 1 amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleteing property located south of Margareta Drive between Newburgh Road and the 1-175 Freeway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table petition 78-6-7-4. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew . NAYS: Zimmer, Falk ABSTAIN: Wisler ABSENT: Smith i Mr. Andrew declared the• above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.6764 IL Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is a rehearing of Petition 77-3-6-4, omnmntOieoddancae,eiiong 2to thade8nOorf dloatnd 5t3o,ltoht e Mr. .0ndrew: This is a petition initiated by the Planning Commission to amend language contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 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 and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 77-3-6-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-146-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1978 on Petition 77-3-6-4, as amended, to amend Sections 2.06 and 18.08 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to the definition of lots and to lot limitation, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 77-3-6-4 be approved for the following reason: (1) This amendment is necessary in order to establish more definitive regulations regarding the use of lots and areas. IL FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date.of 6/29/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 'Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the'above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the nest item on the agenda is the renaming pursuant to Council Resolution #529-78 of Huff Street located in the Blue Grass Estates Subdivision located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five and Six Mile Roads in Section. 18, to Shannon Drive. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any. correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Police Division, advising no objection to this proposed change in a street name and a letter from the Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire checting to the street name change. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition pursuant to Council Resolution to change the name ' of Huff Street to Shannon Drive in a new subdivision located between Five and Six Mile Roads. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this subject? Richard Fischer: Yes, I have several questions to ask of this Planning Commission • regarding this request for a change in the name of Huff to Shannon. I understand this is pursuant to Council Resolution #529-78. Which members of the Council proposed this change? • Mr. Nagy,: - The resolution was initiated by Mr. Nash, seconded by Mr. Bennet, and linanimonF:lv trinptF'rl. 6765 Mr. Fischer: When did this change take place and why? Mr. Nagy: Request was made at Council Meeting of June 7, 1978 and the Council d gave no particular reasons for this proposed change in the street name. Mr. Fischer: Is there any reason why this change wasn't proposed when the land N,_ was being developed? This is the only section in the whole city ' where this particular street's name will be changed. The reason for this request wasn't made because it just so happens that one the council members has purchased property on this street, is it. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Fischer, that is an unfair question. Mr. Fischer: My next question is whether or not those other people who have purchase agreements to property on this street were notified • of this meeting? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we contacted the builder and he has furnished us with the names and addresses of the other lot owners, and we did notify them of this meeting. • Mr. Fischer: There are only seven homes presently occupied. Mr. Andrew: According to our records, letters were sent to twenty-one lot owners' on the east and west side of Huff. • i Mr. Fischer: I would like to go on record as being against this name change for many reasons, among them being mail service, legal description of ro ert p p y, personal records, etc. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Fischer, can youtell me how long it has been since you closed on your property? Mr. Fischer: 37 days. Mr. Andrew: Anyone else? Lee Giaccaglia: I too am opposed to this change. My last name, as you know, is 16220 Huff hard enough to spell, and I would like to live on a street with only four letters that is easy to spell. Mr. Andrew: Which lot is yours? Mr. Giaccaglia: Lot #102, eight houses going north on the east side. Janice Ploch: We live on the third lot from the south on the east side, and we 15987 Huff used to live on the same street a little further south of this at 14555 Huff.. We have had difficulty with the spelling of Huff; and since the spelling of my last name is easy enough I would be agreeable to this name change. IL John Gipper: I am in agreement with Mr. Ficher. I like it the way it is now. 16278 Huff We have been there since May 25th, and I really wouldn't want to go through getting my records changed, like driver's license, charge cards, etc. Mr. Falk: Mr. Nagy, was there any response to those 21 letters? 6766 Mr. Nagy:. .No response at all. I Mr. Falk: So there are only four out of twenty-one here tonight. Mrs. Fischer: If it is up to the Council to make final decision, why not postpone this until the majority of the people occupy their homes. It just might have been inconvenient for them to attend tonight's meeting if they had to come some distance. • Mr. Andrew: Council directed us to conduct a Public Hering on this, and this will be the only Public Hearing on this particular item. Minutes of this meeting and our recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Nagy: You can be sure that verbatim minutes will be directed to City Council. They will certainly be made aware of your feelings. Mr. Andrew: If you are truly concerned about this, I would suggest that you contact the Council's secretary as soon as possible, and request that you be notified of exactly when this item will be on the Council's agenda. They are not legally required to notify you but I am sure if you let them know you are interested, they will tell you the date of their discussion. • There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on renaming of Huff Street closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously IL adopted, it was #7-147-78. RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 18, 1978 on the renaming - pursuant to Council Resolution #529-78, of Huff Street, located in the Blue Grass Estates Subdivision located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five and Six Mile Roads in Section 18, to Shannon Drive, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to City Council that this renaming of Huff Street be denied for the following reasons: (I) Owners of property adjacent to Huff Street object to the proposed street name change. (2) This proposed street name change _is not in the best interests of the existing and future residents of the Blue Grass Estates Subdivision as the name Huff Street is a well established street name within the same area and adjoining subdivisions. (3) The Fire Division of the Department of Public Safety objects to the proposed street name change. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. .Wisler and seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was #7-148-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated June 14, 1978 from Rodney C. Kropf, Attorney, requesting an extension of time with regard to Condition #5 in connection with approval of Petition 71-5-2-18 by Rodney C. Kropf Attorney for Sam & Joy Moy, requesting waiver use approval to expand the existing restaurant located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Munger and Six Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City 6767 t . Planning Commission ,does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for extension of time be denied for the following reasons: ' (1) To allow the 'continuance of the residential structure on commercially zoned property is in conflict with Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 18.08, Lot Limitation. (2)• The Planning Commission has allowed the residential structure to remain on the property for the past seven years which is the time • span between the date of waiver use approval and this request for an extension, and feels that seven years' time is more than reasonable to have both the benefit of the use of the residential structure and to have made alternate plans to relocate the residential uses as same may have applied to the subject property. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following;. AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Smith , Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by-Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, IL it was #7-149-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from Robert A. Roberts for Church of the Holy Spirit requesting an extension of approval of Petition 75-12-2-31 requesting waiver use approval to erect a Church and parish house on the west side of Newburgh Road, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that an extension be granted for one year subject to all the conditions as were attached to the previous approving Resolution #2-10-76, adopted on February 3, 1978. Mr. Andrew. declared the above motion carried and the' foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-150-78 RESOLVED that, the .City Planning Commission having given consideration to the revisions pursuant to Council Resolution #479-78 to Petition 77-8-6-8 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.24, Accessory Buildings, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide controls on heights of detached garages and accessory buildings, does hereby determine that the substitution of words and phrases as recommended by the City Council and the City Planning Commission do not constitute an alteration of the content or intent of the amendment as originally pro- posed and reaffirms its recommendation set forth in Resolution #9-194-77, adopted on September 20, 1977, to approve Petition 77-8-6-8; and further that such revisions are of a minor nature and a new public hearing on Petition 77-8-6-8 is not necessary. L Mr. Andrew declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution_ adopted. 6768 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-151-78 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 recommend to t the City Council that Petition 78-3-1-16 be denied, for the following redsons: (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. (2) The proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to and not in harmony with the surrounding residential uses of the area. (3) The proposed change of zoning is spot zoning in that there is no similar or adjoining professional or office uses in the area as the established zoning on all sides of the area under petition is single family residential and all adjoining lands are used for residential purposes. (4) The proposed change of zoning would not promote the orderly growth and development of the area in accordance with the Future Land Use Plan as the proposed change of zoning would tend to encourage the conversion of other lands in the area to non-residential purposes which would be detrimentalto the developed or developing residential neighborhoods of the area. 4 (5) The proposed change of zoning would be hazardous to the area from a traffic standpoint as adjoining roads of Gill Road and Seven Mile Road are already overburdened • with traffic, and in their present state are incapable to handling any increase in traffic as would be generated by this proposed rezoning and related office development. 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, 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. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-152-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for the Windridge Village Subdivision #2 proposed to be located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Farmington Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, for the following reasons: 4 J 6769 (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Engineering Division of the City of Livonia recommends approval of the Final. Plat. (3) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been complied with. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-153-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City Hall of the City of Livonia, to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.04 Schedule of Minimum Lot Sizes in R-1 through R-5 Districts, of the Zoning Ordinance, #543, to increase the depth and/or width of lots abutting major thoroughfares. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia, and a notice by registered United States mail shall. be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or rail- road within the City of Livonia, in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. . On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-154-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, '1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City of Livonia to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.03, Waiver Uses of Zoning Ordinance #543, by adding paragraph (f) to provide controls for the establishment of homes for the retarded in RUF Zoning Districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, a notice of time and place of said hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia, and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public uitility or rail- road company owning oroperating any public utility or railroad within the City of Livonia, in accordnance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion' duly made by. Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-155-78 RESOLVED that, the Planning Department Budget proposed for the Fiscal Year 1978-1979 is approved. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer and seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was 6770 IL #7-156-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 355th Regular Meeting and Public Hearing held by the City Planning Commission on June 6, 1978 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew . NAYS: None . . ABSTAIN: Kluver, Scurto ABSENT: Smith Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-157-78 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 78-6-8-19P by William N. Ponder 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 north side of Plymouth Road between Hubbard Road and Mayfield in Section 27, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #43-375, prepared by John E. Wisniewski, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that building elevations as shown on Plan #43-375, Sheet 2, which .are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; IL (3) that the landscaping as shown on 'the approved Site Plan, which is hereby approved, shall be installed on the Site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-158-78 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 78-7-8-22 by Fred J. ArmOur requesting approval of. all plans required by Section 18.47, submitted in connection with a proposalk. to construct a medical clinic on the west side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Haldane in Section 4, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 78D-510, dated 7/1/78, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that building elevations as shown on Plan 78D-510, Sheet 3, dated -7/12/78, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and o IL , (3) that Landscape Plan 78D-310, Sheet la, dated 7/1/78, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved, "shall be adhered to and all landscape materials as shown on the approved landscape plan shall be installed on the site before building occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition. ' 6771 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. I: On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 357th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on July 18, 1978 were adjourned at 11:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 ,44.,L......f.. Ae -Aligro____ Jose J. $lk, := retary • ex ,- ATTEST: Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman i