HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-09-12 . 6796
•
MINUTES OF THE 359th REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
ILO On Tuesday, September 12, 1978, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia,
helds its 359th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001
'Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jerome W. Zimmer, Acting Chairman, . called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
to order at 8:10 p.m. , with approximately 100 interested people in the audience.
,e,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Zimmer Joseph Falk Suzanne Wisler
C. Russell Smith R. Lee Morrow Esther Friedrichs
Herman Kluver
MEMBERS'ABSENT: Daniel R. Andrew (vacation)
Judith Scurto (company 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. Zimmer then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves
a rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council,
who in turn will then hold their own Public Hearing and decide the question. If a
petition involves a waiver use request, and the petition is denied by the Planning
1[00 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 Petition 78-7-1-27 by the
City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the west side of •
Harrison, south of Brentwood in the West 1/2 of Section 12, from R-1 to P.L.
Mr. Zimmer: This petition represents the Planning Commission's efforts to signify
that piece of property which is already owned by the City and identify
it with the P.L. zoning, which designates Public Land. Mr. Nagy, do
you have any further comments?
Mr. Nagy: .Only by way of explanation: just want to state that this land is
presently owned by the City of Livonia, and we are only trying to
correct our Zoning Map by so designating this as P.L. There will
definitely be no change in the use of the property, whether it be for
active recreation or passive at the present time. We are only changing
the zoning from R-1 to P.L. ; because it is not intended to be used for
residential purposes.
Mr. Zimmer: Thank you, Mr. Nagy. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak
on this topic?
Rodney Beckwith: I am just questioning why a fence was put up across that creek which
18224 Brentwood intersects that corner of the park property? We have been after the
City to keep this creek cleaned up in this flood plain area. There is
a considerable amount of wildlife there, and we would like you to con-
i sider keeping this as a wildlife refuge. Are you familiar with the fact
that there is a fence across this creek in the flood plain?
4
6797
(w. Nagy: The Planning Commission does not get involved with the fencing of park
land. That is a matter of the Parks and Recreation Department, but
since you have brought this to our attention, we will check with Parks
and Recreation to see whether or not this fence is actually needed.
oris Bachman: I have lived here since December, 1949 and I have attended many Council
18001 Lathers meetings, and three times Mr. Pollack tried to develop this R-7 property.
The traffic that would come in .and out through Lathers and Harrison would
be terrible. This piece of property is a very poor place for a park to
be. Not only because of the flooding pro)}1ems, but because of the traffic
also. This whole area is not set up' for any parking here either.
Mr. Zimmer: Are you speaking of how this park is now, or what you expect it to be?
Doris Bachman: 'I just don't want this turned into a park.
Mr. Zimmer: Do you have an alternative as to how this property could be used?
D. Bachman: No, I don't. Mr. Pollack wanted to put in 385 apartments and that also
presented a traffic problem in this area. I have heard that there are
no plans to develop this for at least ten years. I understand your
" wanting to rezone this P.L. , but I also want you to be aware of the traffic
problems in this area. Do you know that there are hunters in that park?
So much shooting. The police say this area is very difficult to control.
Kids set fires in there, and the Fire Department can't even get in there.
" ;s. Friedrichs: Mrs. Bachman, I want you to, know that according to the information we
have, this area will be left in its natural state; it is not intended to
60,
be developed any further, even as a park. Since it was purchased with
federal funds, the City cannot sell it to anyone for any other use.
D. Bachman: 'Well, I want to be on record as fighting this proposal. How can we be
expected to keep hunters out of there?
Mrs. Friedrichs: Are there any "No Hunting" signs posted?
D. Bachman: No, there aren't.
Mr. White: I am here to speak for my mother. She owns Lots 34, 35, 36 and 37 , which
18442 Brentwood face on Harrison. Are you intending to vacate that portion of Harrison
as shown on the map?
Mr. Nagy: That portion of Harrison, is already vacated.
Mr. White: We have been here since 1951, and since we face on both streets, we do use
access from Harrison to Curtis. We were led to believe that Curtis is the
half-mile road, and we use this out to Middlebelt. This matter tonight
willnot interfere with our use of Harrison, will it?
Mr. Nagy: That is a separate matter. Has no bearing on this 'petition. Come into
our office during regular business hours and we will discuss this further.
1[0: Zimmer: Are there any more comments or questions from the Commission? Is there
anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on the matter?
. 6798
was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared Public Hearing
n Petition 78-7-1-27 closed. ,
[here
n a motion duly .made by Mr. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted, it
as
#9-185-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September
12, 1978 on Petition 78-7-1-27. as submitted by the City'Planning Commission
• on its own motion to rezone property located on the west side of Harrison,
south of. Brentwood in the West ,l/2 of Section 12, from R-1 to P.L. , the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City, Council that '
Petition 78-7-1-27 be approved, for the following reasons:
1) The proposed Public Lands classification will reflect City ownership
of the land.
' • • 2) The site in question is listed on the Master School and Park Plan as
an existing park site.
3) Approval of this petition is consistent with Planning ,Commission policy
of recommending the rezoning of all City owned park sites to Public Lands
zoning classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in
the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 8/24/76, and that
notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake
ILWand Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power
Company, and City Departments as listed in .the Proof of Service.
Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
.Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as
Petition 78-7-1-28 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property
. located east of Merriman Road between Curtis and Hillbrook Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 11, from R-2 to P.L.
Mr, Zimmer: Again we have a housekeeping chore before us, that is correcting our
Zoning Map to reflect proper classification of City owned lands. Any
comments frpm the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing
to speak on this matter?
David Leslie: Do I understand correctly that there will be no development in that
31103 Hillbrook area because it is a flood plain? .
•
Mr. Zimmer: We don't have any knowledge that anything will happen to that area
other than what it is how.
Mr. Leslie: Will there ever be an actual park? .
Mr. Zimmer: I cannot say with any finality that that will happen. We are here
tonight to simply set our records straight, and indicate on our
' IL ' .
Zoning Map as this being Public Lands.
6799
[es
Becker: Will the City be responsible for maintaining that 200' beyond the
15 Hillbrook back of our lots? The builder scraped all dirt back in there, and
now it is just weeds, and a lot of ruts. There is a steep grade
•
down to the creek whenever we get a heavy rain. It was my under-
standing that the developer was supposed to do something about restoring
it to what it was originally. But he has done nothing.. I have taken it
upon myself to mow the weeds.
Mr. ,Zimmer: How long has it been sincethe builder left that area?
Mr. Becker: I would say about a year. He still has a model on Bainbridge, and
although he is developing property at the other end, he still uses
that model on Bainbridge. Even after we moved in, we were told that
he would grade this property behind us, and either seed or sod it. It
really looks bad. I have tried to landscape it myself. But I am just
wondering what will happen to it if it becomes Public Land.
Mr. Zimmer: Actually changing the zoning on that property will not change it in
any way. The City does have a responsibility to keep it in good
condition. As far as the condition that the developer left it, we
will have to look into that.
Mr. Nagy: Yes, the City does have some protection as to how a developer leaves
property when he is finished. He does have to post Improvement Bonds,
and the City then determines what amount of improvement "has been accomplished
before any monies are returned. As far as that particular piece of land,
we,will look into this.
.IL '
Becker: Because of the grade back there, especially behind Lots #46 and #47 , there
is a trough there, and we get an awful lot of water down the hill -- at
the back end of my sod. If the City takes this over, what do they plan
on doing about this?
Mr. Zimmer: I would suggest that you contact Mr. Nagy during regular business hours,
and he can pursue this further.
Mr. Falk: Mr. Becker, when was the last time you talked to the developer?
Mr. Becker: The only people I have directly talked, to are the salesman in themodel,
and the superintendent in charge of building. The 'superintendent is the
one who led me to believe that something would be done back there. I
even had to pay a man to knock some of that dirt out of there.
Mr. Zimmer: Any more discussion on this matter?
There was no one else wishing to speak on ,this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared Public Hearing
onPetition 78-7-1-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted,
it was
_-186-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having beenheld on September
12, 1978 on Petition 78-7-1-28 as submitted by the City Planning Commission
(4,
on its own motion to rezone property located east of Merriman Road between
Curtis and Hillbrook Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, from R-2 to
P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 78-7-1-28 be approved, for the following reasons:
6800
to . 1) The proposed Public Lands classification will reflect City ownership
of the land.
2) Approval of this petition is ,consistent with Planning Commission policy
of recommending the rezoning of all City owned park sites- to Public Lands.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in
the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 8/24/78, and
that notices of such hearing, were sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company,;Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers
-Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda, as
Petition 78-7-1-29 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion' to rezone
property located south of Pickford Avenue between Sunset and Hillcrest in. the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, from R-1 to P.L.
Mr. Zimmer: As in the previous two petitions .again we are attempting to reflect
proper zoning of all lands on the comprehensive Zoning Map of the
City of Livonia. Any comments from the Commission? Is there anyone
in the audience wishing to speak on this matter?
ere was no one present wishing to be heard on this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared Public
taring on Petition 78-7-1-29 closed.
a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted,
was
#9-187-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12,
• 1978 on Petition 78-7-1-2.9 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on
• its own motion to rezone property located south of Pickford Avenue between
Sunset and Hillcrest in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, from R-1 to P.L. ,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 78-7-1-29 be approved, for the following reasons:
1) The proposed Public Lands classification will reflect City ownership
of the land.
2) The site in question is listed on the Master School and Park Plan as an
existing park site.
3) Approval of this petition is consistent with Planning Commission policy
of recommending the rezoning of all City owned park sites to Public Lands.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in
the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 8/24/78, and
that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company,
and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
': Zimmer declared the above motion carried-and foregoing resolution adopted.
6801
[0. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as
Petition 78-7-1-30 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone
property located west of Middlebelt between Curtis and Six Mile Road in the South
1/2 of Section 11, from R-1 to P.L.
Mr. Zimmer: Again, we are merely attempting to correct the zoning classifications
as they appear on our Zoning Map. Any comments or questions from the
Commission? Is there anyone' in the audience wishing to speak on this
matter?
If'
William Willoughby: My question is - What would the City do if it remained R-lA. Could
30256 Brookview they develop it as a park even if it remained residential? Does it have
to be designated as P.L. for them to do any developing?
Mr. Nagy: The policy of the City is to try to adhere to its own zoning ordinances.
It would have to be zoned P.L. before it could be developed as a park.
The City could not go in there now and develop it under the R-lA zoning.
Mr. Willoughby: I would like to see this remain as R-1A, and can see no reason for
changing it to P.L. We like having the woods and the animals, and if
you say nothing will change even if it is rezoned, why change it? Also,
is it the Board's practice to systematically go through all the public
land in the City and change the zoning?
Zimmer:1[: No, it is not fair to say that we systematically do this, but we do
intend to indicate on our Zoning Map the proper classifications on
different pieces of property throughout the City. This is simply a
housekeeping chore that we are attempting to accomplish tonight, and
this was not brought to us by any other segment of the City government.
Mr. Willoughby: I still say leave it R-1A.
Mrs. Wisler: I am sure that if anyone came to the City and wanted to buy some property
that was on the market because they wanted to build a home, they would
want to know what the proper zoning is on that property. If the property
is owned by the City, it must be designated as P.L. on the Zoning Map.
Also, if the property lies in a flood plain area, they would want to
know that as well. There is no point in having property that is owned
by the City remain in the residential zoning classification.
Mr. Zimmer: Yes, I just want to re-emphasize that we are merely trying to put our
Zoning Map in order. There is nothing more to this than that..
Resident: I live directly south of this area, and have several questions. Why
30005 Bobrich are we wasting time here tonight if it is still going to be called a
park? And what about the value of the homes in that area? And who is
going to maintain the area and keep it clean?
Mr. Zimmer: We have no choice, we have an obligation to put our Zoning Map in order.
A P.L. classification simply implies public land, this petition says
nothing about a park.
6802
I.
Nagy: The use of land 'that is City owned and designated for recreational
purposes rests with the Parks & Recreation Commission. They are the
ones who set the policy regarding the use of the land. They have to
identify these parcels by name, and just because some may be named
"such and such park" that doesn't necessarily mean that it is an
active recreation area. They usually identify these parcels naming them
similarly to adjacent subdivisions for identification purposes only.
If you ever have any questions regarding the development or use of
these lands, call their office. I am sure they would invite you to one
of their meetings. The Pa,rks & Recreation Commission sets the policy
for the use of the land, oui job involves the zoning.
Resident: Well, if it is called a park, doesn't that leave it open to be developed
30005 Bobrich as a park?
Mr. Zimmer: The designation of "park" is nothing more than a name on a piece of land.
Resident: How do we know when they have their meetings?
Mr. Zimmer: They do not send out notices as we do. You simply just call the Parks &
Recreation Department and ask them to send you a notice of their meetings.
Mrs. Friedrichs: I would like to reiterate that there is no plan for any development of
that area. It is simply to be left in its natural state. And as far as
property value, I would certainly rather live adjacent to a park than
have residences behind me.
sident: Would you like to have your back yard next to a baseball field? And
where will the people park who come to these ball games?
. Wisler: I see these people are worried about the label on this area as "Sunset
Park." This label has been on that area for many years. The Parks &
Recreation people keep track of all their park land, and I am sure no
changes are planned for this area. I have a park that backs up to my
house, called "Heiman Park," and there hasn't been 'a single change in
that area for the last fifteen years.
Resident: Do we have any guarantee that it will never be developed?
Mr. Nagy: Check with Parks and Recreation.
Mrs. Kennedy: We have lived here for the last five years, and when we wanted to purchase
17486 Stamwich another 50' behind our house, we were told that this was designated as
Public Land, and we could not purchase it. Three years ago this area went
up for sale. We like the idea of wildlife running through there., but we
don't want a park. We don't want beer bottles, trash, all that stuff.
If that land is for sale, why can't. I buy it?
Mr. Zimmer: I really don't believe that anyone could go in there and develop this as
residential when in fact it is public land.
-s. Kennedy: Well, they did sell to a realtor.
. Nagy: The City did not own the land that was sold to Ager Building Company.
That land was owned by a private individual.
6803
s. Kennedy: You are saying that the City owns only that property to the green
line. What about that land beyond that? How did this realtor
acquire that?
Nagy: He acquired it from a private individual. The City was in no way
involved in those negotiations. That subdivisiongoes back five or
six years.
Mrs. Kennedy: What about that property directly behind us?
Mr. Nagy: In order to assist the City in acquiring various acreages throughout the
City, the City became involved with a Federal program on a 50-50 basis.
That is, the Federal Government pays for half and the City pays the
other half. When the City acquired this particular piece north of
Bell Creek, it was designated to be used as recreation and open space only.
John Harrington: I really wouldn't mind having this designated as Public Land, but I did
30416 Brookview hear Mr. Nagy say "park." I was notaware of the manner in which this
land was. acquired, but I understand now that with federal funds being
involved in the purchase, it is consequently designed to be developed
as a park. I suppose that means this whole area. I don't suppose anyone
is opposed to a park per se, but what about that real narrow section
just north of my property. It is less than 100' wide, and serves only as
a Flood Drain. Why couldn't it be designated as Flood Plain on your map,
because that is what it really is.
.s. Wisler: Mr. Harrington, we couldn't possibly designate this area as Flood Plain
because we do not have such a classification. If you were to check with
our Engineering Department's maps, you would be able to see all the flood
plain areas throughout the whole City. But the Planning Department does
not have that detailed of a zoning classification.
Mr. Zimmer: Yes, Mr. Harrington, our Engineering Department has many maps, showing
the topography of the whole City. Our Planning Department's Zoning
Map only identifies certain zones throughout the city, but does not get
involved with anything of an engineering nature.
Mr. Nagy: •Our Zoning Ordinance #543 incorporates flood plain regulations of the
City. Engineering Department. records show that area as being part of
the Tarabusi Flood Plain. You are welcome to visit either the Engineering
Office or our Planning Department any time and take a look at our maps.
George Nicholas: You say there are no parks going to be built here, but right on the map
30004 Bobrich it says two "park sites." . It says PARK SITES. What does that mean?
Mr. Zimmer: I appreciate your concern. Asmentioned before, the word "park" means
different things. We are here merely to set our records straight and
show this as Public Land. We do not know of any park to be developed.
You probably think "park" means baseball diamonds, swings, tables, etc.
All we know is that this is supposed to be no different than it is right
now —left in its natural state. The label "Park Site" implies nothing
more than that.
Nicholas: Show me a park that has been left in its natural state in the whole City.
Zimmer: There are many such parks throughout the City.
6804
.Nicholas: I paid $50,000 for my home three years ago, and I like the natural
l[le
woods and the wildlife, and I don't want .any kids running through my
yard when. it is turned into a park.
Smith: I think we are getting away from the question which indicates that the
map should be changed to show this area is no longer zoned R1A, but is
zoned P.L. , which it is. This land is really owned by all the citizens
of the City of Livonia. Currently, our map is marked incorrectly and
we are merely trying to set the record straight.
r.
Mr. Zimmer: I really feel you people should direct your thoughts and feelings to
the .Parks and Recreation Department, as well as their Commission. Let
them know just how you would like this area to look. I am sure they
will listen to your comments.
Mary Bridges: When was thisland purchased? -
30208 Brookview
Mr. Nagy: In 1969.
Mrs. Bridges: . When you say that this park is open to the public, do you mean everyone,
or just Livonia people.
Mr. Nagy: Any Public Land sodesignated that provides open space is available to
the whole public.
-s. Bridges: You mean anyone outside of Livonia could come in there. Right now there
are gangs that gather in there. Sometimes we. can even hear the noise
coming from Rotary Park. I feel that some of the people that come in
there are a real nuisance. Tell me, does P.L. mean park land or public land?
Mr. Zimmer: Public Land.
Mrs. Bridges: As Public Land -could the City sell it to somebody else for development?
Mr. Zimmer: When the City owns land fully, yes they can sell it. But because this
property was purchased with help from the Federal government, it cannot
be used for anything other than public land.
Mrs. Bridges: And you say the Parks & Recreation Department people would listen to
what we say as to how we want this land to be used.
Mr. Zimmer: Obviously, I cannot speak for them, but I am sure they will listen to
the people of Livonia and do what they can in the best interests of
the people.
Mrs. Bridges: But you are saying that if it is made public land, people could come
in and do whatever they wanted to do in there.
Mr. Zimmer: Anything that is not illegal
iv. Kluver: First of all, I want to apologize for being late, but in listening to this
discussion since I arrived, it appears that some of these people are not
too pleased with having a flood plain area behind .them. I also live with
a flood plain areabehind, and I think it is great. My wife has planted
flowers and bushes, and we have a great deal of privacy. There is really
no danger to having this area so near. Mrs. Friedrichs lives on a flood
• 6805
isplain area, Mr. Morrow lives on a flood plain area. What we are trying
to do here tonight is just set our records straight and show this
property zoned as it is.
. Kennedy: Well, I don't live on a flood plain. My property backs right up to
Sunset Park, and I really don't like the idea ofa lot of people
coming and going into that area for recreation purposes.
Mr. Zimmer: City Council will be making the final decision on this, and they will •
be holding a Public Hearing,, just like tkiis one. You people should let
' them also know exactly how you feel about this.
James A. Leslie: If the City bought this land in 1969, why did it take them nine years to
30112 Brookview get around to changing the zoning on it?,
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Leslie, I. really cannot answer that. Evidently, matters of rezoning
are handled on a priority basis. I really cannot, say why this particular
parcel took so long to get on the agenda. Is there anyone else wishing
to speak on this matter?
There was no further discussion on this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared Public Hearing on
Petition 78-7-1-30 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously approved,
it was .
?,-188-78. RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12,
1978 on Petition 78-7-1-30 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its
own motion to rezone property located west of Middlebelt Road, between Curtis
and Six Mile Roads, in the South 1/2 of Section 11, from R-1A to P.L. , the
City- Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City. Council that
Petition 78-7-1-30 be approved, for the following reasons:
1) The proposed Public Lands classification will reflect City ownership of
the land.
2) The site in question is listed on the Master School and Park Plan as an
existing park site.
3) Approval of this petition is consistent with the Planning Commission's
policy of recommending the rezoning of all City owned park sites to the
Public Lands classification.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the
official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 8/24/78, and that notices
of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company,- Chesapeake & Ohio
Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary announced the next item on the Agenda as
•
Petition 78-7-2-20 by Ginter H. Blankenburg requesting waiver use approval to expand
4 .an existing auto repair, muffler and brake business within a building located on the
' south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Newburgh Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 29.
6806
`. Zimmer: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file re petition?
1[
10. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from our Industrial Development Coordinator
indicating that currently there exists a waiver use building on this
site . . . etc. , signed Daniel J. Gilmartin. Also a letter from
Engineering indicating no engineering problems connected with the
proposal.
Mr. Zimmer: Is the petitioner present? What are your plans?
, '1 '
Ginther Blankenburg: I own the auto repair facility there now. There is only one building,
18592 Renwick but it is divided into two sections. One section was leased to the pizza
company, but they went out of business, and rather than rent it out again,
I would rather expand my own business into the other room.
Mr. Zimmer: You are now the owner of the total property?
Mr. Blankenburg: Yes, I purchased it approximately three years ago.
Mr. Zimmer: Any questions from the Commission?
Mr. Falk: John, doesn't this petition conflict with our M-1 Zoning District regulations?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, the plans as submitted are in violation with the M-1 Zoning District
regulations.
ILFalk: Did the petitioner know this before he came before us tonight?
Nagy: The petitioner was made aware of the Ordinance requirements after having
discussed this with our Industrial Development Coordinator.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Nagy, do I understand correctly this petitioner has to come before
us requesting waiver use approval in order to expand his present business?
Mr. ,Nagy: Yes, Petitioner currently has right to operate auto repair business only
in the westerly one half portion of the building.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Blankenburg, it appears there are some discrepancies currently out-
standing that have to be taken care of. The front yard of the building
is not properly landscaped and, the parking area is definitely not adequate.
Mr. Blankenburg: What do you want in the front --- I have grass there. And as far as the
parking, I plan to put in another driveway and parking to the east of the
building.
Mr. Zimmer: There are definitely some deficiencies that preclude us from approving this
at this time.
Mr. Blankenburg: What do I have to go through just to move next door in my own building?
When I purchased this building, I got a permit to operate this auto repair
shop? Now I can't even move into the next room?
: .Zimmer: Actually, you are operating an auto repair facility in a M-1 or manufacturing
district. We realize that all you want to do is expand your business, but
this is commercial intrusion in an M-1 District.
. .Blankenburg: What do you want me to do - burn the building?
6807
Zimmer: All I am saying is that we cannot approve this petition until certain
conditions are met. In order to expand your auto repair facility in an
M-1 District, you need waiver use approval. There are a couple of
questions here that have. to be resolved first, and I feel that we should
table this matter to a future Study Meeting so that we can look at this
more closely.
Mr. Blankenburg: How long will that take?
Mr. Nagy: Could be scheduled for nett -week. ,
Mr. Zimmer: We can take no definiteaction on this until all the plans are in order.
And I am wondering if there is anyone in the neighborhood who would like
to speak on this matter. Is there anyone present wishing to speak either
for or against this petition? Any more comments or questions from the
Commission?
There was no one present wishing to be heard any further on this matter, Mr. Zimmer
declared Public Hearing on Petition 78-7-2-20 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and adopted, it was
#9-189-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12, 1978
on Petition 78-7-2-20 by Ginter H. Blankenburg requesting waiver use approval to
expand an existing auto repair, muffler &brake business within a building
110rlocated on the south side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Newburgh Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 29, the City Planning Commission scheduled to be held
on September 19, 1978.
oll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: '
AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk,, Morrow and Wisler
NAYS: Kluver and Zimmer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Scurto and Andrew
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as
Petition 78-8-2-21 by Wabeek Properties requesting waiver use approval to construct
a branch bank facility on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file re this petition?
Mr. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering indicating no engineering problems
connected with the proposal. The building plan fully complies with
the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Zimmer: Is the petitioner present? Just what are your plans?
'nn Higgins: Yes, this is to be a branch office of Detroit Bank and Trust known as
In
Prop. Detroit Bank-Livonia. Will comprise of 3500 square feet, with eight
1 W. Fort St. teller cages, 3 management offices, safe-deposit box, as well as
roit employee access areas. The exterior is to be constructed of face brick
6808
with aluminum metal siding. I would understand that we have a problem
with the maximum coverage for signs allowed in this area. We feel our
IL bank is a professional type organization, but we also need some visibility
as far as signs are concerned. We have a free standing sign which we
would like to place on the Newburgh Road side of the site, as well as a
low-profile sign on the Six Mile Road side. We know this is not in
compliance with the ordinance, and intend to appeal to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for variance on these signs. We feel our design is in good
taste with the property. We intend to put up a facility similar to those
at Six Mile and Farmington, as well as F .ve Mile and Levan. If the Board
feels that these signs are too much, our next alternative would be signage
on the building. (He then presented drawings to the Commission for their
viewing.)
Mr. Zimmer: Just where did you want to put the free standing sign?
Mr. Higgins: On the Newburgh Road side of the property,. a few feet back from the right
of way.
Mr. Zimmer: Any comments or questions from the Commission?
Mrs. Wisler: I am not sure I quite understand the problem. You are requesting .a free
standing sign, and what was the alternative? -
Mr. Higgins: Signs across the face of the building.
s. Wisler : ' The pylon sign is a free standing sign, right? And that exceeds the
area allowed for such a sign?
Higgins: It would be allowed in a C-1 District.
Mrs. Friedrichs: I would just like to comment that I frequently pass your bank at Six Mile
and Farmington, and I have no objection at all to the pylon sign at that
location. Would this new one be approximately the same size?
Mr. Higgins: Yes, it would.
Mrs. Friedrichs: I must say that compliments are in order for that whole site; the land-
scaping and the maintenance are very well done.
Mr. Falk: I would question the development of Laurel Park. Weren't there a lot of
people who were opposed to something like this because of traffic, etc.?
Mr. Nagy: The Laurel Park Plan was never developed in such detail. The master plan
was intended to be more of a conceptual plan than a detailed site plan
as such.
Mr. Falk: I just want to make sure that we don't just go ahead and approve something
that these people were never told about, something that might generate a
lot of traffic.
E. -Nagy: Actually most, of the discussion with the citizens in that area centered
around Jacobson's and the other department stores that might want to go
in there. The developer of Laurel Park did dedicate that corner adjacent
to this bank site, an area of 22,500 square feet, to avoid excess traffic
at that intersection.
• 6809
} Zimmer: So you are saying, Mr. Nagy, that you have no problems with this
waiver use request, that all plans and landscaping are acceptable?
Nagy: With the exception of the signs as presented, which is subject to a
variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, all other aspects of the proposal
are in full compliance and attractive in their design. The staff does
recommend approval.
Mr. Zimmer: Are there more comments or, questions frog the Commission? Is there
anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this matter?
There was no one present wishing to speak any further on this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared
Public Hearing on Petition 78-8-2-21 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and adopted, it was
#9-190-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12,
1978 on Petition 78-8-2-21 as submitted by Wabeek Properties, requesting
waiver use approval to construct a branch bank facility on the southwest corner
of Six Mile and Newburgh Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 18 the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
78-8-2-21 be approved, for the following reasons:
1) The proposed use is appropriate to the area and will not adversely affect
the surrounding uses of the area.
2) The site has excess capacity to support the use.
3) All plans are drawn in full compliance with the requirements of Zoning
Ordinance #543 as well as being consistent with good site planning and
building architectural standards
subject to the following conditions:
1) that Site Plan #DB-337, Sheet A-1-B, revised date 9/11/78, which is
hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) that building elevations as shown on Plan #DB-337, Sheet A-1-B, revised
date 9/11/78, with the exception of the signage shown thereon, are
hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
3) that signage shall consist of two low-profile signs, one erected on the
Newburgh Road side of the property and the other on the Six Mile Road
side, exact locations to be determined by petitioner and the Planning
Department, subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals;
4) that Landscape Plan dated August 1978 prepared by Goldner-Walsh, Inc. ,
which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and
5) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall
be installed on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property
owners within 500 feet, the petitioner, and City Department as listed in the
Proof of Service.
6810
[rollcall
vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow and Wisler
NAYS: Smith
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Andrew and Scurto
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as
Petition 78-8-2-22 by Lindhout Associates requesting waiver use approval to construct
a branch bank facility on the southwest corner of Five Mile and Merriman Roads in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file re petition?
Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division advises investigation reveals availability to
water main etc. , signed by Mr. McAllister.
Mr. Zimmer: Is the petitioner or his representative here? Could you kindly explain
briefly the plans for this corner?
Frank Perrin: Yes, we have a proposal here to build a branch of Manufacturer National
liPtndhout Assoc. Bank of. Livonia, consisting of 3000 square feet, with an attached canopy
for drive-ins.
J. Zimmer: Any comments or questions from the Commission?
. Wisler: Where are your signs to be located?
Mr. Perron: We have no signs included in this petition.
Mr. Falk: Do you own just this parcel you plan to put the building on, or do you
have an option to purchase the land further west?
Mr. Perron: We own the entire site from Arden to Merriman Road. We have no plans
to purchase any additional land.
Mr. Zimmer: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against
this petition? Mr. Nagy, do you find these plans to be in order?
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we do.
There was no one present wishing to speak any further on this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared
Public Hearing on Petition 78-8-2-22 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted, it was
#9-191-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12,
I: 1978 on Petition 78-8-2-22 as submitted by Lindhout Associates requesting
waiver use approval to construct a branch bank facility on the southwest
corner of Five Mile and Merriman Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 22,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition. 78-8-2-22 be approved for the following reasons: .
6811
I[ 1) The proposed use is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding
established uses of the area.
2) The proposed use is in full compliance with the P.S. District regulations
and the specific standards of the waiver use section of the P.S. District
regulations that relate to banks.
3) The site, building and .landscape plans are well done and fully consist
with good site planning and building architectural standards.
subject to the following conditions:
1) that Site Plan #7809, Sheet P-1, dated 8/16/78, prepared by Lindhout
Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) that Building Elevation Plan #7809, Sheet P-3, dated 8/16/78, prepared
by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be
adhered to;
• 3) that all landscape materials as shown on Plan#7809, Sheet P-2, dated
8/16/78, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to and all landscape materials shall be in-
stalled on the site prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and
thereafter maintained in .a healthy condition;
4) all signage plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review
and approval before the issuance of any sign permits.
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. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution' adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary; announced the next item on the Agenda as
Petition 78-8-3-8 by Mr. & Mrs. James Sturgill, et al, requesting the vacating of a
public alley lying between Deering and. Floral Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of "
Section 12.
Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file re this petition?
•
Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated 8/11/78 from our Engineering Division
indicating that a field check on this area reveals that this particular
alley does serve as an egress and ingress to established commercial uses
at this location. In addition, there is a 24" sanitary sewer located
within this area and Engineering advises they have serious reservations'
regarding the vacating of this. alley.
.Zimmer: Is the petitioner present?
•
S. J. Sturgill: If you people feel
itis not advisable to vacate this land, why don't
39 Deering you zone it P.L. and plant trees down the middle? I just want some
sleep and rest after 15 years. The citizens do not deserve to have
this nuisance so close. Do you know that this alley is used as a public
•
6812
• `1p. Sturgill: bathroom and a race track,. and that's not all. It serves no useful
continued) , purpose., maybe except for those three stores. I live right here on
Lot #212, and I know what Engineering says. But they don't have to
put up with what we have been putting up with for the past 15 years. I
tell you I have seen cars pull in next to my garage, and the man gets
out and steps behind the telephone pole and goes to the bathroom. Look,
if I want to see a man's private parts, I have got the guts to ask him.
I don't want to have to look at that outside my house in broad daylight.
Every day of the week I am picking up garbage that is thrown out in that
• alley. Cartons and bags from McDonalds7,,,Burger Chef,- Burger King, all kinds
of trash. Why should I have to put up with this? The City doesn't
maintain this alley. They have done nothing to keep the dust down, or
even keep it clean. All I know is that it is going to be vacated one
way or another. I am going to have some peace and rest.
Mr. Zimmer: Mrs. Sturgill, has this situation changed lately?
Mrs. Sturgill: Every year it gets worse.
Mr.. Zimnier: This is a public thoroughfare.
Mrs. Sturgill: Sure, it was an alley when we moved in,but all the other alleys up there
have been closed. So now we get all the drunks down this alley. - I have
even had my car hit. I tell you, I am going to get some peace and quiet.
Mr. Zimmer: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this petition?
chael Kolodziej : I have a commercial building right along this alley. I do sympathize
4835 W. Seven Mile with Mrs. Sturgill. We have tried to work something out. 'I suggested
'ad, Circle TV that .maybe we could put some sort of barricade in the middle, but I
do not feel that we should close this completely. There is a power •
line in back of our building, and other than this alley there is no
•
access at the back of our store.
Mr. Zimmer: . You are saying you have a need for this alley?
Mr. Kolodziej : Yes, every day. That is the only way deliveries are made, and we are
right in the ‘center of that group of buildings.
Mrs. Sturgill: I even talked to Mr. Osborn and' asked him if there wasn't some way we
could block that alley. I just want to stop all that unnecessary traffic.
Mr. Osborn couldn't be persuaded to do anything about it. I went to City
Council, and. they said "NO" - I would have to go to the Planning Com-
mission but that it would probably take about six months. In six months,
I'll be dead from all that disturbance.
.Mr. Zimmer: Mr. Nagy, is there any alternative to vacating that alley?
• Mr. Nagy: We really would have to examine the Traffic Ordinance to see what
alternatives we might have as far as blocking the alley or posting sign
for no thru traffic.
•
s. Sturgill: Rezone it to P.L. and plant trees down the middle.
4. Zimmer: Is there anyone else wishing. to speak.on this matter? Any more comments
4 or questions from the Commission?
6813
Falk: I really feel Mrs. Sturgill has some problems here, and I feel we should
invite Mrs. Sturgill and this gentleman who owns the store to a Study
Meeting so. that we can look into this further and possibly come up with
some solution. -
re was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared Public Hearing1[0,6 ,
on Petition 78-8-3-8 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was
#9-192-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12,
1978 on Petition 78-8-3-8 as submitted by Mr. & Mrs. James Sturgill, et al,
' requesting the vacating of a public alley. lying between Deering and Floral
Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine to table Petition 78-8-3-8 until the. Study Meeting scheduled
to be held on September 19, 1978.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the Agenda as
. Petition 78-8-3-9 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution
#703-78 to vacate Outlot C within the Stark Gardens Subdivision located north of
the Schoolcraft Service Drive between Ellen Drive and Riverside in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 21. .
Zimmer: This petition comes before us by way of a Council resolution.
John, is there any correspondence regarding this matter? .
. Nagy: Just a letter from Engineering advising that there is a storm sewer
in this location and they suggest that a full width easement be
retained. No other engineering problems connected with this proposal.
•
Mr. Zimmer: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this matter?
William Shaw: I am here to represent the people of Stark Gardens. All the people are
13968 Ellen pretty much in agreement with the retention of the storm sewer easement
between the two subdivisions, and feel this should be sent to City
Council as soon as possible for the vacating of this outlot.
Mr. Zimmer: Do we need to make it a matter of public record just how this will be
divided?
Mr. Shaw: The outlot is currently in my name, and I will handle all the details
as far as splitting the property accordingly.
Mr. Zimmer: All right. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on
this matter? Any more comments or questions from the Commission.
There was no further discussion on this matter, Mr. Zimmer declared Public Hearing on
Petition 78-8-3-9 closed. "
•
10 a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted,
was
i-193-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12,
1978 on Petition 78-8-3-9 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant
6814
to Council Resolution #703-78 to vacate Outlot C within the Stark Gardens
Subdivision located north of the Schoolcraft Service Drive between Ellen
Drive and Riverside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning
Commission does hereby: recommend to the City Council. that Petition 78-8-3-9
be approved :subject to the retention of a full width ,easement for the
following reasons:
1) There is no need to retain the outlot for public purposes and uses as
an easement would provide the, same protection that is required to
properly service the underground public u .lities.
2) The outlot can. be better maintained and utilized if the City' abandoned
its interest as same would attach to the adjoining residential properties
of the area.
•
3) The outlot area can better serve the public interest if it were to return
to private ownership, attach to residential properties and, in turn, be
properly maintained and placed back on the tax ,rolls of the City of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the
official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, •under date of 8/24/78, and that
notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake &•
Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power
Company, .and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted, it was
f194-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 15, 1978
on Petition 78-6-2-18 as submitted by John Close requesting waiver use approval
to locate an automotive tune-up center within an existing building on the north-
west corner of Plymouth Road and• Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
25, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 78-6-2-18 be denied for the following reasons:
1) The site lacks sufficient capacity to support the intended use.
2) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use
complies with the C-2 District regulations, Section 11.03 (m) .
3) .The plan, as presented by the petitioner, clearly indicates that the site
will be overburdened by vehicles entering and leavingthe site as plan
,reveals that the vehicles will have to pass over and/or back onto a public
• sidewalk which is in violation of Ordinance #543, Section 18.37(b) ,
Offstreet Parking requirements.
4) The proposed use will be detrimental to and adversely affect the surrounding
and established uses Of the area, particularly with respect to the adjoining
public alley.
5) Traffic entering and leaving the alley will pass from a confined building
area and will have an obstructed view of traffic located on the alley which
will be hazardous to the safe flow of traffic on the alley.
•
. 6815
6) The petitioner has failed to show how the proposed site, building or area
will benefit as a result of the installation of the new use and has further
failed to show compliance with the general waiver use requirements of
. Zoning Ordinance #543, Section 19.06, as the plan submitted in connection
.with the petition shows no improvement proposed for the site and/or building
other than painted wall signs and the installation of two garage doors at
the north building wall which adjoins the public alley.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of, tlie above Pubic Hearing was published in the
official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 7/28/78, 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. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Morrow., and adopted, it was
#9-195-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape
Plan and Entrance Marker Plan for Quakertown Subdivision proposed to be
located south of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road, in the. West 1/2 of
Section 18, subject to the following conditions:
•
1) that Landscape Plan LP 78-4-43, dated. 8/31/78, which is hereby approved,
shall be adhered to;
2) that .the Entrance Marker Plan shown on the .approved Landscape Plan, which
is hereby approved, shall be. adhered to; and
3) that the Entrance Marker and the landscape materials, as shown on the
approved Landscape Plan shall be installed by 11/1/79.
•
A.roll call vote on the above motion resulted in the following:
AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow and Wisler
NAYS: Kluver
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Andrew and Scurto
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
•
. On a motion duly made by. Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was
#9-196-78 RESOLVED that the minutes of the 358th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held
by the City Planning Commission on August 15, 1978 be approved.
A roll call. vote on the above motion resulted in the following:
•
AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Falk, Wisler and Morrow
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Kluver and Zimmer '
ABSENT: Andrew and Scurto
•
[Ito Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
•
6816
a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Wisler and adopted, it was
L
-197-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 322nd Special Meeting held by the Planning
Commission on August 29, 1978, be approved.
AYES: Kiuver, Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Morrow and Wisler
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Falk
ABSENT: Andrew and Scurto
•
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was
#9-198-78 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 determine to table Petition 78-7-8-23, required by Section 18.47
submitted in connection with a proposal to construct the Mid-7 Shopping Plaza
on the east side of Middlebelt Road. between Clarita and Pickford in Section 12,
until the Study Meeting scheduled for September 19, 1978.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly .made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
-1-99-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance
L
' . ' of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1306, the 'City Planning
Commission does hereby approve Petition 78-8-8-24P as submitted by David E.
Powell, Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the
north side of Schoolcraft between-Hubbard and Farmington Road in Section 22,
subject to the following conditions:
1) that Site Plan 7818, Sheet A-1, dated 8/29/78, prepared by St. Cyr
Architect & Associates, Inc. , which is herebyapproved, shall be adhered to;
2) that building elevations as shown on Plan 7818, Sheet A-2 dated 8/2/78,
prepared by St. Cyr Architect & Associates, Inc. , which are hereby
'approved, shall be adhered to;
3) that Landscape Plan dated 8/29/78, prepared by Artech, which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to; and
4) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall
be installed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously. adopted, it was
IL
6817
L200_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 78-8-8-26P as submitted by
Amoco Oil Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58
submitted in connection with a proposal to construct two canopies on an
existing gasoline station site located on the west side of Middlebelt Road
between Six Mile Road and Ravine in Section ii, subject to the following conditions:
1) that Site Plan 5434, dated 8429/78, prepare# by American Oil Company,
which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) that canopy elevations as shown on Plan 76021, dated 6/21/76, prepared by
Amoco Oil Company, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and
3) that the street trees shown on the approved Site Plan shall be plated on
the site before May 1, 1979.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#9-201-78 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 Com-
1[0', mission does hereby approve Petition 78-8-8-27P as submitted by Amoco Oil
Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted
in connection with a proposal to construct two canopies on an existing
gasoline station site located on the east side of Farmington Road between Six
Mile-Road and Curtis in Section 10, subject to the following conditions:
1) that Site Plan 5729, dated 8/29/78, prepared by Standard Oil Company, which
is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) that canopy elevations as shown on Plan 76021, dated 6/21/76, prepared by
Amoco Oil Company, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and
3) that the street trees on the approved Site Plan shall be planted on the
site before May 1, 1979.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#9-202-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City
Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 77-10-8-29P as submitted by
Nicholas Lubnik requesting approval of all plans required by Section_ 18.58
submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on
the east side of Farmington Road between Six Mile Road and Curtis in Section
i.
Ihr 10, subject to the following conditions:
6818
1) that Landscape Plan for Heinlen-Lubnik dated 7/17/78, which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to; and
2) that the landscaping as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be
installed on the site by November 1, 1978 and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
f,,
Mrs. Wislerexcused from meeting at 11:30 p.m.
On a motionduly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted,.
it was
#9-203-78 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 78-8-8-29 by Lindhout Associates requesting approval of all
plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection .with a proposal
to construct a professional office complex on the west side of Farmington
• Road between Lyndon and Five Mile Road in Section 21, be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1) that Site Plan 7735, Sheet P-1, dated 8/25/78, prepared by Lindhout
Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to;
2) that building elevations as shown on Plan 7735, Sheet P-3, dated
S/16/78, prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which are hereby
approved, shall be adhered to;
3) that the landscaping as shown on Plan 7735, Sheet P-1, dated 8/25/78,
prepared by Lindhout Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved,
shall be adhered to;
4) that all landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed
on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and thereafter
permanently maintained in a healthy condition; and
5) that the proposed use of chain link fencing and landscaping in lieu of
the protective wall is conditionally approved subject to Zoning Board
of Appeals' approval of same.
Mr. -Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was
#9-204-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Sign
Plan submitted by the Browne Sign Company in connection with a condition
of approval of Petition 78-3-8-5 by Rockind/Debard, Architects, requesting
approval of all plansrequired by Ordinance #990, in connection with a
proposal to construct a retail sales building on the east side of Middlebelt
Road between Seven and Eight Mile Roads in Section 1, subject to the following
conditions:
6819
I: 1) that the Sign Plan submitted by Browne Sign Company, which is hereby
approved, shall be adhered to; and
2) that the subject sign shall be internally illuminated with nonflashing
white light.
Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr: Morrow, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#9-205-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 8/16/78 from the Livonia Elks Lodge
2246 requesting deviations from the Landscape Plan approved in connection with
` Petition 73-6-8-21P by Denne Land, Inc. requesting approval of all plans
required by Ordinance #988 submitted in connection with a, proposal to build
an addition to an existing lodge facility located on the south side of Plymouth
Road between Denne and Hubbell in Section 35, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to deny the request for the following reasons:
1) The originally approved Landscape Plan submitted in connection with the
Site Plan was not an excessive, but an adequate treatment for the site.
2) No changes have occurred with regard to the surrounding land use to
warrant a reduction in the landscape treatment of the site.
3) The implementation of the landscape treatment for the site at this time
is not an undue hardship as the petitioner has had five years to complete
the site landscaping since the time of the granting of Site Plan approval.
Ile. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 359th Regular Meeting and
Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 12, 1978 were adjourned
at 11:45 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/ //'
sep.i J. F. ' , Secreta y
ATTEST: i?r' � i���- /
��i/ ice
iore W. Zimmer,j--Chairman
/mk