Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1978-10-03 6822 t , MINUTES OF THE 360th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA . On Tuesday, October 3, 1978, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 360th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular and Public Hearings to order at 8:11 p.m. , with approximately-'60 interested people in -the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Judith A.Scurto ' Esther Friedrichs C. Russell Smith Jerome Zimmer Suzanne Wisler MEMBER ABSENT: Joseph J. Falk Herman Kluver R. Lee Morrow Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director, H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph Bakewell, Planner IV; Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, and Daniel J. Gilmartin, Industrial Development Coordinator were also present. Mr. Andrew 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 hold their own Public Hearing and then decide the question. If a petition involves the vacating of an easement or street, this Commission makes a 10 recommendation to the City Council. However, there will be no Public Hearing held at the City Council level, that body acting upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Also, in the case of Preliminary P'at approvals, there will be no Public Hearings held by the City Council. They will simply act relative to the recommendation of the # Planning Commission. If a Site Plan approval is denied at tonight's meeting, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Otherwise, the petition ; s terminated. - Mrs. J'Idith Scurto will be the Acting Secretary in the absence of Joseph Falk. Mrs. Scurto, then .announced the first item on the agenda Petition 78-8-1-32 by Bra- Con Industries, Inc. , to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Plymouth Road and Amrhein Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, from RUF to P. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? -Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Best Leasing Company, 12271 Globe, dated September 18, 197.8, advising that they have no objections to the rezoning of Lots 29b15 thru 17 contingent upon the installation of a greenbelt. . .etc. . Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, just where is this company located? Dan Gilmartin: This business is located north of the Durr Land Company's property. IL Mr. Nagy: We also have a letter from Mr. Gilmartin, our Industrial Development Coordinator, addressed to the Planning Department, supporting Petition 77-6-1-21 requesting rezoning of property from R-1 to M-1. He also supports current petition. We also have a letter from our Engineering Division indicating approval of the Legal Description, advising that Woodview Drive has never been vacated according to city records. 6823 • This should be reconciled. Signed by Gary Clark. to Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present or his representative? Could you briefly explain the reason for this request? John Arthurs: We have been located at this site for the last ten years, and have Vice-President now cometo request additional parking space. We feel that if we & Gen. Mgr. of could make practical use of this space, it would certainly enhance Bra-Con the appearance of the area as well as our company. The lots in there are very short, possibly 100 feet in depth, really not very practical as far as gutting in a }colliding. The best value would be to make a parking lot there, would really fit in with the entire complex. If it were made into a parking lot we would then have no problems with machinery stored there. We would like to install asphalt paving there as well as a greenbelt along Newburgh Road. We would also put in a greenbelt along the residence next to it. I am sure you can see that it would greatly enhance the area. Right now it isa dust bowl. Without question, the asphalt paving would clean up the entire area. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mrs. Wisler: Is Woodview Drive a public or private street? Mr. Andrew: It is a public street by virtue of the plat. Mr. Nagy: There is no paving in that area. Mr. Andrew: Paper street only. Mr. Arthurs: By putting in asphalt paving in this area, we would be eliminating all the ruts and stones. Mrs. Wisler: Does the street go all the way to Globe? Mr. Nagy: No. Mr. Smith: Mr. Arthurs, have you spoken to the person who lives in the house on Lot #18? Mr. Arthurs: Yes, I did speak to. that man about six weeks ago, and he was a bit worried about whether or not there would be any noise from our employees • squealing their wheels or tires. I intend to personally make every effort I can to have my employees abide by good commonsense. We do take pride in the people working for us, and so far they have been very cooperative in practicing good judgment as far as keeping the noise from their cars down. This resident voiced concern about employees on the second shift. He was afraid of squealing tires at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. We do have a second shift about eight or nine months of the year, and we feel that one of the ways to prevent that kind of noise would be to have them park in front on Globe Road alongside our building. Mr. Zimmer: Just what does Bra-Con do? to Mr. Arthurs: We service special machines for the automotive industry. Spot welding machines, arc welding machines, all kinds of machines that may be half the size of that table to eight or ten times the size of that table. 6824 Mr. Zimmer: So you don't really do any manufacturing on a continuing basis? What about trucks, say other than pick-ups? 9 Mr. Arthurs: Yes, we do have some trucks. We have a pick up, but no semis. Semis do deliver steel into our place, and they do drive through Woodview Drive. Mr. Zimmer: There is truck traffic through this area under petition? Mr. Arthurs: Yes, there is. Mr. Zimmer: So this proposed area would handle"overnight truck parking? Mr. Arthurs: There would be no large trucks parked in the new area. Our own trucks park on our Lot #22, which is .fenced in, but there is no large truck traffic except. during normal working hours. Mrs. Scurto: Could you please tell me how many employees you have on the second shift at the peak of the season? Mr: Arthurs: I would say approximately 25 to 30 people. 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? I have two. definite concerns about this.proposal. No. 1 - I would like to support this petition; however, as we look at the Site Plan, I notice that 'it does not meet the Ordinance which states that 50% of the front yard must be landscaped. That has not been done on this Site Plan. I interpret Newburgh Road to be the front yard - is that correct? Mr. Nagy: Legally, this petition is for Lots 15, 16 and 17 on Newburgh Road and is for a parking classification not manufacturing. Lots 12, 21 and 22 on Globe, the front yard is alongside Newburgh. Mr. Andrew: And the front yard must meet the set back requirements of 50' unless waived by the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Nagy: These are separate lots of record and the zoning requested is parking and there is no front yard set back requirement in the parking category. • Mr. Andrew: _ So you are saying that parking is allowed right up to the property line? No set back requirements at all? No landscape requirements? Mr. Nagy: Strict interpretation of the Ordinance would require that a parking plan should first be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission Adequate controls would be handled by our Industrial Development ' Coordinator with proper attention being given to the truck traffic circulation system as well as installation of a greenbelt relative to the size of the property. Mr,. Gilmartin: I have met with Mr. Arthurs, and he will be bringing back a parking proposal for the front yard. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy has told me that there are no yard requirements in a parking district. In this case, these plans do meet the requirements of the Ordinance. I see Woodview as part of his parking lot. Isn't this a little bit amiss? . • 6825 Mr. Gilmartin: We discussed this previously, and have been advised that six parking o a spaces would be realized from this land. Mr. Nagy: We have advised that it be vacated. Petitioner will follow up with a vacating request. Mr. Andrew: Would certainly support a vacating petition. Possible formal action on this petition could take place at the same time action is taken on the vacating petition. .Mr. Gilmartin: You mean simultaneouAly'? ' �• Mr. Andrew: OK with me. This petition should certainly be followed up with a vacating petition. Any further comments from the Commission or the audience. There was no one else present wishing to speak any further on the matter Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-8-1-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-208-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3, 1978 on Petition 78-8-1-32 as submitted by Bra-Con Industries, Inc. , to rezone property located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Plymouth and Amrhein Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 29, from RUF to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-8-1-32 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezoning would provide for the substantial upgrading and improving of the property by the elimination of the machinery and materials now occurring in the rear yard. (2) An improved, hard surfaced parking lot with appropriate greenbelt screening will be more compatible with the surrounding and established use of the area. (3) The proposed rezoning is in accord with the Future Land Use Plan of- the City of Livonia. (4) The Industrial Development Coordinator recommends approval of this rezoning. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/18/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company; Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. • Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-9-1-33 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Six Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, from R-3B to P.L. 6826 ,lif Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: No correspondence. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by .the City Planning Commission to rezone property being acquired by the City for the purpose of erecting a future fire station. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Any comments or questions from the Commission? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-9-1-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-209-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3, 1978 on Petition 78-9-1-33 as submitted by •the City Planning' Commission • to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of . Six Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, from R-3B to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-9-1-33 be approved for the following reason: (1) The proposed rezoning is in accord with Planning Commission policy to have all City-owned lands zoned in the Public Lands classification 'thereby having the official Zoning Map of the City properly reflect the public ownership and intended public use of the property. . FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/18/78, and that notices of such hearing were. sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. . Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. • Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-9-3-13 by the City Planning Commission requesting the vacating of a storm sewer easement located north of the Industrial Road, west of Wayne Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering indicating that their office was requested to vacate the existing storm sewer easement as far back as 1976. Their recommendation is that vacating proceedings be commenced as soon as possible. • Mr. Andrew: This is a petition initiated by the City Planning Commission to vacate a storm sewer easement in the Industrial belt of the City. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Any comments or questions from the Commission? There was no one present wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-9-3-13 closed. le On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted, it was • 6827 #10-210-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3, 1978 on Petition 78-9-3-13 as submitted by the City Planning Commission requesting the vacating of a storm sewer easement located north of the 4 Industrial Road, west of Wayne Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Council that Petition 78-9-3-13 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) The Engineering Division recommends abandonment of the easement. • (2) A new storm sewer easement and .storm sewer has been provided to adequately serve the'subject' area." (3) With the abandonment of the easement, it will avoid the encumbrance of the property as a result of the building program which• is under way and overlaps the subject easement. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 9/18/78, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Preliminary Plat Approval for 10 Hidden Pines Subdivision proposed to be located west of Merriman Road south of Seven Mile Road, in the. Northeast 1/4 of Section 10. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? • Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter from Engineering advising that there are no sanitary sewers presently in the subject subdivision to service the area signed Gary D. Clark. Also, a letter from Parks and Recreation dated 9/18/78 advising that proposed subdivision would not interfere with the Master School and Park Plan of the City, therefore no objections- to the proposal, signed John T. Dufour. Also, a letter from the Bureau of Inspection advising that all the lots as shown on the plat of the proposed subdivision either meet or exceed the R-3 Zoning District requirements,. signed Frank A. Kerby. A letter dated 9/18/78 from the Chief Fire Marshall, Ted Kovarik, advises no objection to the plat as submitted. And a letter from the Police Division Traffic Bureau advises that those conditions as 'outlinedin their letter of 11/29/77 still apply, as well as, in addition, a second northbound land of adequate length should be constructed along Merriman Road, to accommodate left-turn. traffic into the subdivision, signed Richard F. Widmaier. That is . the extent of our correspondence. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, in your opinion, is Lot #19 a proper building lot? IL Mr. Nagy: Yes. ' Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: This request from the Traffic Bureau regarding the widening of Merriman Road - do they mean from the Merriman Road entrance north to Seven 'Mile Road? w 6828 • Mr. Nagy: I would say widening should take place south of the entrance off of Merriman Road to eliminate the stacking up of traffic in that , 1 1: ' area. Mr. Zimmer; So you mean well south of Seven Mile Road? Wouldn't that require that the developer use property that he really doesn't own? Mr. Nagy: We already have the right-of-way to widen Merriman Road. Will just be adding another lane in this particular area. The widening of Merriman Road is part of the Road Bond Issue. It will be widened to five lanes ultimately. • Mrs. Scurto: Strictly for my own information, regarding Lot #19, can they do anything with the back yard? Mr. Nagy: Probably just put plantings back there, but there can't be any • additional buildings or dwellings in that area. Mrs. Scurto:' These houses would have attached garages? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any other comments or questions from the •Commission? Mr. Priest, did you have any discussion with the Engineering Division of this City • regarding the improvement of Merriman Road relative to what the Police Department speaks of? 10 Mike Priest: We met with the Wayne County Road Commission and they told us that we have to get a permit. It is strictly under their jurisdiction, 4 and we will have to proceed along those lines. Mr. Andrew: I have to assume there is a sanitary sewer up Merriman Road? • Mr. Priest: , A little ways. Mr. Andrew: Where would you tie into the subdivision? Mr. Priest: Along the southern edge of the sub. Mr. Andrew: You intend to acquire an easement across the property? Mr. Priest: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Any comments or questions from the Commission? Mrs. Friedrichs: At the time the sanitary sewer was put in, would that have. any effect upon the flood plain in that area? Mr. Priest: The sanitary sewer is independent of the storm drainage. The sanitary is not connected to the storm sewers - would have no effect on the flood plain. te Mr. Andrew: Any more comments from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Steve Brown: I am here to represent the Merri-Six Civic Association. Are you planning to use two entrances into the sub, or just one on Merriman Road? 6829 to Mr. Priest: One off of Merriman. • Steve Brown: And will the road widening of Merriman be on the east side or the • west? Mr. Priest: Currently, as you know, Merriman istwo lanes of pavement. The • Country's ultimate plans call for five lanes, one being used for left turns. They are asking us to consider another lane on the east side, heading northbound so as to not impede left turn movements into the subdivision. Steve Brown: Just have to say that we do not approve this plat plan. There are ' just too many homes going in there. Even thoughtheir layout meets zoning requirements, we cannot support the plan. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? S.Bellean: Seeing that all the homes that are there now are on half-acre lots 18775 Merriman. or better, and these proposed lots take only a third of an acre or less, isn't there some possibility that there could be a greenbelt put in between the existing homes and the new ones? I am going to have two neighbors in my back yard, where I used to have none. I just read. in the paper if/here the Mayor knocked down a new sub because the lots were too small. Mr. Andrew: That situation involved a matter of rezoning. This area's zoning has- already been accomplished. It is now zoned R-3, with. lots measuring 80 x .120 . . .that is a fact of life. Mr. Bellean: There would be no such thing as adding a greenbelt? Mr. Andrew: An approval of the Site Plan has to make sense. We are now in the process of looking at the division of the land zoned R-3. -This proprietor does comply with the R-3 regulations. Mr. Priest, con- • cerning Lots #13 and 32, what would you estimate the distance to be from the rear of this gentleman's property line to the back of one of you/ houses? Mr. Priest: Approximately fifty feet. The lots are 120' deep, and with a 35' front yard, and the typical house is probably anwhere from 30-35' deep, that leaves about 50' beyond that. Mr. Bellean: I also have to ask about that street next to me --- will the existing trees be taken out? Mr. Priest: There are no trees in the proposed street pavement area. Mr. Bellean: In between the street and my property, there are some pretty good-sized trees. . Mr. Andrew: Seventy feet of this area will be cleared for a street. Mr. Bellean: Well, I still wouldlike some kind of greenbelt because our lots are so large and these lots here are so small. ' IL Mr. Andrew: Mr. Bellean, what kind of width are you talking about? , • Mr. Bellean: As large as I can get within reason. 6830 • Mr. Andrew: Normally, a greenbelt ,easement takes in about 8, maybe 10, 12 at the most, feet of property. 1[0 Mr. Bellean: I was thinking of -a little more than that, about 50 feet? You are taking 70' for the road next to me. .But I guess everything is settled, all cut and dried. Mr. Andrew: This is the first public hearing on this preliminary plat. Our zoning .recommendation was sent to City Council, referred back to • us for a new public hearing the zoning, and they were the ones who settled on the R-3 zoning. l• Mr. Bellean: What happened to the R-4 request? Mr. Andrew.: Down the tube. Council reversed our recommendation; ask them why. • Mrs. Scurto: I am assuming that you already have some landscaping in your back yard, yet you are asking for an-additional 50' easement, why couldn't you ask your future neighbors to likewise landscape their yards? Mr. Bellean: Like I said, I really would like a little more room. I am used to living on a large parcel of land with no people behind me. Mrs. Scurto: I can appreciate that. I just gave up an 80 acre back yard in order for more homes to be built. But that is what is known as "progress" . We just put up a fence. IL Mrs. Wisler: Would like to ask Mr. Priest if there will be an enclosure in the flood plain for the storm sewer? Mr. Priest: The sanitary sewer will be located in the southeast corner, and the outlet of the storm sewer will be in the southwest corner, next to Lot #19. We do plan to construct an enclosed storm sewer throughout the subdivision leading to the Tarabusi Creek, which is right there. Do not intend to alter the flood plain. There will be no enclosures within the flood plain. _Mr. Andrew: Any more comments or questions? Michael Badrak: Just where is Lot #19? 31765 Seven Mile Mr. Andrew: In the southwest corner of the property, abuts the flood plain. Mr. Badrak: And where will the storm sewer lead to? Mr. Andrew: Into the Tarabusi drain. Mr. Badrak: I live along Seven Mile Road, and are you planning to put that thing so that we have to connect to the storm sewer? Mr. Andrew: No, not unless the sewer extends to Seven Mile Road. 6831 Mrs. Paquette: Have you considered the traffic all .these houses are going to create? 19021 Merriman Trying to get out of my driveway now is terrible. ' Mr. Andrew: Yes, I can appreciate that there is going to be a traffic problem until Merriman Road is widened to five lanes. 1 Mrs. Friedrichs: A traffic light has recently been installed on Merriman Road just north of Bryant Junior Hight. Doesn't that help any? Mrs. Paquette: No, it doesn't. I am talking about right hand turns off of Seven Mile Road. And what 'abbut the sewtrs _-- will we be forced to tap into the sewers? We are satisfied with our septic systems. .,Mr. Andrew: You will not be required to tap into the sewers. • Mrs. Paquette: You know, maybe somebody should start consider our feelings. It seems that nothing we have ever said has been considered.' Mr. Andrew: I do not necessarily agree with your statements. As one Commissioner, I can see no reason for you to be concerned about the sewers. If the City Council decides that the sewers should be brought down Merri- man Road,, and you are required to tap in, that is outside my jurisdiction. Mrs. Paquette: Before this new subdivision came in, all the lots around here were half acre or more. . Mr. Andrew: That is true. 4 . Mrs. Paquette: We were told that it would be rezoned to R-5, and now we see R-3. Look at what this developer did to that new sub off of Farmington Road. . .there are very few trees left there. Why do you bother sending us letters when nothing we say is ever considered? You know it costs • - $1.41 per home to have those- letters delivered, and what for? Mr. Andrew: We are required by the City Ordinance to notify property owners in the • area. As you know, we recommended R-5 zoning to the City Council. After' several meetings with the Livonia Board of Education, it was decided that this was not the proper classification for this property. The matter was referred back to the Planning Commission, requesting the R-3 zoning, and unfortunately we concurred in that recommendation and the zoning was legally changed. Mrs. Paquette: You know at one time the people who lived along there tried to buy 100 to 150' of this property behind them. But nobody would ever tell us anything about that. Mr. Andrew: I have sympathy for you, but I believe your real problem lies with the Board of Education. Mrs. -Paquette: My husband and I are seriously thinking about moving from here. leWe always felt that the beautiful woods in the back made up for the • traffic in the front. Now we will have nothing. Mr. Andrew: Anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? 6832 tThere was no one else present wishing to speak any further, Mr. Andrew declared. 4the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat approval for Hidden Pines Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Smith., and adopted it was #10-211-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3, 1978, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City ' Council that the Preliminary Plat for Hidden Pines Subdivision proposed • to be located west of Merriman Road, south of Seven Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, be approved for the following reasons: (I) The proposed lot sizes meet or exceed the R-3 Zoning District requirements; and . (2) the subdivision is well laid out, taking heed of. the existing tree cover and the relationship of the existing flood control area subject to the following conditions: (I) that a landscape plan for the treatment of the boulevard section and court area be submittedfor approval prior to final plat approval; and (2) that a plan for subdivision entrance markers be submitted for approval prior to final plat approval. • I: FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, the proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof. of Service, and copies of the plat together with notices have been sent to the Building Department Superintendent of Schools, Fire Departments, Police Department, and Parks & Recreation Department. A roll call vote on the above motion reslulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Andrew . NAYS: Wisler ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Smith, and adopted, it was #10-212-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to waive the open space requirements of Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as they relate to the Hidden Pines Subdivision, for the following reasons: (1) This subdivision adjoins the Tarabusi Flood Plan, a portion of which is contained within the subdivision area and at a result affords largerlots and a greater degree of open character to the subdivision. (2) The subdivision adjoins the 200 .acre Rotary Park on the west and south, which park and adjoining area is to be preserved in its natural state, thereby providing for a more meaningful and signifi- cant open space character for the subdivision than would otherwise be provided if the dedication of open space were to be provided by the subdivider. . ' 6833 (3) The unusual and somewhat awkward boundaries of the subdivision are such that unusually large lots have been provided, which adds to the open character of the subdivision. (4) The Parks and Recreation Commission has indicated they do not recommend the dedication of additional open space for recreation purposes in this area as they are already overburdened with maintenance, care • and facility development in connection with the adjacent Rotary Park. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: ' , I. AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Andrew NAYS: Scurto, Wisler , ABSTAIN: , None ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Pembroke Commons Subdivision proposed to be located on the east 'side of Angling Road, south of Pembroke, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section '1. Mr, Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: Yes, we have a letter dated 9/18/78 from the Parks and Recreation Dept. , signed by John Dufour, advising that they have no objection to the proposed subdivision. We have another letter dated 9/18/78 from • our Engineering Division, signed by Gary Clark, advising that they can see no difficulty with the proposed subdivision, with the exception that they feel that Deering Avenue "should be paved. A letter from i the Traffic Bureau, signed by_ Richard F. Widmaier, advises that there appears to be no problems with traffic patterns in the area as presented. The inspection department advises that the proposed plat or layout meets or ,exceeds the R-2 zoning district requirements, said letter signed by Frank A. Kerby, and a communication from the Fire Department, signed by Ted Kovarik and John Bunk, indicates no objections to proposed preliminary plat as submitted. Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Mr. Zimmer: I understand there is a Special Assessment District being created to pave Deering, in which case the developer would have to pay half the cost, is that right? • Mr. Nagy: The proprietor is bound to pay his share of the cost. As far as the SAD, the Council has yet to approve the rolls and apportioned costs . for the program. Only the first step has been accomplished so far -- determination of necessity. Mr. Andrew: Any further questions? Mr. Nagy, has Mr. Kerby's comment relative to the 25' easement been taken into consideration of this plat? ' II Mr. Nagy: No, it hasn't. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Priest, did you hear Mr. Kerby's remark relative to Lot #10? Mr. Priest: No, I didn't. Mr. Nagy: (Again read Frank Kerby's letter, especially concerning lot width #10 --- no attached garage as rear yard would be facing Deering. ) 6834 Mr. Priest: That was brought up at the Study Meeting, wasn't it? Mr. Nagy: Yes, but it has not been incorporated in a revised site plan. 4 Mr. Priest: I was not aware that you wanted a revised site plan; I thought you would approve this one on condition. . Mr. Andrew: That 10' easement along Deering - shouldn't that be labeled as to what it will be used for? Mr. Priest: Right of way. 9 , ,.. . Mr. Andrew: Lot #10 parallels Deering Avenue, it is not labeled. Mr. Priest: That easement is for right of way. Mr. Andrew: I want it labeled. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to " speak on this matter? Mary Ann Lewis: I live on the corner of Deering and St. Martins and I am wondering 19602 Deering if Deering is still going to be a one-way street? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mrs. Lewis: Will there be some type of greenbelt along there? Mr. Andrew: There is nothing provided on this plat. Mrs. Lewis: What's this 10' easement you are talking about? 1[410 Mr. Andrew: 10' easement for rear yard purposes. We will be picking up another 17' for a nroadway. Mr. Nagy: Actually, the road right now is 33' wide, and with the additional 1.7' , that will make it 50' . The 10' easement is for utility purposes. Mrs. Lewis: Are all the trees going to be taken down? Mr. Priest: I do not intend to take down any trees other than those where the construction of homes will take place. Steve Sikov: What kind of homes is this man going .to build? 19674 Deering Mr. Andrew: Please understand that the proprietor who subdivides this property may_ not necessarily be the builder. He has the. right to sell the property to a builder. The builder of course is required to meet our R-2 zoning district requirements. Ontside of that, the builder can build anything he wants. Dennis Kean: Did I hear you say the back of the houses will face Deering? IL 19650 Deering Mr. Andrew: Lots #1 through 5 will face Deering, the others will have their back yards face Deering. 6835 • Mr. Zimmer: What is the rear yard set back requirement here? ir Mr. Nagy: The rear yard set back minimum in an R-2 district is 30' . There was no one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary Plat for Pembroke Commons Subdivision closed. . On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-213-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a: Public Heating having been held on October 3, 1978, the City Planning Commission does hereby .recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Pembroke Commons proposed to be located on the east side of Angling Road, south of Pembroke, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, be approved, for the following reasons: (1) The proposed subdivision provides for a good residential development solution for a parcel of unusual configuration and dimension. (2) The plan is drawn in full compliance with R-2 Zoning District regulations of the City of Livonia, 'which is the zoning classification for the subject lands. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice .of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, the proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with notices have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, • Superintendent of Schools, the Fire Department and the Police Department. 4 4 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously • adopted, it was • • #10-214-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to • • waive the open space requirements of Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations as they relate to Pembroke Commons Subdivision for the following reason: (1) The plat consists of only ten lots, the 'majority of which greatly exceed the R-2 zoning district regulations; therefore, the amount of open space that would accrue to the City of Livonia as a result of the dedication of the required open space is negligible and the small amount of land can better be utilized in connection with the development of the residential lots. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agend1Preliminary Plat Approval for Hidden • Creek Subdivision proposed to be located north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road, in Section 9. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? 6836 Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from John Dufour indicating proposed subdivision 4 will not interfere with Master School and Park Plan; no objection to plan as submitted. Also, a letter from Engineering regarding the flood plain in this area, and the DNR's investigation of said flood plain. A letter from the Traffic Bureau advises that traffic patterns are satisfactory, and the Inspection Department reports that lots as shown do meet or exceed R-4 zoning district requirements. Fire Depart- ment suggests fire hydrant placement as follows: . . . .etc. Mr. Andrew: Who is the proprietor? . ,. Mr. Nagy: The application was signed by Leo Soave, 37183 Vargo. . Mrs. Friedrichs: Have we received any report as yet from the DNR? Mr. Nagy: No. Mrs. Friedrichs: Wasn't there some question as to whether or not houses could be built on the flood plain? ' Mr. Nagy: . Yes, that is why we have asked the DNR to come in and investigate the situation. Mr. Zimmer: What about that 4' fence - will it come down? Mr. Shane: Yes. • Mr. Andrew: Any questions or comments from the Commission? Is there anyone in the 4 audience wishing to speak either for or against this petition? Gerald Wilson: We have lived here for the past 14 years, and I am wondering if you you people really realize the water problem here. Instead of growing corn here, like I used to, I could start growing rice. I don't know how they think they can put a house in that corner. Certainly no concern for my property or the fellow next door. When they straightened out that creek, they just made it deeper. How do they expect to put a storm sewer in there? There always seems to be 2' of water there. Mr. Andrew: Storm sewer will connect to a tributary of the Bell Creek. Is there a representative of Basney & Smith here this evening? ' We will probably . table this anyway, so we will raise your questions with the Engineering Department at our Study Meeting. Mr. Wilson: If the DNR comes here and makes the developer clean out all the trees and shrubbery in there, what recourse will I have? Mr. Andrew: The requirements of the DNR are pretty tough to fight. Unless you go • • to court. . Mr. Wilson: Will I be notified of the Study Meeting? Mrs. G. Furcsik: We own that piece of property that is now under consideration. You d 35190 Six know, so far, the builder does not have any claim to the property. He Mile has given us nothing. We feel there was misrepresentation. We were not told about establishing a firm boundary line. There are many birds and animals who feed on our property, and _we want this maintained as an animal refuge. Mr. Andrew: You own Lot #4 as shown on the map? 6837 Mrs, Furcsik: Yes, we own property north of the creek. We were told this was easement because of the flood plain. 4 Mr, Andrew: I can appreciate your concern, but- this will be retained as natural foliage. However, in myopinion, I would think that g p your other problem isof a personal nature, that only can be resolved through an attorney. We do not want to get involved. Mrs. Furesik: - I realize that the original number of sixteen lots has been reduced to fourteen, but I just don't want any foliage taken out. _z 1, D. Berens: Do I understand Mr. Nagy to allude to the fact that some of the 17522 Edgewood homes would have' to be narrower? . , Mr. Nagy: I am assuming this drawing is correct, and if it is, then seven of the homes on these lots would have to be 35' wide or less. The home itself would meet the required set backs as far as the flood plain is concerned. Mr. Berens: Will this particular subdivision be contiguous with the larger sub right next to it? Will they be of similar quality as those in the. , existing sub? What kind of restrictions apply to thetype of home going in here, or am I asking the wrong people that question? Mr. Andrew: I can't tell a builder what kind of house to build. Mr. Berens: Doesn't the City have restrictions? 4 Mr. Andrew: This particular area 'is zoned R-4B, and there are certain restrictions as to the size of the house under the "B" classification. a • Mr. Nagy: Under the "B" classification, one=story homes must have a minimum of 1300 sq. ft. A one-story-and-a-half home must have at least 900 sq. ft, on the first floor, with an aggregate floor space of at least 1400 sq. ft. A two-story colonial would require at least 780 sq. ft. , on the first floor, with an aggregate floor space no less than 1560 sq. ft. Mr. Berens: How does that compare with the existing sub? Mr. Andrew: Would be the same. , Mr. Nagy; The homes in the new sub would probably substantially exceed those requirements. Mr. Andrew: The builder must adhere to the codes set up by the City under the R-4B requirements. Deed restrictions are private restrictions which the City has no control over. . Mr. Berens: So we have no assurance that the deed restrictions would conform to those in the existing sub? Mr. Andrew: None. , 4 Mr. Feinberg: Deed restrictions are exclusive to those property owners in a particular subdivision. But I feel the builder will not downgrade the area. 6838 Gail DiPonio: Is there any way that "B" classification could be changed? 35237 Vargo 4 Mr. Nagy: Through a rezoning process. 4 Mrs. DiPonio: And how many people would have to sign 'something in order to get that changed? Mr. Nagy: There are three ways to get property rezoned: 1) by the Planning Commission initiating the petition;. 2) by the City Council initiating the petition; or 3) by "the property` owners themselves. We would . require 50% of the- property owners within the district to sign a petition to have a district changed. Of course, a single property owner can petition to have only his property changed. Mrs. DiPonio: Where can I get more information as how to do that? Mr. Nagy: At the City Clerk's office. Mr. Berens: Would somebody please define district? Mr. Nagy: District is comprised of a certain area with definite boundaries This .particular district extends from Six Mile to Seven Mile, east from Wayne Road to Stevenson High School. Robert Morris: Where in the City can we find out information about zoning and petitions, etc.? Mr. Nagy: As far as how particular property is currently zoned, and the different classifications that we use, you can check with our ' Planning Department any time during regular business hours. All petitions are filed with the City Clerk's office, and there are certain fees set up depending upon the petition. Mr. Morris: How good are our chances of getting this changed? Mr.. Nagy: I feel that the homes that will be,built in this area will exceed the "B" requirements. The only classification beyond that would be . "C" , and the square footage required would just be increased from 1300. to 1500 for a ranch or 200 square feet. Mr. Wilson: Aren't we living on RUF zoned land now? • Mr. Nagy:. When our new Ordinance was adopted in 1965, the. zoning in this area was changed from RUF to R-4B. Mr. Wilson: We are taxed as if it were RUF. Mr. Nagy: Tax base is predicated upon use of the land rather than zoning. Resident: I live next door to Jerry Wilson, and basically I have the same 35010 Six Mile trouble as he does. When they widened Six Mile, we were told that the back of our lots would be filled in. But so. far, nothing has been . IL done; there is so much water back there - floods out everything. Mr. Andrew: We are trying to get our Engineering Division involved in this. 6839 44 Mr. Berens: Did you offer us the alternative that this group could come in with 4 a recommendation to change classification from "B" to "C"? 4 Mr. Nagy: You have a legal right to petition for a rezoning. Mr. Andrew: I did not recommend that you do this. Mr. Berens: Maybe you people could make a recommendation that this be changed to • R-4C. Mr. Andrew: We could, in our motion', if we so desired. Mr. Berens: I would like to offer that for your consideration. Mr. Andrew: We will consider that if this is. approved. Mr. Berens: In the event this is tabled, will there be another public hearing?. Mr. Andrew: No Public Hearing, but a Study.Meeting which you are welcome to attend. Mr. Nagy: We will not be sending out certified letters for the study meeting. Perhaps two or three could leave your names and addresses, and we _ • will send those people notices and they in turn can notify others. Mr. Zimmer: We should point out to those people this is the only public hearing. There will be no discussion from the floor again like this meeting 4 when the item is next scheduled for a regular meeting. II'', Mr. Nagy: The study meeting will consist of an exchange of information, open discussion, as well as report from the DNR. But there will 4 be no further public hearing and official notice given. There was no one else present wishing to speak on this petition, Mr.. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Preliminary P].at Approval for Hidden Creek Subdivision closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, ' and unanimously adopted, it was #10-215-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3, ].978, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the . Preliminary Plat Approval for Hidden Creek Subdivision proposed to be located north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in Section 9, until a • report from the Department of Natural Resources has been received. . Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew: The chair is receptive to a motion to change the classification from B to C. Mr. Zimmer: The petitioner is not' here tonight? I have no problems with requiring that larger floor space be indicated, but I suppose we should hear what the petitioner has to say about, that. Mr. Hurley: I am the realtor representing the sale of the property and business 18308 Bain- manager for Mr. Soave. I must point out that small homes will not • 4 bridge be going in there. ,rust would not be feasible. The lots alone sold from $19 to $20 thousand dollars. Ten of the colonials, with 2500 sq. ft. will have walk-out basements. • 6840 Mr. Zimmer: I would make a motion that the classification -on this property be changed from R-4B to R-4C. 116: Mr. Andrew: Chair would suggest that you move to hold a Public Hearing to consider the change from R-4B to R-4C. Mr. Zimmer: So be it. Mr. Andrew: Is there a support? (repeated three times) No Support. - . Mr. Andrew declared the motion failed for lack of support. He then advised the audience that no action would be taken regarding changing classification on the part of the Planning Commission. , Mrs. Scurto announced the next item on the agenda Petition 78-9-2-25 by Colac Corporation requesting waiver use approval to use an existing building located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Middlebelt Roads in Section 2, for an auto service center. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, is there any correspondence in the file regarding this petition? Mr. Nagy: No correspondence. Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Any comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak either • for or against this petition? 4 4 There was no one present,wishing to speak on this matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-9-2-25 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was #10-216-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3, 1978, on Petition 78-9-2-25 by Colac Corporation requesting waiver use approval to use an existing building, located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile and Middlebelt Roads in Section 2, for an auto service center the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-9-2-25 be denied, for the following reasons: (1) The proposal is in conflict with Section 16.02 of the. Zoning Ordinance regarding a requirement to landscape at least one-half of the established or minimum front yard. (2) The proposal is in conflict with Section 16.05 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding yard and setback requirements. (3) The proposal is in conflict with the special waiver use standards of the Zoning Ordinance contained in Section 16.11 regarding requirements for fencing and landscaping of the front and side yards. t 6841 (4) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use complies with. Section 19.06, General Waiver Requirements and General Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 0 (5) The site does not have the capacity to support the proposed use and at the same time comply with all the requirements "of the Zoning Ordinance and good site planning principles.. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner, and City Departments ' as listed in the Proof of Service. • A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: , AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Wisier, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow • Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Smith, ' it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12, • 1978, on Petition 78-8-3-8 by Mr; and Mrs. James Sturgill, et al requesting to vacate a public alley lying between Deering and Floral Avenues in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby 4 recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-8-3-8 be denied. / A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 4 4 AYES: Smith, Zimmer, Wisler NAYS: Friedrichs, Scurto, Andrew ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails for lack of support and announced that Petition 78-8-3-8 will remain tabled until the Planning Commission Study Meeting of October 10, 1978. #10-217-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12, 1978 on Petition 78-8-3-8 by Mr. and Mrs. James Sturgill, et al requesting to vacate 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 October 10, 1978 study meeting. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-218-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City Hall of the City of Livonia, to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by incorporating thereon Bainbridge Park located east of Merriman Road between Curtis and Hillbrook Avenues in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11. 0 6842 IIIFURTHER RESOLVED that, 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 railroad within the City of Livonia in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts sof Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, gecbnded by Mrg. Friedrichs, and adopted, it was • #'10-219-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 359th .Regular .Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on September 12, 1978 be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Wisler NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Andrew, Scurto ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted it was #10-220-78 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 323rd Special Meeting- held by the City Planning Commission on September 19, 1978 be approved. , 140 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 1 4 AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, 'Scurto, Andrew 4 NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Wisler ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow . Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Pursuant to a letter from John M. and Mary Kassa requesting withdrawal of their request for a landscape variance in connection with Petition 72-8-8-19P, Mr. Andrew declared the petition removed from the agenda. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, refrained, from discussion and voting on the following matter: passed the gavel to Mr. Zimmer, Vice-Chairman. - On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by'Mr. Smith, and adopted, it was #10-221-78 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 78-9-8-30 as submitted by Suburban Management and 'Realty Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 8.02 of Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1243, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct garden-type condominium units on the west side of University Drive between Six and Seven Mile Roads in Section .7, subject to the 10 following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 78-2479, Sheet SP-1, revised 8/31/78, prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; ' 6843 44 (2) that the Building Elevations, as prepared by Progressive Associates Inc. , which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (3) that garage elevations as shown on Plan 78-2479, dated 8/14/78 and 8/23/78, prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. , which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and :44 (4) that Landscape Plan 78-24-79, Sheet L-1, dated 9/14/78, prepared by Progressive Associates, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. ' c l• (5) That should the housing project be constructed in phases that the site area involved with the issuance of the building permit required for the various phases shall be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscaped plan before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the units involved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: • AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Wisler NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Andrew ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ..On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was 4 #10-222-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18,47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning 4 Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-9-8-31 by Fred J. Armour, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing commercial building located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Shadyside and Westmore in Section 3,, ' be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) . that Site Plan 75D-474, Sheet 1, revised 9/27/78, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that building elevations as shown on Plan 75D-474, Sheet 5, dated 9/27/78, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which are hereby • approved, shall be adhered to; • (3) that Landscape Plan 75D-474, Sheet 1A, dated 9/27/78, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; and (4) that all landscaping as shown on the approved Landscaped Plan shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition, -and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition. 4 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ' 6844 On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, 4 it was 1 4 #10-223-78 RESOLVED that, the seven day period required by Planning Commission 4 Rules and Regulations concerning effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions be waived on Petition 78-9-8-31. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Smith, and adopted it was I. #10-224-78 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 12, 1978 on Petition 78-7-2-20 by Gunther H. Blankenburg requesting waiver use approval to expand 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, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-7-2-20 be approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan prepared by McNeely & Lincoln Associates, Inc. , . dated 10/2/78, Job #6576, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to; (2) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved site plan shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate ;' of Occupancy for the new building addition; (3) that all landscape materials as shown on the Plan shall be permanently maintained and kept in a healthy condition; and (4) that any future signs shall meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as recommended by the Industrial Coordinator in his letter of recommendation dated 8/29/78. for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with the requirements of Section 11.03, Waiver Uses, of the M-1 Zoning District regulations, and Section 19.06, General Waiver Requirements and General Standards, of . Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The Industrial Coordinator recommends approval by letter dated 8/29/78 with the condition that the site shall be landscaped. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, the petitioner, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Scurto ABSTAIN: None 3 ABSENT: Falk, Kluver, Morrow Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the resolution adopted. 6845 . On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-225-78 WHEREAS, the City of Livonia has received petitions from the Cadillac 116: Motor Car Division and the Dave_ Demarest Company for Industrial exemption facility certificates under Public Act 198; and WHEREAS, the intent of Public Act 198 is to encoUraye a higher volume of capital expenditures and maintain or increase the level of employment in the State of Michigan because of resultant economic activity; and ! 1w'' WHEREAS,. the Legislature of the State of Michigan passed the Act to stimulate economic development by providing a more favorable business climate to corporations located in Michigan essentially to counteract similar incentive measures adopted by other states; and WHEREAS, both of the petitioners have expressed a desire to con- struct additions to existing facilities in compliance with the language of Public Act 198; NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the Planning. Commission of City of Livonia recommends that both petitions be favorably treated by the City of Livonia because both would add to existing plans, therefore providing development programs to land which, in each case, does not presently enjoy maximum potential, and because the nature of the tax incentive legislation cannot be considered a loss in revenue because it does provide for 50% tax roll col- lections for a specified period of time "and ensures that such 1440 expansion programs will be returned to the rolls at full market I value in the future, thereby providing future administrations with taxing entities which may not otherwise be made available without the incentive legislation; and further, that as long as Public Act 198 exists, business will seek the advantages of its provisions and it would be to the benefit of the local taxing district to treat Public Act 198 favorable, thereby offsetting another provision of Act 198 which provides for industry to move to other communities which liberally grant Public Act 198 applica- tions and incentives contained in other legislation which are _addressed to economic growth. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded, and unanimously adopted, the 360th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by Livonia City Planning Commission on October 3, 1978 were adjourned at 11:00 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Zaeil -,,e1a--' - .udith Scurto, Acting Secretary 1 ATTEST: L Daniel R. 'ndrew, Chairman