Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1979-02-06 6912 MINUTES OF THE 367th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 6, 1979, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 367th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:05 p.m., with approximately 90 interested people in the audience. MEMBERS PRESENT: Daniel R. Andrew Esther Friedrichs Lee R. Morrow Jerome Zimmer Herman Kluver C. Russell Smith Joseph J. Falk , Judith Scurto MEMBERS ABSENT: Suzanne Wisler Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H G Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Andrew then informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, 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 Commission, the petitioner then has ten days in which to appeal for relief. Other- wise the petition is terminated. 1[10 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda Petition 79-1-1-1 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located on the Northeast corner of Melvin Avenue and Pembroke in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA to P.L. Mr. Andrew: This petition is simply the Planning Commission's action to identify that piece of property which is already owned by the City as P.L. Mr. Nagy, do you have any comments? Mr. Nagy: I would like 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 parcel as public land. Mr. Andrew: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this topic? Thomas Lee Harrington: I live north of the parcel in question. Is there anything 20210 Melvin that will be done to this piece besides rezoning, specifically developed into a park? Mr. Andrew: Parks and Recreation plans to maintain the park in its natural state. Richard Clancy: There are 50 or 60 acres of public land right down the road by the 19859 Melvin school. Why do they need another 5 acres of public land? Why don't they sell it? The City could use the money. Don't they need money? ti Mr. Andrew: We are only trying to correct the zoning map. Mr. Clancy: Who built the tennis courts? Mr. Andrew: The school. 6913 • Mr. Clancy: The City did. Why do you need another 5 acres when you have 50 or 60 acres down the street? ,1[ Mr4, . Andrew: The 50 to 60 acres are not owned by the City. They are owned by the Clarenceville school district. Mrs. Scurto: Maybe I could clarify something. If someone was to purchase a house near you and they went to check on the zoning of the land near you, it presently would show that land was zoned for residential use which is incorrect. Chances are they City is not going to develop the land into a park. We are simply told to make the zoning map tell what the land is. This is a housekeeping job. This property is owned by the City and the map should reflect that. Kenneth Vickery: We live at the southeast corner. What can we do to have this parcel 19830 Louise maintained properly by the City? It is nothing but a garbage dump. If it is zoned P.L. will the City take care of it? Ronald R. Meyers: Isn't the City supposed to do something to keep this land up? 20280 Melvin The weeds should be cut and the litter picked up? Mr. Andrew: The City should maintain it. Mr. Meyers: What can we do to get the City to look after the upkeep? Mr. Andrew: Complain to the administration and the council. Are there any more comments or questions from the Commission? Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on the matter? I There was no one ese wishing to discuss is matter and Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on else 79-1-1-1 closed.th 1[1, On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Smith, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-13-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to_a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 79-1-1-1 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the Northeast corner of Melvin Avenue and Pembroke in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-1-1-1 be approved, from RUFA to P.L, for the following reasons: (1) Subject property is owned by the City is designated as City park site. (2) The proposed rezoning is in accord with the policy of the City Planning Commission to have all publicly owned land zoned in 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 1/18/79, 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. 6914 10 Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda Petition 79-1-1-2 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located on the south- east corner of Wayne Road and Six Mile Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, from R-3-B to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone present wishing to speak on this petition? Mr. Falk: I would like to say that I have been a resident of this subdivision and a member of the civic association and if I thought this petition should not be passed I would not support it. I give this and the others like it my full support. There was no one else present wishing to discuss this matter and Mr. Andrew delcared the Public Heaing on Petition 79-1-1-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-14-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 79-1-1-2 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the southeast corner of Wayne Road and Six Mile Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16, from R-3-B to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-1-1-2 be approved for the following reasons: (1) Subject property is owned by the City and is designated as a City park site. IL (2) The proposed rezoning is in accord with the policy of the City Planning Commission to have all publicly owned land zoned in 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 1/18/79, 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 is carried the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, secretary announced the next item on the agendais Petition 79-1-1-3 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located at the southeast corner of West Chicago and Sunset Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, from R-1 to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Are there any comments from the audience or the Commission? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-1-1-3 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, .it was #2-15-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 79-1-1-3 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located at the southeast corner of West Chicago and 6915 Sunset Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning 3 Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-1-1-3 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) Subject property is owned by the City and is designated as a City park site. (2) The proposed rezoning is in accord with the policy of the City Planning Commission to have all publicly owned land zoned in 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 1/18/79, 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 is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-1-1-4 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located north of Joy Road, east of Gillman Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF to P.L. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone wishing to comment on this petition? There was no one else present wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the tgPublic Hearing on Petition 79-1-1-4 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted, it was #2-16-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 79-1-1-4 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located north of Joy Road, east of Gillman Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF to P.L. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-1-1-4 be approved, for the following reasons: (1) Subject property is owned by the City and is designated as City park site. (2) The proposed rezoning is in accord with the policy of the City Planning Commission to have all publicly owned land zoned in 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 1/18/79, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Compnay, 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. • 6916 Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-12-1-42 by Michael 111, and William Schwartz requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Purlingbrook, south of Eight Mile Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, from R-1 to R-7. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this petition? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from Gary Clark, Engineering, dated January 10, 1979. Mr. Andrew: Petitioner is not present. Mr. Nagy:. I do not know where petitioner is. We did not hear from petitioner. Raymond Nobel: I would be opposed if traffic was going to come down Morlock. 20403 Louise Mr. Andrew: The frontage is on Purlingbrook and traffic would go down Purlingbrook to Eight Mile Road. R. Noble: I would not be opposed then. Mr. Muier: I am President of the North Central Civic Association. If there 20020 Shadyside is any further discussion/ its petition I would like to be informed. Mrs. Sullivan: I would like to know how many apartments they could build on 4.2 acres? 20285 Milburn 1[ Mr. Andrew: It is possible to build 12 or 13 apartments on an acre so there would be approximately 48 apartments all total. Mrs. Friedrichs: That would be comparable to the apartments at Eight Mile and Merriman as far as the density. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mrs. Friedrichs: Since petitioner is not here could we table this? Mrs. Scurto: What is the most recent building other than the industrial area? Mrs. Sullivan: Two new homes were built on Purlingbrook within the last five yezrs. Mr. Muier: There is a slow process of building. S. Myers: On Melvin there was a new home just built a couple of months ago. 20280 Melvin Every couple of months there is a home built. Mr. Andrew: Is the North Central Civic Association opposed to this development? Mrs. Sullivan: Yes. We would like more detail. The information we have is not enough to satisfy us. We would like to know the caliber of apartments. You mentioned the Eight Mile and Merriman apartments. Those are not too bad. Stanley Nichols: There is a lot of noise from the factory that the apartment tenants 20218 yurlingbrht not like. 6917 Mrs. Friedrichs: What if homes were built there? Would the noise be any different to residents. Mr. Nichols: Yes, at least the residents would be aware of the noise before they would move in. The apartment tenants would not be aware of the noise until they moved in. There might be a high turnover and these apartments go down hill. Mr. Muier: How many homes could be built on this parcel? Mr. Nagy: About 14 to 16 homes. Marvin Priami: I live across the street from this parcel. I was concerned about 20403 Purlingbrook whether they would be low income dwellings. Resident: I was concerned about what streets would be open but someone stated 20186 Purling- all traffic would have to come down Purlingbrook. I am against it brook until we can see what the building is going to look like. Mr. Andrew: We are now going through the rezoning procedure. A lot of these plans will be discussed at the site plan approval. They are not totally valid at this particular time. Mr. Zimmer: We may rezone it and a "for sale" sign may go up afterward. Mr. Falk: I wish the petitioner would have had the good sense to call the Planning Department to tell them of his absence. Should we give a motion to table. Irl, Mr. Andrew: How do the residents really feel about the rezoning? Mr. Nichols: Leave it the way it is. Mrs. Sullivan: We all agree to that. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and adopted, it was #2-17-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 78-12-1-42 as submitted by Michael and William Schwartz requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Purlingbrook south of Eight Mile Road, in the northeast 1/4 of Section 2, from R-1 to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-12-1-42 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Future Land Use Plan which plan recommends low-density, single family residential uses. (2) The proposed change of zoning to the R-7, multi-family classification which would permit an increase in density would adversely affect the surrounding area as it would burden the existing public facitlities and public utilities of the area. iv (3) The proposed change of zoning would be detrimental to the continued orderly growth and development of the surrounding area which area is substantially of single family residential character. 6918 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 1/18/79, and that notices of such hearing were sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, IL Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the above motion resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs, Smith, Scurto ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-12-2-32 by G. J. D'Adamo requesting a waiver of use approval to erect a veterinary clinic proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Melvin and Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this petition Mr. Nagy? Mr. Nagy: There is a letter from Gary Clark, Engineering, dated January 10, 1979. Mr. Andrew: The Zoning Board of Appeals has waived all the deficiencies of the site plan. I note from the background notes there is a requirement of a "right turn only" sign on the northerly driveway onto Melvin Avenue. Why is a right turn sign required? 4 Mr. D'Adamo: Our ingress will be on the south side toward Joy and the egress off li, of Melvin. Mr. Andrew: I notice a two-way arrow. Mr. Nagy: There is a discrepancy. The architect goofed. An arrow will have to be eliminated. The plan that will be forwarded will be corrected accordingly. Mr. Morrow: Did the building encroach on the easement and the Zoning Board waive that encroachment? Mr. Andrew: They shifted the building to the south. Daniel J. Kelly: The alley is vacated. We tried to build on it and we couldn't. 29900 Joy Rd. We feel the building is too large for the area. He has 39 feet for the front yard, 66 foot building and 20 feet off the back, that doesn't add up to 120 feet. Mr. Andrew: He is not building on the vacated alley. He has a 34 foot front yard and not a 39 foot front yard. With the 66 foot building and the 20 foot rear yard he has 120 feet. He received the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. As the site plan stands today it does meet the ordinance because of the Zoning Board action. We cannot say to this gentleman he cannot build because it has been waived by the Zoning IL Board of Appeals. Mr. Kelly: The plan showed 5 feet onto the alley. 6919 Mr. Andrew: It has been revised since then. The building was shifted 5 feet 110 closer to the road. Mr. Nagy: The Zoning Board's letter of February 2, 1979 incorporated that change. Mr. Andrew: What building was at this site prior to this? I note two driveway curb cuts that are shown here. Richard O'Keefe: I live a couple of doors north of the site. There is a curb cut. 8901 Melvin It was put in as a standard procedure when there was paving where they felt they would go. The property is vacant. The zoning board changed this from 39 feet to 34 feet without notification any of us. Mr. Andrew: I believe so. Adelle Kelly: The traffic will only turn right on Melvin. Mr. Andrew: No left turn onto Melvin. Mrs. Kelly: There is a church and school there. If there is a left turn permitted it would create a lot of problems. Mr. Andrew: The petitioner has indicated he would want a right turn onto Melvin and exit onto Joy. Mrs. Kelly: There is a no left turn sign on the street of Melvin now. Mr. Andrew:liW We are not going to change there. We can restrict which way his traffic turns come out. Mr. Smith: Because of the change from 39 feet to 34 feet without notification of property owners, should we table this to see if this was handled properly? Mr. Andrew: Mr. Feinberg? Mr. Feinberg: I suppose if you feel it is germaine to your decision you could. Mrs. Friedrichs: Do we have to send it back to the Zoning Board. Mr. Andrew: We could by resolution ask if the Zoning Board used correct legal procedure. Any more comments? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 78-12-2-32 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 78-12-2-32 by G. J. D'Adamo requesting a waiver use approval to erect a veterinary clinic proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Melvin and Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Peition 78-12-2-32 until clarafication from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether or not correct legal procedure was used when a change was made in a resolution and notification not given the property owners. ILN roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: . 6920 • AYES: Smith, Scurto, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above resolution failed for lack of support. r Mr. Morrow: Have the necessary dedications been made on Joy Road? Mr. Andrew: No. Mr. Morrow: What dedications do we have for Joy? Mr. Andrew: We are deficient 7 feet of right-of-way. Mr. Morrow: There will be a future hardship when developing Joy Road. Mr. Andrew: There will be no hardship just money. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 78-12-2-32 as submitted by J. D'Adamo requesting waiver use approval to construct a veterinary clinic proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Melvin and Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-12-2-32 be approved for the following reasons: 111, (1) Subject proposal complies with all of the general and special conditions of the Zoning Ordinance with regard to waiver uses as contained in Section 19.06 and 10.03, respectively. (2) The nature of the proposal with regard to hours of operation, intensity of use and physical appearance will be harmonious with and compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. (3) Such an office use will provide a buffer between a major thoroughfare and abutting residences in keeping with the Planning Commission's adopted goals and policies. subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan, Sheet 1., dated December 15, 1978, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) That Building Elevation, Sheet 5, dated December 15, 1978, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval within 30 days of the date of this resolution. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:. AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Falk, NAYS: Smith, Scurto, Morrow, Andrew ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared that the resolution failed for lack of support. 6921 Mr. Zimmer: This deficiency of 7 feet for the dedication of Joy Road is petitioner's refusal not to give the City of Livonia that footage. ,Mr. Nagy: This is a County Road. The petitioner was willing to work this out with the City and County if and when the county desires to have the 7 feet. The County Road Commissioner says they can live with the 53 feet. Mr. Zimmer: The cost is to the county and not the City of Livonia, Mr. Andrew: The City pays a percentage. Mr. Zimmer: As far as the lack of notification, some of the property owners here attended the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and voiced their opinions as to the 39 foot front yard variance. They assumed at that time a 39 foot front yard variance was given. Mr. Kelly: We did not know of the 34 foot variance. Mr. D'Adamo: Originally I was told I could build on that 5 feet. Mr. Andrew: There is no criticism on your part but this is something that the Zoning Board has to live with. Mrs. Friedrichs: It is impossible for him to build over the easement. Mr. Nagy: He could petition for the vacating of the easement. Mr. D'Adamo: Vacating the easement would put the building in closer to the people in the back. Any more delays it is hurting us. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Public Hearing as submitted by J. D'Adamo requesting waiver use approval to construct a veterinary clinic proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Melvin and Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 78-12-2-32 be denied for the following reasons: (1) There is a concern over the dedication of right-of-way of Joy Road. (2) Since we could not get a tabling resolution to resolve the notification procedure I would not like to be responsible for approval of this petition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Scurto, Morrow NAYS: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Falk, Andrew ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above resolution failed for lack of support. Mr. Falk:IL I would like to reintroduce the tabling motion and resolve this at next Tuesday's meeting. I am willing to change my vote. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Smith, and adopted, it was 6922 #2-18-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 78-12-2-32 by G. J. D'Adamo requesting a waiver use approval to erect a veterinary clinic proposed to be located on the northwest corner of Melvin and Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition 78-12-2-32 until Tuesday, February 13, 1979. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Kluver, Zimmer ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion is carried and the resolution adopted. Mr. Andrew: Mr. O'Keefe and Mr. Kelly, you are welcome to join us next Tuesday evening at the City Planning Commission's office on Farmington Road. Mrs. Kelly, you are welcome also. I believe we should direct a letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals in the way of a resolution. Mrs. Scurto: You are asking that one of us in support of the tabling resolution request a letter be directed to the Zoning Board asking for a clarification on their action. Mr. Andrew: That is correct. I will pass the gavel to Mr. Falk. On a motion duly made by Mr. Andrew, .seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was 11, #2-19-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 78-12-2-32 by G. J. D'Adamo requesting a waiver of use approval to erect a veterinary clinic proposed to be located on the north- west corner of Melvin and Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, it was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission by Messrs. Daniel J. Kelly and Richard O'Keefe, residents of Melvin Avenue in the immediate vicinity of the property in question, that they were not notified by the Zoning Board of Appeals of their hearing to change their resolution of February 2, 1979 from a 39 foot front yard variance to a 34 foot front yard variance. In view of the concern of these residents and citizens of the City of Livonia, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Petition 78-12-2-32 be tabled until clarification is received from the Zoning Board of Appeals as to whether or not proper legal notification was given or, if it was required to be given, to reduce the front yard variance to 5 feet. The Planning Commission has scheduled action on this matter for a Special Meeting on February 13, 1979 and would request a response by that date. A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Smith, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer ABSENT: Wisler to, Mr. Falk declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk passed the gavel back to the Chairman. 6923 Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-1-2-1 by James Blain 1[ Associates, requesting waiver of use approval to construct a building 1; for general office uses to be located on the northeast corner of Levan Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Blain: We are talking about a Pfeister food brokers building to be located on the corner. The lot is too big for this 12,000 square foot building so we will only utilize the half of the lot and we will have control of what goes on the other half in the future. The building materials are brick and wood. The building will have a low amount of traffic. There will be heavy use on Friday from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. Mr. Andrew: This building will have a normal office operation. Where are you located now? Mr. Blain: In a four-story office building at 21415 Civic Center Drive, Southfield. Mr. Andrew: Does the revised site plan meet the requirements as far as parking? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Falk: Have you purchased the property yet? Mr. Blain: It is contingent on a number of things, such as today's action, soil borings. Mr. Falk: Your client was reluctant to give up the excess of parking spaces, the 18 extras. liw Mr. Blain: They would like to keep those. Mr. Falk: What about the wood on the building? Your client is opposed to all brick because of the expense? After 4 or 5 seasons the wood takes a beating in my opinion. I feel wood does not hold up as well. Mr. Blain: I don't think the wood is going to look bad. If the wood would be on the bottom it would always look muddy and dirty. The wood on the building will be on the op and will look quite good. I think an expenseive brick with wood will look better than all brick that would be less expensive, for instance the cheaper pink brick versus a more expensive brown brick. Mrs. Scurto: There was some comment about the wall. Do you anticipate your client going to the Zoning Board to appeal the wall. Mr. Blain: The wall does not look good. Landscaping would look better. Mrs. Scurto: I am reluctant to approve 18 excess parking spots. I think too much blacktop looks bad. The trash receptacle on the side of the building is that screened other than with these two trees? Mr. Blain: No. ILMrs. Scurto: It is shielded from the school side but in my estimation that is not enough to screen the receptacle from the residents. 6924 Mr. Smith: I enjoy some wooden treatment. If it is done right and off the ground, it will last in my opinion. I have some reservations with a split. Where would a wall be required with a lot split? 1[; Mr. Nagy: He would be reqiured to put a wall on the east property line if there is no lot split. A wall is presently required on the north property line. Mr. Smith: Would a lot split be required to sell off the other property? Mr. Nagy: He could leave it vacant. Mr. Smith: As you drive in these dozen trees is that some sort of a patio? Mr. Blain: A court yard with trees and shrubs. Mr. Zimmer: If you put that row of parking in now you save construction dollars. When you find out the parking is inadequate how much does it take? Mr. Blain: If the paving is done all at once it is cheaper. Later the sod would have to be ripped up and additional expenses of adding the extra row would be great. Mr. Zimmer: Are you anticipating you are going to be short on parking? Mr. Blain: The maximum spaces needed would be 60. We have an option now for the other half of the property. The development would be the same as our building but you never know if the deal will be completed. livMr. Andrew: Are there any comments from the audience? James Donahue: My lot is 175 and I am behind the parcel. I don't think 10 bushes 14001 Woodside are adequate and would offer very little privacy. Mr. Andrew: Would you like a wall? Mr. Donahue: I would prefer a wall. It would insure more privacy. Neal Keller: Does he need a wall on the east side? Mr. Andrew: If he makes the lot split he does not need one. Keith Emerson: Is this going to be a block wall? 14019 Woodside Mr. Andrew: Yes. George Williams: That driveway on Schoolcraft wouldn't that create a traffic hazard? 36054 Schoolcraft Mr. Andrew: In my opinion it would not. What we do is ship this plan down to Wayne County. They have to get a permit from the county. Lawrence A. Arbour: My backyard would be where the parking lot is. I don't know 36153 Scone which would be worse cars or a block wall. Mrs. Scurto: Are there any people from Levan Road here? 6925 Mrs. Larry Wesner: The traffic pattern at 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. is very bad. We IL14016 Levan don't need 60 more cars at 5 p.m. Mr. Smith: Will the Pfeister Company have an identification sign? Mr. Blain: No plans at the present time, just a name on the door. As far as I know they don't plan to have any. They do not get traffic off the street. Mona Emerson: That type of office building will be located here? 14019 Woodside Mr. Blain: Pfeister Company, food brokers. Mrs. Emerson: When I try to get onto Levan Road even at 1 or 2 p.m. to go to the grocery store it is a mess. I have to take a different route. Mr. Andrew: The traffic problem will be resolved I am certain when Levan is improved from Schoolcraft to Five Mile. With 5 lanes approximately 30,000 cars a hour could pass through. I am sure traffic on Levan will flow much better. Mrs. Scurto: This is our only crack at the site plan. Will there be any mounted units on the roof? Mr. Blain: Air conditioning units. ILMrs. Scurto: Will they be screened? What type of materials will be used? Mr. Blain: Yes, they will be screened with either metal or wood. Mrs. Scurto: I think we need more specific details on the screening of the trash receptacle and more specific details on the landscaping on the north elevation. If the wall is waived that which we have presented is certainly inadequate. The elevation drawings were very attractive and I commend Mr. Blain for some of the work but some of these questions need to be answered. What about lights? Mr. Zimmer: This proposal is architecturally a very good plan and a minimum use for that corner. There are a number of things we have not looked at yet. I am not wondering about the question of whether to approve the waiver use but I am not sure about using only 2/3 of the land and 1/3 of the land up for grabs. Mrs. Scurto: We would appreciate the residents next week as we further study this. Mr. Andrew: We have to be more definite on the screening for the air conditioning and trash receptacles, what type of lighting fixtures, sodium light, etc. details on the type of wall, and where the wall is on the north end, and information whether there will be a lot split. Mr. Blain: There is going to be a lot split. ILThere was no one else wishing to be heard on this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and adopted, it was 6926 #2-20-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979 on Petition 79-1-2-1 by James Blain Associates, requesting a waiver of use approval to construct a building for general office uses proposed to be located on the northeast corner of Levan Road and Schoolcraft Service Drive in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commissiondoes hereby table Petition 79-1-2-1 until Tuesday, February 13, 1979. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following; AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-21-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 6, 1979, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Hidden Creek Subdivision proposed to be located north of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in Section 9, be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Subdivision design proposes a good solution to a small piece of property with sever physical limitations. (2) The preliminary plat complies in all respects with the R-4-B Zoning District regulations and subdivision rules and regulations. (3) The preliminary plat has been recommended for approval by the Department of Natural Resources and the City's Engineering Division. AND THAT, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend the waiving of the open space requirement of Section 9.09 of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to abutting property owners, proprietor, City departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Dept., Superintendent of Schools, Fire Dept., Police Dept. and Parks and Recreation Dept. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adoptee , it was #2-22-79 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with a condition of Preliminary Plat approval for Woodcreek Farms Subdivision No. 3 proposed to be located on the east side of Farmington Road between Rayburn and Myrna in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, subject to the following conditions: 6927 (1) that Landscape Plan, Sheet L-1, dated 1/25/79, prepared by Michael Priest Engineers, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that all landscape material as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site by September 15, 1979; and (3) to the extent possible, all existing trees as shown located within the greenbelt easement area and subdivision island areas shall be preserved and maintained in a healthy condition. Mrs. Friedrichs: I would like to alert the Planning Department to alert the petitioner that the dirt is piled 12 to 14 feet on the trunks of some of the trees. The ?f2 r should be taken off quickly. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted. #2-23-79 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 365th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 9, 1979 are approved. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and adopted, it was was #2-24-79 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 366th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on January 23, 1979, are approved. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. #2-25-79 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Plat for Cureter Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located west of Stark Road between the C & 0 Railway and the I-96 Service Drive in Section 28, for the following reasons: (1) The Final Plat conforms to the previously approved Preliminary Plat. (2) The Engineering Division of the City of Livonia recommends approval of the Final Plat. (3) All of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by the City have been satisfied. subject to the following condition: (1) This action is subject to the City Council waiving the bonding requirements on February 7, 1979. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Ew Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 78-6-8-20 by Philip Pisto requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543 the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, submitted in connection with a proposal to construct commercial retail stores on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in Section 4. 6928 • Mr. Andrew: Are there any comments from the Commission or audience? Mrs. Scurto: On the western side of the building is there anyway something other 110 than the standard utility backdoor that could be put in? Fred Armour: I have put some bricking and lighting around the door. Mr. Zimmer: What we started with and what we have here there is a sizeable change. I would like to: have seen that building setback and the size cut down. Mrs. Scurto: Has Mr. Pisto met with the people to the west? Fred Armour: Not to my knowledge. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs, and adopted, it was #2-26-79 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 78-6-8-20 by Philip Pisto requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct commercial retail stores on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan 78D-516, Sheet 1, dated 1/18/79, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc., which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) That Building Elevations as shown on Plan 78D-516, Sheet 3, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) That Landscape Plan 78D-516, Sheet LA, dated 1/29/79, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) That all landscape material as shown on the approved Plan shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new building and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition; (5) That any signage shall be restricted in location to the face of the mansard roof occurring on the east elevation only and absolutely no sandwich boards shall be on this site; and (6) That any mechanical equipment proposed to be located on the roof of the building or anywhere on the site shall be screened from view on all four sides. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Andrew, Morrow, Friedrichs, Kluver NAYS: Smith, Zimmer, Falk ABSENT: Wisler Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. twOn a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was 6929 #2-27-79 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 79-1-8-1 by Robert E. McMonagle requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on the east side of Farmington Road between Seven Mile and Clarita in Section 10, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan 118-961, Sheet 1, dated 1/18/79, prepared by DG Architects which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) That the building elevations as shown on Plan 118-961, dated 1/18/79, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) That a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval within 30 days; and (4) That this approval is made subject to the approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the waiver of the required protective wall along the east property line. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 367th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on February 6, 1979 were adjourned at 11:05 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION II; Jose, J. lk ecretary ATTEST: Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman