HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1979-04-10 6959
MINUTES OF THE 310th REGULAR MEETING
AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 10, 1979, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 370th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the City Planning Commission Office
13325 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan, The meeting was held at the Commission's
Office due to a power shortage at City Hall. This action was concurred in by the
Law Department of the City of Livonia. Mr. Collins, City Planning Staff, directed
people from the City Hall to the City Planning Commission office.
Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing to
order at 8:05 p.m. , with approximately 50 interested people present.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerome Zimmer Joseph Falk Judith Scurto
C. Russell Smith* (left at 9:30 p.m. power failure at work)
Herman Kluver Suzanne Wisler Daniel R. Andrew
MEMBERS ABSENT: R. Lee Morrow
Esther Friedrichs
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.
FOMr. 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. Otherwise
the petition is terminated.
Mr. Falk, Secretary announced the first item on the agenda Petition 79-2-1-9 by
Mounir Consul requesting to rezone property located on the southeast
corner of Curtis and Farmington Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10,
from RUFC to P.S.
Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this matter?
• Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Engineering indicating there are no engineering
problems in connection with this proposal although they advise that
there is need for additional right of way along Curtis Road for subject
property as well as Dr. Ajluni's property adjacent to the east.
Mounir Counsul: Petitioner is proposing a two-story office structure of 22,230 sq. ft.
25951 Continental with basement for storage. The house and two out buildings will be
Circle, Taylor, removed. We have enough parking. We would like to relocate the
MI entranceway to Westmore to reduce the impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Zimmer: Is the parking to the east of the parcel already zoned parking?
liMr.. Consul: Yes.
Mr. Zimmer: Is it operational with the driveway?
Mr. Consul: No.
, 6960
Mrs. Wisler: Any problem dedicating Curtis?
tMrs.Mr. Consul: No.
1
Scurto: What does our future land use plan show for this?
Mr. Nagy: Office.
Mr. Zimmer: Are the buildings that are there now occupied?
Mr. Consul: Yes.
Mr, Zimmer: Does petitioner own property?
Mr. Consul: I represent Dr. Ajluni. He owns it outright.
Mrs. Scurto: Is this the land Dr. Ajluni was going to develop residential?
Mr. Shane: No. The residential development is proposed for property to the east.
1
James Andrews: I live directly behind that property. I represent the first lots on
18131 Mayfield Mayfield. I am involved with the Civic Association. We realize that
the rezoning is just a logical extension of the existing facilities.
We are mostly concerned with avoiding more traffic on Curtis. Most of
the traffic now channels down Curtis to Mayfield to avoid the inter-
section of Six Mile and Farmington.
Mr, Andrew: I saw the Council minutes. Apparently an installation of a traffic
li light at Curtis and Farmington is being considered. The City and County
have agreed. Do you think the installation of a light will have an
impact on the people so that they will turn left onto Farmington.
James Andrews: I doubt it. They would make better time going down Curtis to Mayfield.
The City asked us to pave our road. All the traffic has ruined the
road for us. If there is someway to alleviate the traffic we would wish
that. ' We have no objection to the use. It is a logical extension, a good
land use.
Mr. Kluver: I think the installation of a traffic light should have some impact on the
traffic.
Mr. Andrew: Is there a "no right turn" sign on Curtis?
James Andrews: No.
Mr. Andrew: We will try to do something.
James Andrews: We would like to see them pave it.
Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, would you make a note to see whether a traffic meter on
Mayfield could be installed to check the count?
Mr. Nagy: I will see what can be done. I can't make any promises.
Mr. Andrew: Any further comments?
There was no one else wishing to dicuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public
Hearing on Petition 79-2-1-9 closed.
6961
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and unanimously adopted,
it was
114
#4-54-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-2-1-9 submitted by Mounir Counsul requesting to rezone
property located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road and Curtis in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, from RUFC to P.S. , the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-2-1-9
be approved for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendation of the
Future Land Use Plan.
(2) The proposed rezoning is a logical extension of the adjacent Professional
Service district.
(3) The proposed rezoning is compatible to and in harmony with the
existing uses of the surrounding area.
(4) This rezoning request is consistent with the Planning Commission's
adopted Goals and Policies for future development where land adjoins
a major thoroughfare.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 3/22/79,
and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
li
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk, secretary announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-2-2-4 by
Biltmore Properties Company, requesting a waiver use approval to fill in
flood plain located within the proposed Windridge Village Subdivision #3,
located south of Eight Mile Road, east of Gill Road, in the Northeast 1/4
of Section .4.
•
Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: No, I have no correspondence in the file other then from the Division
of Engineering.
Mr. Kluver: How is the area or amount of cubic feet determined? How do you determine
if it is taken at one location or several?
Mr. Shane: It is up to the Engineering Department and Department of Natural Resources
to make sure it is the same kind of flow it was before. Inthis case
one area should do very nicely.
Mr. Zimmer: Does DNR need to report or concur with any of this?
Mr. Shane: Petitioner has to comply with their regulations. DNR sees the plan
and approves it.
1E Mr. Zimmer: Are there conditions set by Engineering and DNR as to how it is stabilized
in its new condition?
6962
Mr. Shane: There are regulations.
li Mr. Nagy: The soil erosion program includes vegetative protection. It is part
of our ordinance.
Mr. Andrew: Are there any further comments?
There was no one else present wishing to discussthis matter, Mr. Andrew declared the
Public Hearing on Petition 79-2-2-4 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-55-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-2-2-4 as submitted by Biltmore Properties Company
requesting waiver use approval to fill a flood plain area located within
the proposed Windridge Village Subdivision #3, located south of Eight Mile
Road, east of Gill Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-2-2-4
be approved for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use complies with Section 28.04, Flood Plain District
Regulations, of Zoning Ordinance #543.
(2) The Engineering Division, in its report dated 3/6/79, has recommended
approval of this petition.
(3) The proposed alterations of the flood plain will not adversely affect
the neighboring area for the reason that compensating excavation will
be provided.
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the filling and excavating within the flood plain shall be
limited to that as shwon on Plan 22N, revised date 2/23/79,
as prepared by Warner, Cantrell & Padmos, Inc.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed
in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-2-3-3 by Merriman
Industrial Park, requesting to vacate a water main easement located on the
east side of Merriman Road and north of Plymouth Road, in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 26.
Mr. Andrew: Is the petitioner present? Is there any correspondence on this matter?
Mr. Nagy: Petitioner is not present. There is no correspondence on this matter
other than from the Division of Engineering. Engineering Division does
recommend approval.
There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the
li Public Hearing on Petition 79-2-3-3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted,
it was
6963
#4-56-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Puulic Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-2-3-3 as submitted by Merriman Industrial Park requesting
the vacating of an easement located on the east side of Merriman Road,
north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-2-3-3
be approved for the following reasons:
(1) The Engineering Division recommends the subject vacating.
(2) A water main serving Merriman Industrial Park already exists
in an adjacent easement established for that purpose, therefore,
the subject easement is no longer required.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 3/22/79,
and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers
Power Company and City Dept. as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-3-2-5 by Fred J. Armour
requesting a waiver of use approval to locate a transmission replacement
center proposed to be located within an existing building located on the
southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Middlebelt in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 2.
Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this matter?
Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Engineering stating that there are no engineering
problems. All right of way is dedicated.
Mr. Andrew: Briefly relate to the petitioner the deficiencies.
Mr. Shane: The zoning ordinance requires certain setback lines. The present
setback is 8 feet and 50 feet is required. On Middlebelt 100 foot
setback is required and lot is only 118 feet in width so this could
not be met. A 20 foot westerly sideyard is required and there is
approximately 2 feet there. The ordinance requires 1/2 of the required
front yard to be in landscaping and the 1/2 kept in parking and access
drive. This does not meet that requirement. There is 1,649 square feet
provided; and 2,850 square feet is required. Also, the last requirement
is the entire lot to be fenced exclusive of front yard and side yard
on Middlebelt.
Mr. Andrew: Any comments at this point?
Mr. Armour: On this particular piece of property, I cannot understand anyone tearing
down the building whatever goes there•. I thought we would landscape
put a new face on three sides cf the building. It would certainly be
better than a vacant gas station.
Mr. Zimmer: What are the hours of operation of transmission repair shop?
Mr. Armour: It will close at 6 p.m. and open at 7:30 a.m.
Mr. Zimmer: Is there adequate parking?
Mr. Armour: Yes, more than adequate. It exceeds the parking requirements.
6964
Mr. Zimmer: How are the parking requirements determined?
1 Mr. Shane: It is predicated on the number of bays and employees. He has 15
spaces and 6 are required.
•
Mr. Zimmer: Would he be able to fix other things besides transmissions?
Mr. Shane: Unless your approving resolution would allow repairs other than trans-
missions he could not do other kinds of automobile repairs.
Mr. Nagy: You can condition your approval to limit the repair only to that use
as requested.
Mr. Armour: All the actual repairing of the transmissions will be done elsewhere.
This proposal is more of a transmission replacement operation.
Mr. Zimmer: Does petition have any background in the transmission business?
Mr. Armour: He presently has a place at Ford and Middlebelt. He is trying to buy
a 120 x 265 building in Garden City where he would repair and stock
the transmissions. He would call this main repair place for a trans-
mission to be brought. This place would be a type 'where you pull the
car in and out in 2 to 3 hours.
Mr. Kluver: The area to the rear is that paved behind the building?
Mr. Armour: That is paved.
Mr. Kluver: Any proposed use?
Mr. Armour: None.
Mr. Andrew: Any further comments?
Richard Lithgow: I believe an informal precedent was set back in November, 1977.
33151 Plymouth when my company attempted to purchase that property. We were told
Livonia Brake of all the deficiencies by Mr. Nagy and thought it impossible to acquire
Center the parcel. We are now at Plymouth and Merriman and well satisfied
with the area.
. Mr. Andrew: Any further comments?
There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public
Hearing on Petition 79-3-2-5 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-57-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1079 on Petition 79-3-2-5 subitted by Fred J. Armour requesting waiver use
approval to locate a transmission replacement center within an existing
building located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Middlebelt
Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-3-2-5 be denied for
the following reasons:
6965
(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 Section 16.11 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding requirements for fencing.
(4) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed
use complies with Section 19.06, General Waiver Use Requirements
and General standards of the Zoning Ordinance.
(5) The site does not have the capacity to support the proposed use and
at the same time comply with all of the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as
listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Andrew: You have 10 days in which to appeal the decision of this Commission
to the Council.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-3-2-6 and 79-3-2-7 by
1[: Win Schuler's Inc. , requesting a waiver of use approval to construct a
restaurant and approval for a Class C liquor license establishment to be
located in the proposed Win Schuler's Restaurant to be located on the
south side of Six Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road, in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: There is no correspondence.
Mr. Andrew: At the study session it was felt that additional information concerning
outdoor lighting of the parking lot area, location of the transformer
pad, screening of air conditioning units, and whether or not sidewalks
will be required within adjoining right-of-way of Laurel Park South and
Six Mile Road.
Gary Wright: We would like the main power transformer in the eastern area where
115 S. Eagle St. receiving and truck parking is. We will meet the sidewalk requirements.
Marshall, MI As far as lighting we have not found anything we like. We have not
seen anything that are attractive that would compliment the restaurant.
We know we do not want a one-single type that would light the whole area.
Mr. Nagy: Engineering would require sidewalks on Six Mile and South Laurel and
Professional Center Drive (when it becomes a reality) .
4 Mr. Andrew: How do you propose to screen the trash receptacle?
Mr, Wri ght: It will be screened by a wall and it will not be seen from Six Mile
because of landscaping.
Mr. Andrew: What about westbound on Six Mile Road?
6966
Mr, Nagy: There is a high earth bern about 4 or 5 feet. There will be in addition
evergreens and deciduous trees and shrubbery plantings.
Mr. Zimmer: We don't know what is going to happen to the east.
4
Mr, Nagy: It is restricted to P.S.
Mr, Zimmer: They may be faced with looking at the back end of the restaurant.
Mr. Shane: There will be a dense shrubbery row there, about 8 to 10 feet.
Mr. Zimmer: What about the exterior materials?
Mr. Wright: The building will be masonry and brick. The peaks will be wood.
Mr. Zimmer: We need an elevation drawing on all four sides of the building
primarily to show material.
Mrs. Scurto: What about the truck area. Will it be submerged?
Mr. Wright: That was an error. There will be a hydraulic scissor lift.
Mrs. Scurto: Will there be inside storage for trash?
Mr. Wright: No,
Mr, Andrew: I would like to hold up the landscaping until we see the lights.
I think the landscape plan should incorporate the location of that
transformer and how you intend to landscape around that.
IL
Mrs. Wisler: As far as the elevation plans, do you want petitioner to redraw his
plan or label them.
Mr. Zimmer: Add a sheet.
Mr. Andrew: In the resolution we should incorporate a requirement that there be a
cut for the parking lot lighting submitted. Any signage?
Mr. Nagy: They comply as they propose one wall sign.
Mr. Andrew: Any further comments?
' There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public
Hearing on Petition 79-3-2-6 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted,
it was
$4-58-79 RESOLVEd that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-3-2-6 as submitted by Win Schuler's Inc. requesting
waiver use approval to construct a restaurant to be located on the south
side of Six Mile Road and west of Newburgh Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 18, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 79-3-2-6 be approved subject to the following conditions:
IL (1) That Site Plan prepared by David W. Osler & Partners, Inc., which is
hereby approved, shall be adhered to.
• 6967
(2) That a detailed landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission
for approval within thirty (30) days from the date of this approval.
(3) That an illustration of the proposed parking lot lighting be submitted
with the landscape plan for Planning Commission review and approval.
(4) That building elevation plans of all four sides of the proposed
restaurant be submitted.
(5) That approval of this petition is made subject to the enactment
of the change of zoning in connection with Petition 79-2-1-6.
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use is in full compliance with the C-2 Zoning District
regulations as well as the waiver use requirements of Section 11.03
(c) of the Zoning Ordinance.
(2) The site has excess capacity to support the intended use.
(3) The proposed use will be compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding uses of the area.
•
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as
listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted,
(110
it was
$4-59-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-3-2-7 as submitted by Win Schuler's Inc. requesting
waiver use approval for a Class C liquor License within a restaurant
proposed td be located on the south side of Six Mile Road, west of Newburgh
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-3-2-7 be approved
subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the change of zoning in connection with Petition 79-2-1-6
be enacted; and
(2) That the Class C Liquor Licensed operation shall be developed in
accord with the proposed restaurant floor plan as set forth on
Plan dated 3/15/79, prepared by David W. Osler & Partners, Inc.
for the following reasons:
(1) The proposed use is in full compliance with the C-2 zoning district
regulations as well as the waiver use requirements of Section 11.03(h)
of the Zoning Ordinance.
1[1 (2) The site and the proposed restaurant facility has sufficient capacity
1 to support the intended use.
(3) The proposed use is compatible and appropriate to the proposed
restaurant facility as well as the surrounding and established uses
of the area.
6968
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed
4 in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-3-2-8 by Lord's House
requesting a waiver of use approval to construct a school to be located
on the west side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail, north of
Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this petition?
Mr. Nagy: There are no storm sewers available. There are no reports from fire
police or inspection as yet.
Mr. Andrew: I am concerned that we have heard nothing concerning the traffic.
When did Planning send the letter?
f
Mr. Nagy: March 20, 1979.
*Mr. Smith left at 9:30 p.m. due to power problems at place of employment.
Bob Shear: I represent the Lord's House. I am presently a Livonia schoolteacher.
16931 Franklin
Northville
1[
4 Mr. Andrew: How soon do you plan to start?
Mr. Shear: As soon as possible. We plan on opening in September of this year.
Mr. Andrew: Do you presently have a school?
Mr. Shear: No.
Mr, Andrew: What kind of school are you proposing to build?
Mr. Shear: It will be preschool (1 grade below kindergarten) to 12th grade.
Mrs. Wisler: Have you considered buying a building?
' Mr. Shear: I started looking last September and the information I was given from the
Board of Education is that they cannot sell to any church a building for
school purposes. They will have a federal rap for bussing on their
hands.
Mrs. Wisler: How could you consider building a school when we will have school
buildings boarding up?
Mr. Andrew: That is a legal situation, we have no control over.
Mr. Falk: You would advocate a school like this yourself. Being a teacher you
110 are aware of the problems in this City. What is your rationale.
0
Mr. Shear: I have been in Livonia for 17 years and teaching here. We want our
children in a Christian school.
Mr. Falk: Where are the teachers coming from?
6969
Mr. Shear: I have applications from people from Livonia schools, from our
congregration, from the other school systems. Probably all of
4 them would not be certified.
a
Mr. Falk: Where are the children coming from? What is your primary source?
Mr. Shear: I have enrolled so far 70 children. Eleven are from Detroit; 15 from
Garden City; 9 from Livonia; 9 from Westland; and the rest are from
Pontiac, Romulus and Ypsilanti.
Mr. Falk: Is the work on the proposed school going to be bidded out?
Mr. Shear: It will be a family affair.
Mr. Falk: What is the estimated cost of the venture?
Mr. Shear: Without the two end rooms the cost will be $1.6 million. The materials
involved are over $600,000.
Mrs. Wisler: Would you consider leasing a facility temporarily?
Mr. Shear: They will not lease. .
Mrs. Wisler: If a facility could be found would you lease?
Mr. Shear: No, we are not interested in leasing.
IL Mrs. Wisler: I am opposed. I understand that no other building would be suitable
but a school building but the fact so many schools are closing it seems
to me that this might be a rather good indication that the success of
another school is questionable.
Mr. Shear: The cost to revamp would be too high.
Mr. Zimmer: How many people does this school propose to hold?
Mr. Shear: 400 plus. I anticipate opening with 200 to 300 students.
Mr. Zimmer: How many classrooms?
Mr. Shear: 14.
Mr. Zimmer: Do your classrooms meet the requirements set by the state?
Mr. Shear: We have more than we need.
Mr. Zimmer: What will the materials be?
Mr. Shear: Cement block with brick over it.
Mr. Zimmer: Is the road two lanes?
Mr. Nagy: It is but will ultimately be widened. There is need for additional
right of way.
Mr. Zimmer: Are you going to have busses?
Mr. Shear: We will have one bus shortly. We may have two if anyone else gives
us a bus. We won't turn any busses down.
6970
Mr. Zimmer: Are you aware of the Livonia Drain No. 29 problem? You show
1 Livonia drain on your plan,
Mr. Shear: I was not aware of the problem. Whatever needs to be done will be done.
Mrs. Scurto: Will you have any overnight care?
Mr. Shear: No. The students will come daily in car pools and of course we will
have one bus.
Mr. Nagy: Will this be built in phases as the church was?
Mr. Shear: It will be done all in one shot. It will be a labor of love. This
will be an easier structure than a church. I brought with me the
Attorney General opinions that state legally what powers you have and
we have in terms of zoning and building a school in any city. Anything
that applies to the public applies to the private school.
Mr. Falk: Are you affiliated with anyone?
Are
Mr. Shear: We have no affiliation with anyone. Al Nork in New York is heading
up similar work there.
Dwight Morris: I own the agricultural property to the north. I would not be in
37633 Ann Arbor favor of a school next to my property.
Trail
toResident: Why?
Mr. Morris: Schools take the value of the property down.
Mr. Zimmer: Do you petitioners own the property?
Mr. Shear: Yes, it is free and clear.
Mr. Zimmer: What is the present zoning?
Mr. Shear: It is zoned now for a church. That doesn't make a difference
according to the Attorney General opinions.
Mrs. Scurto: Is the house being left there? A dual use of property?
Mr. Shear: That is covered in the Attorney General's opinion. We would like to
leave it there at least for several years.
Mr. Andrew: The City has control over the construction portion of building the school.
Mr. Zimmer: Did you bring us the attorney general's opinions to persuade us?
Did you feel you would come into this with some kind of problem.
Mr. Shear: I felt there might be a lot of "ifs".
IL Mr. Zimmer: I personally do not approve of your approach.
Shirley Reinhold: We are the owners of the three parcels south of the church. We
9229 Newburgh have been patiently waiting for something to happen with Livonia
Drain No. 29 for 10 years and I was hopeful that multiple dwellings
would be forthcoming. We have had this property in the family for
45 years. I would rather not see the school go there.
6971
Mr. Andrew: What does the future land use plan show?
4 Mr. Nagy: Low density residential.
Mrs. Wisler: According to the Attorney General's opinions you brought, the City
does not have any say so about the use of the property.
Mr. Shear: I was hoping that I would have received a copy of the opinion but
all I had time to get were these numbers. According to the Attorney
General you don't have the power to say yes or no on any type of property
for school use. It does not have to be rezoned.
Mr. Andrew: Public schools are exempt from the building permit.
Mr. Feinberg: What Mr. Shear has stated is that the City does not have the power
to say whether or not a school can be built on any piece of property.
Mr. Andrew: Are there any more comments?
•
There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public
Hearing on Petition 79-3-2-8 closed.
•
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-3-2-8 as submitted by the Lord's House requesting
1[: waiver use approval to construct a school to be located on the west side
of Newbv‘rgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail, north of Joy Road, in the
Southeast ]./4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-3-2-8 be tabled until
April 24, 1979 in order to get clarification from Fire and Police.
A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Scurto, Falk, Wisler,
NAYS: Andrew, Zimmer
• ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Andrew: I would like to suggest that April 24, a special meeting be called for
a "yes" or "no" vote on this petition as petitioner wishes to occupy
this building by September.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was
#4-60a-79 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission reconsider the tabling motion.
A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following:
AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Andrew, it was
6972
J
4 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, passed the gavel to Mrs. Wisler.
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
April 10, 1979 on Petition 79-3-2-8 by the Lord's House requesting
waiver use approval to construct a school to be located on the west
side of Newburgh Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail, north of Joy Road,
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-3-2-8 be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) That there is no problem with individual people or groups wanting
to gather together and educate their children or other children
in any kind of an environment (something different than the norm)
as they see fit.
(2) That the site plan complies in regard to school structure.
(3) That the waiver use approval complies with all requirements of the
ordinance of the City of Livonia.
subject to the following conditions: '
(1) That a detailed landscape plan be furnished to this Commission
within 90 days.
(2) That a revised site plan be furnished to this department for record
1[0
purposes showing the method of storm water run-off on the site due
to the absence of Livonia Drain No. 29.
Mrs. Scurto: I find an inconsistency here in regard to a residential use with
another property use. Several petitions have had residential uses on
the property. Whatever and whenever the secondary plan was made,
that first use was removed. That condition should be added to the
resolution.
Mr. Andrew: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Zimmer: I concur in that as a condition.
• (3) That the structure that is existing there now be removed prior to the
occupancy of the school.
Mr. Falk: In the past we have held up petitions that were smaller than this
because of lack of response from police and fire. I am not prepared
to approve any resolution without these essential reports.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following;
AYES: Zimmer, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver, Scurto, Falk, Wisler
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs,
'4Theabove motion for approval failed for lack of support.
4
J
6973
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, for a denying resolution (reason that petition
was lacking reports on traffic impact on the area) there was no support.
1!
1
J On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Andrew and unanimously adopted,
it was
$4-60-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-3-2-8 as submitted by the Lord's House requesting
waiver use approval to construct a school on the west side of Newburgh
Road, south of Ann Arbor Trail, north of Joy Road, in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 79-3-2-8 be tabled until April 17, 1979 in
order to get clarification from Fire and Police on the impact of 400
students being transported and in order to get clarification of the
Attorney General rulings.
Mrs. Wisler declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Feinberg: I am not sure we have these attorney general opinions in our office
and I am not sure we can get these to you by then.
Mrs. Wisler passed the gavel back to Mr. Andrew.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is proposed Windridge Village Sub-
division #3, amended plat, being a part of the northeast 1/4 of Section 4,
City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan; such plat being located south of
II3 Eight Mile Road and on the east side of Gill Road.
Mr. Shane: The revision reflects an expansion of the plat. Petition purchased
additional land and expanded the plat a little. The stub street
to the north has also been eliminated.
Mr. Zimmer: What is the zoning north of the plat?
Mr. Shane: R-7.
Mr. Zimmer: There will be no access problem to the proposed R-7.
Mr. Nagy: We did a study. There is enough land area for a road to complete
a loop turn.
Mrs. Wisler: As I recall Mr. Antonelli lives up where the cul-de-sac is, I suppose
this will eliminate his problem. I don't think that the suggestion
for stubbing came from this Commission. It camefrom a different
body. I object to this. I prefer- to see it go through.
Mr. Andrew: Do we have a copy of the plat before this revision?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. The reason for the elimination of the street, it was felt that
too much traffic would go through to Eight Mile Road and avoid the
intersection of Eight Mile and Farmington Road, along with joining the
two dissimilar land uses.
Andrew: Any reports from police or fire?
[ Mr.
6974
Mr. Nagy: Yes. They find the traffic situation to be satisfactory with the
exception there is only one access to this subdivision east of the
flood plain which would involve a run west from Farmington. This
would be a disadvantage for emergency vehicles. I don't think that
they are commenting on the stubbing of the proposed street to the
north.
Mr. Zimmer: That observation was no different than the other.
Mrs. Scurto: With the acquistion of this property is a boulevard possible.
Mr. Shane: There is 120 feet in depth. It would be necessary to remove the house
to get additional depth.
Mr. Zimmer: Does the petitioner own the piece that is not developed.
Gil Franklin: Yes. It is our intention to have the house remain.
Mr. Andrew: What is the long range goal?
Mr. Franklin: We hope to keep it as a unit. We plan on renting it. It is a
nice house. There is a commercial use that is going to be removed,
the use is in the rear. It would be a tremendous burden on us if
it were to be changed.
Mrs. Scurto: What about the stub street?
Mr. Franklin: That is not a significant factor. When it reached council level
they did not like the access into the multiple family development.
We don't have a preference for this plan or that. We just want
something approved so we can go ahead with the subdivision.
Mrs. Scurto: I still feel you owe us a boulevard there.
Mr. Franklin: I realize that this is not your favorite entrance.
Mr, Andrew: Any further comments?
There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public
Hearing on Revised Preliminary Plat for Windridge Village Subdivision #3 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Kluver, and adopted, it was
#4-61-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the Revised Preliminary Plat for Windridge Village Subdivision
#3 proposed to be located on the south side of Eight Mile Road between Gill
and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, be approved for the
following reasons:
(1) The proposed lot sizes meet or exceed the R-3 Zoning District requirements
of the zoning classification for the land area involved.
(2) The subdivision is well laid out and provides for good lot/street
relationships with existing adjacent development as well as adjacent
undeveloped lands, thus allowing for possible future development of
those parcels.
(3) The proposed subdivision layout is well integrated with the previously
approved Windridge Village Subdivision #1 and #2.
6975
subject to the following condition:
(1) That the deed restrictions of the subdivision shall provide for the
perpetuation and maintenance of thereenbelts as
g proposed on the
preliminary plat and shall be recorded as an integral part of the
final plat recording process.
FURTHER RESOLVE 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Smith, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andre
NAYS: Scurto
ABSENT: Friedrichs, Morrow
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Kluver, and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-62-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979 on Petition 79-1-1-5 by Jeanne M. Hildebrandt requesting to rezone
property located west of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and St. Martins
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, from RUFA and R-1 to C-2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
79-1-1-5 be denied for the following reasons:
4
(1) The proposed change of zoning is in conflict with the adopted Future
Land Use Plan of the City of Livonia.
(2) The proposed zoning would be detrimental to surrounding uses of
the area and would diminish the continued use and enjoyment of
neighboring residential properties located to the northeast, north
and west.
(3) The proposed change of zoning would adversely affect the area from a
traffic standpoint as the abutting street of St. Martins is already
overburdened with traffic and the proposed use would only compound
an already acute problem. St. Martins is a Class B road according
to Section 6-169(k( of the Livonia Code of Ordinances and is not a
designated truck route and the proposed use and truck traffic generated
as a result thereof would severly jeopardize the long-term maintenance
of this road.
(4) The proposed change of zoning would not promote the orderly growth and
development of the surrounding area in accord with the Future Land Use
Plan but would tend to encourage the further encroachment of commercial
development into an essentially residential area.
6976
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 3/22/79
•
and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company,
Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adbpted, it was
#4-63-79 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,
so as to provide for the incorporation of the following described property;
Subject property is located south of Margareta Drive between Newburgh
Road and the I-275 Freeway in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7.
FURTHER RESOLVEp, 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 accordnance with the provisions of Act 285
of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended.
aIt was determined that the above item be scheduled for the April 24th meeting.
4
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for
Laurel Park South Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located on the west
side of Newburgh Road between Five and Six Mile Roads in Section 18.
Mrs. Scurto: I would like to make an approving resolution.
There was no support for an approving resolution.
Mr. Zimmer: The east subdivision now has access all the way west. The former
plat they were shut out from the westerly area other than trespassing.
,Mr. Nagy: Yes. The revised plat now provides for access through an area of Public
Land dedication.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Kluver and adopted, it was
#4-64-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,
1979, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that the Preliminary Plat approval for Laurel Park South Subdivision No. 2
proposed to be located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Five and
Six Mile Roads in Section 18, be denied for the following reasons:
1 (1) The proposed preliminary plat does not adhere to the principles of
good subdivision design standards as required in Section 2.02 of the
Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia in that the
street layout fails to provide for reasonable access into the subdivision
for emergency equipment.
6977
(2) The proposed subdivision layout does not conform to the existing plan
of streets for this section of the city in that physical connection
is not provided to those adjacent residential streets which were
previously platted to provide for such connections.
4
(3) The proposed street layout does not provide sufficient and convenient
means of access to and from the available major thoroughfares in the
area contrary to the spirit of the State of Michigan Subdivision Control
Act of 1967, as amended, wherein it requires the governing body to
" (a) Reject a plat which is isolated from or which isolates other
lands from existing public streets unless suitable access is provided."
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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following:
AYES: Falk, Andrew, Wisler, Kluver, Zimmer
NAYS: Scurto
ABSTAIN: None •
ABSENT: Smith, Freidrichs, Morrow
• •
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
v Mr. Andrew: This will be referred to the City Council for their consideration.
You will not be notified by either letter or advertising. Call the
council office to be notified and leave your names.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer and unanimously adopted,
it was
#4-65-79 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 369th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings
held by the City Planning Commission on March 20, 1979 be approved.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
#4-66-79 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 327th Special Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on April 3, 1979 be approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: None
• ABSTAIN: Scurto
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-2-8-4P by M. Sitto
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance
#543, as amended by Ordinance #1306, submitted in connection with a proposal
to construct a convenience store on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail east of
t
Newburgh Road in Section 32.
6978
Mr. Andrew: Are there any comments from the Commission?
e
Mr. Kluwer: What about the signage?
4
Mr. Sitto: The sign is located in the lower corner near Ann Arbor Trail.
It goes along with the code. We have three lights in the parking
lot. The trash compactor will be inside but the trash receptacle
will be too larger. It will look like a piece of steel sticking out
from the building. We will not have that much trash to utilize such
a large inside unit.
Mr. Kluver: Why do you propose an inside unit?
Mr. Sitto: The Zoning Board of Appeals required an inside compactor. Actually
we would be able to fill up one small trash can a week with the trash
we will have.
Mr. Andrew: The resolution by the Zoning Board had a condition which read:
"that the refuse will be contained in a compactor located
inside the building.•
Mr. Nagy: We will need a clarification of that regarding that metal container the
petition says will be outside the building wall.
Mr. Andrew: What about the traffic? How much will you generate?
Mr. Sitto: Not much.
Mr. Kluver: What kind of lights will you have?
10
4
Mr. Sitto: Directional, sodium.
Mr. Andrew: There was an interesting study made in Chicago relating to the
sodium lights and their effect on the landscaping.
Mrs. Wisler: How tall will the lights be?
Mr. Sittp: 20 feet.
Mr. Kluver: Decorative lamps would cut down some on the light.
. Mr. Andrew: Height could be changed also. Do you intend to initiate construction
prior to the time you obtain a beer and wine license.
Mr. Sitto: We will go ahead with the construction immediately. The construction
of this building is not predicated upon the beer and wine license
as we dont see any problem with obtaining one.
Mr. Falk: We denied another petitioner because of the proximity of the children
and the schools.
Mrs. Wisler: We have discussed this corner many times. Does this meet future land use
plan?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
4
f
Scurto: Eighteen hours of operation of this store. That is a lot of hours.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was
6979
RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
4 Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1306, the
City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 79-3-8-4P by M.
Sitto requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted
• in connection with a proposal to construct a convenience store on the
south side of Ann Arbor Trail, east of Newburgh Road in Section 32, subject
to the following conditions; etc.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Wisler,
NAYS: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Andrew
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
The above motion fails for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and adopted, it was
#4-67-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1306, the
City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 79-2-8-4P by M. Sitto
' requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18:58 submitted in
connection with a proposal to construct a convenience store on the south
side of Ann Arbor Trail, east of Newburgh Road in Section 32, for the
following reasons:
tea
4 (1) The Site Plan 79-151, Sheet C-1 prepared by K & S Associates fails
to provide for safe traffic circulation to and from the subject
site given the ultimate improvement of Newburgh Road. The off-
street parking arrangement would have automobiles back over sidewalk
or pedestrian crossings in conflict with the requirements of Zoning
Ordinance #543.
(2) The petitioner has stated that condition #1 of the Zoning Board
of Appeals resolution dated February 22, 1979 regarding appeal
• case #7903-20 by subject petitioner cannot be fully complied with.
Said condition #1 states "that the refuse of the store will be
contained in a compactor located inside the building." The petitioner
states that compacted refuse will be stored outside.
• (3) The Site Plan 79-151, Sheet C-1 prepared by K & S Associates fails
to adequately protect and maintain the ongoing enjoyment and appropriate
uses of nearby neighboring property; a requirement contained in Section
19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Andrew
NAYS: Kluver, Wisler
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Andrew: You have ten days to appeal this to the City Council
Mrs. Wisler: I would like to see the planning staff put this on our agenda to look
at this zoning.
Mr. Kluver: And also could we identify the vacant gas stations in the City.
6980
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and adopted, it was
1[0 #4-68-79 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
Road and Clarita in Section 10, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
(1) That Landscape Plan dated 4/4/79, signed by Robert E. McMonagle,
which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(2) That all approved landscaping shall be installed on the site
before a Certificate of Occupancy for the Building is issued; and
(3) That all landscaping installed on the site shall be permanently
maintained in a healthy condition.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Falk, Wisler, Andrew
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Scurto
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
tMr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
#4-69-79 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve, the Landscape
Plan submitted hit J. D'Adamo in connection with a condition of approval of
Petition 78-12-2-32 'for waiver use approval to construct a veterinary
clinic on the north side of Joy Road between Oporto and Melvin in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, subject to the following conditions:
(1) That the Landscape Plan prepared by D'Adamo Veterinary Hospital
dated 3/22/79, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to;
(2) That all landscaping as shown on the approved Landscape plan shall
be installed on the site before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued
for the building; and
(3) That all landscape materials installed on the site shall be
permanently maintained in a healthy condition.
Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-2-8-5P by Fred J.
Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1306, submitted in connection
with a proposal to construct a legal office building on the northeast
corner of Schoolcraft Road and Stamford in Section 21.
Mr. Nagy: There were some efforts to try to revise the plan but after a few
4 alterations they settled on the original plan.
Clarence Charest: The wall was reduced by 3 1/2 feet changing the pitch of the roof.
Under the ordinance provision is made for you to approve "site plan" on this
particular piece of property. The ordinance does not refer to or allude
6981
to your right to review architectural plan or design. You have the right
to determine whether or not the site plan meets the ordinance. The only
comments I have received from this Commission are directed toward architectural
4 design. I challenge your right to review my architectural design. You are
. not vested in that authority in any way. I would like you to read the
ordinance so there is no misunderstanding as to your rights. If I may ask
your city attorney who is present if I am correct. I desire to build and
if I have a particular design concept whether you thing it is pretty is not
within the limits of the ordinance. I am willing to invest my money and I
happen to like my design. What you think about my design is not relevant.
If you don't like my design that is not within your purview.
Mrs. Scurto: If everyone had a design such as this along Schoolcraft Road it would
look very bad.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1306, the
City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition 79-1-8-5P by Fred J.
Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 sub-
mitted in connection with a proposal to construct a legal office building
on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft Road and Stamford in Section 21,
for the following reasons:
(1) That a building being used as a wall is objectionable.
(2) That this plan is not good site development.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Zimmer, Scurto, Wisler
NAYS: Kluver, Falk, Andrew
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
The above motion failed for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was
#4-70-79 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #1306, the
City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 79-2-8-5P by
Fred J. Armour requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a legal office
building on the northeast corner of Schoolcraft Road and Stamford in
Section 21, for the following reason:
(1) The plans complie with the PS District Regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance #543.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Kluver, Zimmer, Falk, Andrew
NAYS: Scurto, Wisler
ABSENT: Smith, Friedrichs, Morrow
4
4. 6982
•
1[0 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 370th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 10, 1979 were
adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
...4i_ /Ai - „tr. _ _
Jo-_ •h J. irlr ecretary
.":11#
ATTEST: r
Daniel R. ndrew, Chairman
4
•
•
1