Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1980-01-15 7195 MINUTES OF THE 384th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA i On Tuesday, January 15, 1980, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 384th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing to order at 8:05 p.m. , with approximately 40 interested people present. Members Present: Esther Friedrichs Jerome Zimmer R. Lee Morrow Suzanne Wisler Daniel R. Andrew C. Russell Smith Joseph Falk Judith Scurto I . Members Absent: Herman Kluver 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. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-1-41 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Cardwell in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, from P.S. to C-2. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this matter? Mr. Nagy: Only from the Division of Engineering and it is indicated there would be no engineering problems with this proposal. Mr. Andrew: We are attempting to provide for one uniform zoning classification in this particular portion of the block. of Plymouth Road. Is there anyone present wishing to be heard on this matter? There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Andrew, Chairman declared the public hearing on Petition 79-12-1-41 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, it was #1-3-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-12-1-41 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Cardwell in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25, from P.S. to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 79-12-1-41 be tabled. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 1;110 AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Smith ABSENT: Kluver 7196 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. tMr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-1-42 by Ager Building Company to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3-A and C-1 to R-1A and P.L. to R-1A. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence on this matter? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated December 20, 1979 from Gary D. Clark, • Engineering, stating there are no engineering problems. Mr. Andrew: Is petitioner or his representative present? I Mr. Ager: To begin I had exchanged a portion of my property with the City of 27620 Farming- Livonia. It was an even exchange for a similar sized piece. The ton Road portion that I gave the City of Livonia tied in with their park on the Farmington opposite side of the Tarabusi Drain and they in turn gave me a portion Hill, MI of the property on my side of the Tarabusi. That has been approved by the City of Livonia and the deeds will change as soon as the title committment comes out. I am asking for R-1 zoning. As you know I have developed a number of pieces in the City of Livonia for the past 12 or 13 years. In the past 4 years there has been about 10 times the amount of the R-3 approved as R-1. With the prices of pieces of land, development costs and prices of homes the lowest price house is about $80,000. I felt that this piece of property is situated in an area that has a lot of lower priced homes. If I am successful in getting R-1 zoning the difference would be 11 lots. Rather than 67 lots, I would have 78 lots. The homes would be in the $70,000 range. This would give us a better chance to sell the homes versus the larger lots. That is about all I have to say. Mr. Andrew: Are you the owner of parcel L-1? Mr. Nagy: Ardmore Convalescent Home Inc. is the owner of that parcel. Mr. Andrew: Do you own Parcel N? Mr. Ager: No. Mrs. Scurto: On the survey sheet the 31% of the units of ownership are 100 foot wide lots. Is it safe to say that those 19 homes are built on only 1 a portion of that lot? Mr. Nagy: The lots could be split and additional homes built on the property. Mrs. Scurto: I would not like to see R-1 lots go in this area. A case in point I would like to bring to the Commission's attention is behind Cloverdale on Plymouth Road. You could play cards with the neighbors without leaving _ your home. That development is R-1 and I would like to see at least R-2 here. Mrs. Friedrichs: Were the lots on the south side of Seven Mile considered at all in the survey. 1 :: Mr. Nagy: The survey reflects only the homes within the Westmore Subdivision which is only the north side of Seven Mile Road. Mr. Morrow: If they went to 70 foot lots there would be 67 lots. 7197 Mr. Ager: Correct. to Mrs. Wisler: Have you considered R-2? Mr. Ager: I considered it. This is a difficult piece of property because it is sitting behind a fruit market and the area is not quite impressive. The City of Livonia seems to be outlawing 60 foot lots. There are certain side yard requirements. We have in R-1 a 14 foot restriction and in R-2 a 16 foot restriction. That is only a difference of 2 feet between homes. I have finished a subdivision near Schoolcraft and it is R-1. It is a beautiful subdivision. The people are happy. This is an opportunity to get below the average $80,000.00 home. In the last 4 years there have been about 1,000 R-3 lots built on and only 100 R-1 lots. Mr. Al Potock: The developer received 7.2 acres of land outside the flood plain from the City. We originally had 25 acres and ended up with 20 acres. The City received an equal piece but they actually ended up with more property because much of the property within the flood plain can be utilized by the City for park purposes, such as a golf course. The builder cannot utilize as much of the property within the flood plain. Mr. Falk: Would it have been possible to postthis property for sale by the City to a private individual? Mr. Nagy: The property could not be made available on the open market. The HUD restrictions are that a piece of equal value must be exchanged for this property and also utilized for park purposes. to Mr. Zimmer: What will be the ingress and egress of the subdivision? Mr. Ager: We will develop a new street out of the subdivision onto Seven Mile and we will be required to pave Shadyside. Mr. Smith: I think Mr. Ager made a wise choice in the exchange. I also think the City made a wise choice. I think as Commissioners we have the responsibility to see what the zoning is already and not what the developer feels fits best in there. I would strongly urge that you look closer to R-2. Mr. Zimmer: In R-1 a 5 foot side yard on each side of the property is required totally 10 feet. In R-2 a 6 foot side yard on each side of the property is required totally 12 feet. Does the garage count? Mr. Nagy: If they are attached to the principal dwelling they count. Mr. Ager: I would have to build under 1,400 square feet. • Mr. Potectk: Those houses Mrs. Scurto referred to are over 1,400 sq. ft. at Plymouth Rd. Ed Foltz: I am a real estate broker and I am here on behalf of Doris and Ralph 29865 Six Mi Cofvin. There will be available at least five pieces of property for sale along Seven Mile Road that are zoned R-3A. What would the R-1 zoning do to the value of these parcels along Seven Mile? 7198 Mr. Andrew: Would there be an access problem if development of the R-3A property would come about? tI Mr. Nagy: I could see no problem of access for the R-3A. A court type road could be brought down the middle as Mr. Ager has proposed in his subdivision. From a residential standpoint the value of the R-3A would not be affected. Doris Kostin: Our homes are of lesser value than $70,000 but we do take pride in 19241 Shadyside the maintenance of our homes. Traffic is a problem in our area. We ' • have so much traffic from the fruit market. This development would add a lot of traffic problems to an already very bad situation. 1 Mildred Litzau: I feel with larger lots there would be less homes and that means 19319 Westmore less traffic. Mrs. Iadipaulo: We were the previous owners of the property that the builder recently 32404 W. 7 Mi acquired. It was sold to the City for a parkdirt cheap. Now the City exchanges it and the builder builds something we don't want. We didn't want a park and we don't want R-1. Mr. Andrew: Any additional comments? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public hearing on Petition 79-12-1-42 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted, it was L #1-4-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-12-1-42 by Ager Building Company requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3A and C-1 to R-lA and P.L. to R-1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the petition until February 26, 1980. A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Scurto, Falk, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Zimmer, Morrow ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-11-2-26 by Donald T. Hayes requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License in connection with an existing party store located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Angling and Antago in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence on this matter? Mr. Nagy: We have the usual engineering letter of no engineering problems. Mr. Hayes: The nearest liquor store is east of Inkster in Detroit and at the corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt at Drugland. There is a one mile seperation. I am in the center. I will operate from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. and noon to 8 p.m. on Sunday. Mr. Andrew: Do you own lot 13? Mr. Hayes: Yes. 7199 Mr. Andrew: It is 20 feet wide? Mr. Hayes: It is. Mr. Andrew: Do you drive over the sidewalk to use the parking lot? Mr. Hayes: Yes and there is also an alley. Mrs. Scurto: That is an Ordinance violation to drive over or back over the sidewalk. Is the petition illegal? Mr. Andrew: The building is deficient and utilizing a parcel of land; however, in order to park there you have to drive over the sidewalk. The waiver use standing before us is sound. Mr. Zimmer: Could you drive in that alley, park in the lot and at least park two cars on lot 13? Mr. Nagy: You could probably get six cars there. Mr. Andrew: How many parking spots are required for this building? Mr. Nagy: Eight, possibly nine but that is a rough calculation. The building is 20 x 85 feet and I am using those dimensions. The building to the east I believe is a beauty shoppe and parks in the public right- of-way. Mr. Andrew: Do you own property to the east? ILMr. Hayes: No. Mr. Andrew: You own lots 12 and 13. Mr. Hayes: Yes. Mr. Zimmer: How long have you been the owner of this property? Mr. Hayes: Five years. Mr. Zimmer: This is the only service expansion is this request before us tonight? Mr. Hayes: Yes. Mr. Andrew: When you bought this business you bought the SDM license? Mr. Hayes: It was transferred to me. Mrs. Scurto: What kind of surface is on lot 13? Mr. Hayes: Gravel. Mrs. Scurto: My hangup is only the parking. Would you be amenable to improving that lot and going to the Zoning Board to appeal the deficient parking spots? 4 Mr. Hayes: Yes, I would do anything you desire. Mr. Andrew: If you got a liquor license do you think business would increase during the busy time? 7200 Mr. Hays: No. Mr. Mufarreh: My business is across the street. I have been in this location 27845 W. 7 Mi. for 12 years. We have also applied for an SDD license. We have also applied to the City. We would hope you would postpone making your decision tonight until you have both before you and consider the pros and cons of both petitions. Mrs. Friedrichs: You both have a SDM. Mr. Mufarreh: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Are there any further comments? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-11-2-26 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #1-5-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition 79-11-2-26 as submitted by Donald T. Hayes requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License in connection with an existing party store located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Angling and Antago in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table the petition until January 22, 1980. tabling A roll call vote on the foregoing/resolution resulted in the following: I: AYES: Friedrichs, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler NAYS: Smith, Zimmer, Andrew ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-2-28 by Robert German requesting waiver use approval to construct an office building on the north side of Five Mile Road between Woodring and Loveland in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Andrew: Any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have our usual Engineering Dept. report indicating no engineering problems. Mr. Andrew: Has the petitioner been before the Zoning Board? Mr. Nagy: On December 11, 1979 the petitioner was granted a backyard setback of • 9 feet. The Ordinance requires 15 feet. The 6 foot deficiency was waived. The protective wall was waived for three years. On December 4, 1979 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted an extension of parking use for a distance of 12 feet into a residential zone and deficient parking of 5 units. The protective wall which was waived for three years is 7201 • that portion behind the pump house. The wall behind the Brashear building was waived for 90 days in order to give Mr. German a chance s to talk to the neighbor, and resolve the differences with the northerly neighbor. R. German: I would like to start in the spring or the summer to convert the pump 31660 Bobrich house into office. At the rear of lot 76a the neighbor to the north of me in this particular situation the best thing would be to put up a wall. Mr. Andrew: What type of wall will you erect? Mr.. German: Poured concrete with simulated brick. Mr. Andrew: Do you plan on having any freestanding lighting in the parking lot? Mr. German: I had not planned on it. ]Ir. Andrew: My concern is that I would not like any lights shining at the residents. I would like to see any lighting placed on the exterior of the buildings, or any freestanding lights be shielded so as there is no glare to the north. Mr. German: I had not planned to put any lights. The lighting from the Brashear building is enough. Mr. Andrew:IL Will there be an outside dumpster? Mr. German: No. Mr. Smith: Will there by any heating units on the roof? Mr. German: No. Mr. Smith: Will the parking lot be as it stands today. Mr.. German: The parking lot will be enlarged. Mrs. Scurto: Is the landscaping on this plan the way we see it on the existing office building of Brashear or is it all new? Mr. Nagy: It is all new. Mr. German: The parking lot will have oneentrance and a separate exit. Robert Walter: The Brashear building poses a problem for us now. What type • Michigan National of office building will be put in? Bank, Five Mi Mr. Andrew: General office uses in both Brashear and the pump house. Mr. Walter: How many additional parking places will be put in? Mr. German: 15 or 20 spaces. Mr. Andrew: There will be 46 on the total site. 7202 • 1 James Thornton: I live two lots from the proposed building. If you ever tried to get 15342 Woodring down Woodring to Five Mile on Friday around 5 p.m. it sure is a mad- 4 I: house. Why doesn't he tear down the pump house and make it all parking. What about all these variances? Mr. Andrew: It is a matter of economics. The primary access to the parking lot will be on the east side of the structure. We are trying to broaden the use and by so doing we would hope to eliminate some heavy traffic pattern such as might be associated with doctors offices. This is a . legal petition with the variances. The variances were not granted by this Commission but by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Thornton: I would hope that you gentlemen look at the traffic problem more carefully. Webber Biglane: I want the wall as I am the neighbor to the north of Brashear building. 15325 Loveland Laura Toy: I have lived and watched the area grow for 20 years. Thereis a lot of traffic on those streets. Woodring is also the entrance into Woodcreek Subdivision. Traffic is a real problem for the area. Mr. Smith: This petition is giving us an opportunity to upgrade a building that is presently an eyesore. We are talking more or less like we are building a new building. Mrs. Friedrichs: Sometime ago when the bank parking lot was put in the nei4hbors 1:: had under consideration the closing of Woodring with a barricade. The neighbor's decided against the closing of Woodring. In my opinion that would have helped the traffic situation. Mrs. Scurto: Possibly a "no left turn" onto Loveland at the parking lot would help. I feel that the bank's first five parking spaces closest to Five Mile will be taken away. Mr. Andrew: Enforcement by the bank will be needed. Mr. Zimmer: How many parking spaces currently exist at Brashear? Mr. German: 25 to 30. Mr. Andrew: Have you considered purchasing property north of you? Mr. German: I have no need for it. Mr. Thornton: He does have a need for additional parking. Mr. Morrow: General office building will decrease the intensity of traffic. There is a higher control of the people that park there versus doctors patients, etc. 1 Mr. Thornton: We are talking about possibilities. The man may sell the building after he finishes it and the next guy may have different ideas. Mr. Andrew: Further comments? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-12-2-28 closed. 7203 I: ' On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, It was #1-6-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-12-2-28 by Robert German requesting waiver use approval to redevelop an office building on the north side of Five Mile Road between Woodring and Loveland in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-12-2-28 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan 79D-536, dated 9/20/79, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevation Plan 79D-536, Sheet 3 dated 10/10/79, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc., which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan 79D-536, Sheet 1B, dated 10/20/79 prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that all landscape materials shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new addition and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition; and (5) that the wall shall be built on the northern property line (lot 76a) behind the Brashear building. for the following reasons: (1) The proposal complies with the P.S. Zoning District regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543, the same having been modified by action of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as well as the Offstreet Parking District regulations of Zoning Ordinance #543. (2) The proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies for land use in this sector of the City as adopted by the City Planning Commission. (3) The proposed use will provide an opportunity to upgrade a nonconforming building and grounds so as to make same consistent with and compatible to the surrounding development 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. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-2-29 by Wing Yee requestint waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17. 3 On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Falk, and adopted it was 7204 #1-7-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, I: 1980 on Petition 79-12-2-29 by Wing Yee requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with an existing restaurant located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the North- west 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-12-2-29 be approved 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. (2) The site and the proposed restaurant facility has sufficient capacity I 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. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Scurto 1:: ABSENT: Kluver Mrs. Scurto: I would like to mention that Clay School is 350 feet from this building to nearest building point. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-2-30 by Rocco and Adelia Corsi requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an exsiting banquet facility located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Harrison and Inkster in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have the usual engineering letter of no engineering problems. R. Kropf, Attorney: On May of 1977 the proposal was approved. Mr. Corsi would like an addition for banquet facilities of approximately 2,500 sq. ft. Council approved the petition and the Zoning Board of Appeals approved • it. Mr. Corsi was not able to proceed. Time ran out. He would now like to go ahead with the proposal as originally submitted. We would appreciate if the Commission would reactivate this petition. The Zoning Board of Appeals variances are still in full force and effect. Mr. Falk: Did we have a problem with the northerly end of the lot? s Mr. Nagy: That has been cleared up. Mr. Brule: I do not understand where the addition is going to be. 28100 W. Seven Mile 7205 Mr. Andrew: You can come up and look at the plan. 4 i Mr. Kropf: The bar in the front will be closed off in the front. Mr. O'Connell: Where will the parking go? 19209 Lathers Mr. Kropf: The property in the rear will be developed. Bob Sloan: 1 thought a greenbelt instead of a fence was to be installed. 19301 Lathers Mr. .Kropf: The Zoning Board of Appeals waived the wall until 1982 but we were I required to put up a chain link fence to stop the trespassers to the north and west. Mr. Andrew: Does the former resolution say anything about landscaping? Mr. Nagy: Council Resolution required additional landscaping in the front yard but not in any other yard. Mr. Zimmer: Where the chain link fence is on the north is that the end of Mr. Corsi's property? Mr. Kropf: There is not parking to the end of his property? ILMr. Nagy: There was mention made to try to retain the tall pine trees on the west side. 4 Mr. Andrew: Any further comments? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-12-2-30 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #1-8-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-12-2-30 by Rocco and Adelia Corsi requesting waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing banquet facility located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Harrison and Inkster in the South- east 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-12-2-30 be approved subject to the following conditions: . (1) that Site Plan #77-07, revised 12/6/79, prepared by Shiels Associates • Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) that Building Elevation Plan #77-07, revised dated 12/6/79, prepared by Shiels Associates, Architects, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: i i (1) The proposal complies with the C-2 zoning district regulations as same has been modified by the Zoning Board of Appeals. (2) The site has the capacity to support the increase in use. 7206 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. ILMr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-2-31 by Wendy's Inter- national requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Sec. 27. Mr. Andrew: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Frank Kerby, Building Inspector, indicating there are no deficiencies. We have a letter dated January 10, 1980 from Ted Kovarik, • Fire Dept. We have a letter dated January 11, 1980 from Lt. Idmaier, Police Division of Traffic, and a letter dated January 11, 1980 from the Dept. of Transportation, State of Michigan. Mr. Nagy read all letters in the record. Bill Madden: We are the ninth best business investment in the last decade according to 23155 North- a recent write-up in the newspaper. We have twenty stores in the tri-county western area. We have a very small product line, chili and 1/2 to 3/4 pound ham- Southfield burgers. We attract young adult to adult market. Our cheapeast hamburger is $1.00. Our eating area seats 99 and we have carpeting and paneling throughout the dining area. We have no plastic chairs. We are a step higher than Burger Chef and MacDonald's. We have a convenience window. We have gotten awards from various handicapped organizations. We have a faster service than our competitors. ILMr. Andrew: Under the ordinance a drive-up windo is in violation of that ordinance. Mr. Madden: Twenty percent of our food is sold through the driveup window. We could refile and reclassify it to a drivein and not a restaurant. Mr. Falk: We have an oversaturation of eating places in that area. Mr. Andrew: We have two alternatives; (1) to deny this as it does not comply and go before the City Council or (2) accept a statement from you to withdraw in which you could file a new petition for a drive-in restaurant. Mr. Falk: Were you aware that a Bonanza Restaurant was denied three years ago on this same site? We have too many eating places now. Mr. Madden: You could not dine in the immediate area and have the same type of food we serve. Berry King, Attorney: I would like to point out that a building of this kind does not fit 1 Woodward on this site. There would be an access problem for Wendy's as there would Detroit have been for Bonanza. I think the curb cuts suggested by the State of Mich. would be in violation of the 40 ft. double separation requirement. If there is a take out window on the west side there is no way to get out of the restaurant. The sign location is in violation of the ordinance. The Lums and Red Barn restaurants are out of business. I would like to point out that the Taco Bell is a new operation in the area and with their amount !16: of parking they still use our parking lot. We sent a letter to Bonanza to purchase the property and we received no response. Mr. Andrew: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this matter? There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-12-2-31 closed. 7207 On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-9-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1[40 1980 on Petition 79-12-2-31 as submitted by Wendy's International, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to construct a restaurant on the north side of Plymouth Road, west of Merriman Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-12-2-31 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use is in conflict with Section 11.03(c) of Zoning Ordinance #543 in that no in-car customer service facilities shall he provided so as to discourage any consumption of food on the premises in other than the dining area. (2) The proposed use is not in accord with the spirit and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance ;and is inconsistent with and contrary to the objectives sought to be accomplished by the Zoning Ordinance and the principles of sound planning becuase this proposed use represents another fast- food restaurant facility adjoining two similar existing facilities, all located within the intersection area of Merriman and Plymouth Roads. (3) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use complies with Section 19.06 General Waiver Requirements, of Zoning Ordinance #543, particularly with respect to showing that the site of the proposed use has sufficient size and capacity that it would be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding area, and that the location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use, and the site layout and its relation to streets giving access to it will be such that traffic to and from the use and assembly of persons in connection with the use, will be convenient and not be unduly hazardous nor conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. (4) The proposed location of the intended use is situated near the inter- section of two major thoroughfares which have exhibited a very high volume of traffic as indicated in the report of the Traffic Bureau of the Police Department which has been caused by a variety of commercial and industrial establishments being located along both thoroughfares in addition to the two gas stations and an auto repair facility located at the intersection, a condition which would only be aggravated by the addition of the proposed use. 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 resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-12-2-32 by Topeka Inn Management, Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the north side of Six Mile Road between Laurel Park Drive and the 1=275 Freeway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was 1208 #1-10-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-12-2-32 by Topeka Inn Management • Inc. , requesting waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with a restaurant proposed to be constructed on the north side of Six Mile Road between Laurel Park Drive and the I-275 Freeway in,the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-12-2-32 be approved 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. (2) The site and the proposed restaurant facility has sufficient capacity 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. 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, Chairman declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agendatt1is Herb and Helen Willard requesting the vacating of a public alley locate at the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. Lilliam Ponder, Attorney: It is really the City Council's request that we vacate the alley. Mr. Andrew: We are going to retain an easement in that alley. Will there be a relocation of the pole line in that alley? T. Doman: There is one pole that has to be relocated in the alley right-of-way. 32863 Myrna It is 30 feet west of the Filmore Road right-of-way. Livonia Mr. Andrew: Do we have an agreement of the relocation? Mr. Nagy: We have no written notification from any utilities. Mr. Doman: We have agreed with the Edison Company to do that at our expense. • We had that agreement two years ago. Mr. Andrew: Could you provide that agreement to our department. Mr. Ponder: I do not have a copy but I believe the architect Bob Seymour has. There will be no problem relocating that pole. Mr. Andrew: Counsel for the petitioner yourclient will assume the cost of any relocation of that pole. Ponder: Yes. . Andrew: Any further comments? There was no one else wishing to dicuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-11-3-13 closed. 7209 Mr. Andrew, Chairman, passed the gavel to Vice Chairman, Mr. Zimmer. 4 On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mr. Andrew, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-11-3-13 as submitted by Herb and Helen Willard requesting the vacating of a public alley located at the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-11-3-13 be approved subject to the retension of a full width easement for the following reasons: (1) No City maintained utilities are present within the subject alley right- of-way. I (2) The vacating of the subject alley will provide for better utilization and integration of adjacent properties. (3) There is no public need to retain the subject alley as City owned right- of-way since there is no demonstrated need for vehicular circulation to and from adjacent streets using said alley. (4) No reporting City departments object to the subjec alley vacating request. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, udner date of 12/20/79, 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 ILDepartments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Wisler ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion failed. The gavel was returned to Mr. Andrew, Chairman. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 79-11-3-13 by Herb and Willard requesting the vacating of a public alley located at the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted it was #1-18-80. RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-11-3-13 as submitted by Herb and Helen Willard requesting the vacating of a public alley located at the southwest corner of Seven Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-11-3-13 be denied for the following reasons: (1) With the vacating of the alley it will broaden the commercial density problem associated with the development of this area. (2) The alley is needed to service the commercial area. ![: (3) There currently exists public utilities within the alley which utilities can be better served by retaining the alley. 7210 A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: Friedrichs, Falk, Morrow ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew: In the interest of getting this to the City Council I voted "aye" . Mr. Zimmer declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The gavel was returned to Mr. Andrew, Chairman. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Abraham Jaafar requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License in connection with an existing party store located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Wayne Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Nagy: We have the standard engineering letter indicating no engineering problems. Wm. Ponder, Attorney: My clients have gone to the Liquor Control Commission. 32510 Plymouth However, the Liquor Control Commission has approved the Livonia transfer he didn't have the waiver use approval. My client owns the building where Kwickie Printing is and he could expand there if they move out. Mr. Zimmer: Do you plan on changing hours of operation? Mr. Jaafar: It will close at 11 p.m. with the liquor operation. Mr. Zimmer: Will you change any products that you sell, new ones coming in or some products going out? IL Mr. Jaafar: No. Mr. Zimmer: What is the parking count? Mr. Nagy: It would be deficient as it currently stands but there is an unpaved area in the back that could be paved. Mr. Zimmer: By expanding his use we further amplify a deficiency in terms of parking as it currently exists. Mr. Ponder: If we are deficient for the increased use it is no problem we have the property. Mr. Andrew: tf we incorporate in an approving resolution the requirement that your client implement the 6 foot addition he will not be in violation of the ordinance. We could condition it upon the performance of the prior resolution. Mr. Ponder: No problem. Mrs. Scurto: I have used the printing company facilities and on all but one occasion I had to wait for traffic to clear at this party store. With Ford Motor Company so close there is a great deal more traffic than a normal party store. The parking in the rear will not clear this up. The traffic along Plymouth Road is a major problem. Does your petitioner at this time 4 sell water bottles. Mr. Jaafar: No. Mrs. Scurto: Does your petitioner sell literature of illicit sex acts by children? 7211 41r. Jaafar: No. Mrs: Scurto: Thank you. Mr. Andrew: The petitioner was granted a 6-foot addition in the past six months. We did not worry about the traffic when we gave him the addition. Mrs. Wisler: If my memory serves me correctly the 6 foot addition would not have created additional traffic problems. It was merely to give Mr. Jaafar an opportunity to have additional room in a very overcrowded store. Mr. Zimmer: 'I consider this to be a significant traffic problem area. We can handle the parking but not the traffic going in and out. That is still a problem. Mrs. Wisler: I do not want to encourage greater use. Mr. Morrow: The 6 foot addition we approved I believe was for storage of bottle and can returns. Mr. Zimmer: We tried to help Mr. Jaafar rectify the inside storage problem that is a tight and crowded situation. Mr. Andrew: I recall we had the planning staff redo the plan to provide landscaping for the front. There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-12-2-33 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and adopted, it was 1[1:' #1-12-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-12-2-33 as submitted by Abraham Jaafar requesting waiver use approval to utilize an SDD License in connection with an existing party store located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark and Wayne Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 79-12-2-33 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposal complies with all of the general waiver use standards of the Zoning Ordinance contained in Section 19.06 thereof. (2) The proposed site is not properly improved to the extent necessary to accommodate any additional commercial activity. (3) The lack of sufficient improved offstreet parking would be detrimental to the other existing commercial uses adjacent thereto. 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler NAYS: Andrew ABSENT: Kluver 7212 Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-1-2-1 by Hugh Leavell requesting waiver use approval to use an existing building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in the North- west 1/4 of Section 10 for general office purposes. Mr. Leavell: We have already started with building improvements such as we have 14595 Cavell fixed the windows that were broken, sandblasted the outside brick, and painted inside. Mr. Andrew: We will need a new plan to show correct parking bay sizes. Your bay sizes are too small. Also it looks as if you are backing over a public walkway at the side of the building. How many parking spots are required? Mr. Nagy: 60 parking spaces are required. 72 are shown on the plan but they are undersized. Mr. Leavell: What don't you like about my plan. Mr. Andrew: We don't like the parking in the front. Mrs. Scurto: Backing up on the side walk is not acceptable. The parking in the front is not acceptable. Mrs. Friedrichs: That circular drive is too unique to botch up with parking. i Mr. Falk: If you want to get a feel about what might be an acceptable plan you can talk to Mr. Nagy and his staff. You can take that as pretty good assurance as to what is acceptable to him is generally acceptable to the Planning Commission. Mr. Andrew: I would like a detailed landscape plan, what is existing and what is proposed. Also are there any freestanding lights in the parking area or any lights on the building. Will the trash disposal be external or internal. Will there be airconditioning units, specifically the location of the air condenser. Mrs. Scurto: Is there a rear door to that new east wing? Mr. Leavell: Yes. Mr. Andrew: Also what is it going to be paved with? Mr. Smith: I would like to see a basic floor plan of the inside. There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 80-1-2-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was 7213 #1-13-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 80-1-2-1 by Hugh Leavell requesting waiver use approval to use an existing building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Loveland and Mayfield in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, the City Planning Commission does hereby table this matter until January 22, 1980. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Eugene and Arther Pulice to rezone property located on the west side of Hubbard Road, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P. Mrs. Scurto: I would like to see this matter contined to be tabled until a further study of the area and the encroachment of the parking is studied in depth. Mr. Andrew: We studied this area before and I think this conforms with that plan. Mrs. Scurto: The residents are concerned and I would like to see the people involved and take part in this study however we might to do that. Mrs. Friedrichs: A study was done and it is on record. Mrs. Wisler: Was additional mail received this week? Mr. Nagy: The property owner immediately to the north on Hubbard submitted a letter of support. Mrs. Scurto: Is he a tenant of the petitioner? Mr. Nagy: The petitioner does not own the residential property to the north where the house is situated. The owner is (Tabaka, 15331 Hubbard) and he favors the petition. Mr. Andrew: It would be appropriate to have a resolution to remove from the table. On 'a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Morrow, it was #1-14-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 15, 1980 on Petition 79-8-1-27 as submitted by Eugene & Arthur Pulice to rezone property located on the west side of Hubbard Road, north of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, from R-1 to P, the City - Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the table. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Morrow, Friedrichs, Andrew NAYS: Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Wisler ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew declared the motion failed and the item remains tabled. Item remains tabled. 7214 Mr. Andrew: Could you prepare for the Commission next week a report as to the area that should be discussed with the residents and to what extent we should ask the residents to participate? Mr. Morrow: Are we setting a precedent here? Mrs. Scurto: We created this kind of noncitizen advisability program when Plymouth Road was developed. Now suddenly parking is beginning • to encroach into a longstanding residential area. I think there should be a meeting of the minds of the residents and City. Mr. Andrew: We will notify you people as to this item when it will come before the City Planning Commission on a regular meeting or study. It will probably be: sometime in February. There was no one else wishing to discuss this matter, Mr. Andrew declared the Public Hearing on Petition 79-8-1-27 closed. On a motion made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-15-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Project Plan for the Holiday Inn proposed to to be constructed on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent in all respects with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia and the area plan for the Laurel Park Development. (2) The proposed project plan will further the development of this sector of the City in accord with the Master Plan for the City of Livonia. (3) The site plan has been previously approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the C-4II Zoning District regulations. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Zimmer, seconded by Mr. Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-16-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.03 of Zoning Ordinance #543 to establish regulations to control the use of property in RUF Districts for fraternal and religious organizations. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr: .Smith, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was 7215 s. #1-17-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) I: of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 30.04 of Ordinance #543 to establish controls for recreation and amusement centers using coin operated amusement devices in C-3 Zoning Districts. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-18-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.38, Off-street Parking, Schedule of Zoning Ordinance #543, by adding paragraph (28) to establish offstreet parking requirements for recreation and amusement centers using coin-operated amusement devices. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-19-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in Section 3. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. . On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Zimmer, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-20-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by incorporating property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in Section 3. 7216 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-21-80 .RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located north of Seven Mile Road, east of Farmington Road in Section 3, from R-3-A to P.L. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and adopted it was #1-22-80 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the December 4, 1979 meeting be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew ABSTAIN: Smith ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and adopted, it was #1-23-80 RESOLVED that, the minutes of December 18, 1979 meeting be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smith, Zimmer, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Wisler, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Friedrichs ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Scurto, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-24-80 RESOLVED that, the minutes of January 8, 1980 meeting be approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Friedrichs, Smith, Scurto, Falk, Morrow, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Zimmer, Wisler ABSENT: Kluver Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 7217 • On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-25-80 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the sign plan submitted in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 78-11-8-36 requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, in connection with a proposal to contruct a commercial building on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in Section 4, subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Sign Plan showing a 4' x 8' internally lighted wall sign for the Irish Rose Florist, as prepared by the Lavanway Sign Company, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (2) It shall be placed on the building mansard as illustrated with no part of the sign extending either above or below the mansard. Mr. Andrew declared the above motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Friedrichs, seconded by Mrs. Wisler, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-26-80 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 79-12-8-36P by Duane E. and Nancy Foster requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to use an existing residence located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road between Farmington and Stamford in Section 21 for office purposes including a possible addition, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan 79-489, Sheet A-1, as prepared by Ralls, Hamill Architects, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to however, with respect to the protective screen wall as illustrated on the Site Plan, the Planning Commission acknowledges the fact of the petitioner's desire to obtain a variance of this requirement from the Zoning Board of Appeals; (2) That Building Elevations as shown on Plan 79-489, Sheets A-2, A-3, prepared by Ralls, Hamill Architects, Inc. , which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) That the landscaping as shown on Plant 79-489, Sheet A-1, which is hereby approved shall be implemented prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and thereafter maintained in a healthy condition; and (4) That any proposed signs proposed to be erected on the site shall be submitted in detail for Planning Commission review and approval prior to issuance of any sign permits. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 384th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 15, 1960 at adjourned at 12:05 a.m. CIEcry 14 :4 ATTEST- R. Andrew, Chairman