Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1981-01-13 7488 MINUTES OF THE 404th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 13, 1981 , the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held Lits 404th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Jerome W. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, called the Regular Meeting and Public Hearings to order at 8:10 p.m. with approximately 145 interested people in the audience. Members present: Jerome Zimmer Joseph J. Falk Donald Vyhnalek Herman Kluver Judith Scurto Sue Sobolewski Robert L. Morrow C. Russell Smith Members absent: Daniel R. Andrew Messrs. John J. Nagy, City Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant City Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Zimmer informed the audience that if a petition on tonights agenda involves a re- zoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition involves a waiver of use request and the petition is denied by the Planning Commission, the peti- tioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council . Otherwise the petition is terminated. 110,Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 80-11-1-35 by Naldo Bucci , Nicholas & Larry Leo and N.A.L. Asset Company to rezone property located on the north side of Norfolk Avenue, east of Osmus Avenue in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to R-7. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter dated December 9, 1980 from Engineering by Gary Clark. We have a letter from D. A. Mroz, 20333 Osmus opposing the petition. We have a petition submitted with 150 signatures opposing this petition. Mrs. Scurto: I spent some time in the area and I noticed there are a great many new homes on split lots. The area is very well maintained. Initially I did not foresee this going single type dwellings and therefore I was in support of this petition. After seeing the area, I have changed my mind. Property owners do have the right to petition for rezoning and you have the right to come in and voice your opinion. David Perry, Attorney, 31250 Plymouth Road, Livonia: I am the attorney representing the petitioners. I would like to take issue with lights being the problem. We have sufficient greenbelt to eliminate that problem. I understand that the four residents on Osmus abutting this property were in favor of the rezoning. Roc-Well Industries which abuts this property has continual problems with people coming in the back. They have a lot of vandalism. Something has to be done with the property. Economically, we could build multiple dwellings. This property abuts industrial and doesn't make a desirable home site or sites. There is multiple across the street on Merriman. This is a logical extension and buffer. We 7489 are not asking for the maximum density. We could ask for an addi- tional ten to twelve units. Mr. Zimmer:IL How long has Mr. Bucci owned the land? 71r. Perry: Sixteen to eighteen years. The former partners have both died. The relatives of the original owners now own it. This body in the past recommended approval of R-7. The City Council turned it down. This would bring a lot of tax revenue, relatively more if developed. Mr. Zimmer: Pertaining to the comments of the Engineering Division, did you under- stand them? It would be necessary to widen Norfolk and pave Norfolk and Osmus. Would that create any concern on the petitioner's part? Mr. Perry: I tend to concur with improving the road whether or not this is approved. I am surprised they have not improved the roads, especially Osmus. We expect some special assessment. We are willing to pay our fair share. Norfolk would be considered a collector street. We may object to the way it is assessed but not the necessity assessment itself. Mrs. Sobolewski : At our study session, reference was made to Merriman or Eight Mile Road. It was noted that you did try to purchase some land that could lead to an exit to those streets. Mr. Perry: No, because of the difference of ownership of this parcel , we do not feel that it is a viable alternative. It would do nothing to enhance this. There is already a lot of traffic on Eight Mile Road. I do not 11 think the County would want more traffic. ILMrs. Sobolewski : What about the Merriman exit? O Mr. Perry: That is next to impossible. No one is willing to sell at a reasonable price. Again, having traffic coming into Merriman when we do have Norfolk as an existing street would not be feasible. Mrs. Sobolewski : Have you attempted to do anything else with the property? Mr. Perry: Because of the economics of putting in roads, water, sewer lines, we would have to try to sell a lot in excess of $30,000. The cost is so expensive that the venture is not economically feasible. Mrs. Sobolewski : Are these units called condominiums? Mr. Perry: Right now we are not sure. It will depend on financing. The apart- ments could be converted to condominiums. At this point, we do not know if they will be rental or condos. Most probably they will be condos. Mr. Falk: Since 1974 and the Council 's rejection, nothing has changed in this area except a few new homes. Our Future Land Use Plan indicates low density. Why did the petitioner come back eight years later? The City Council stated you need accessibility to Eight Mile Road. A few more homes have been built since then when no one said they would. I will vote against this petition. 7490 Mr. Smith: Your petition in 1974 shows accessibility to Eight Mile as an alterna- tive. Has your client sold that property? 1['Mr. Perry: He never owned it individually. The people who owned the M-1 , Roc-Well and Mr. Bucci , also owned the parcel under petition. It was a con- tiguous ownership. That has now changed. Mr. Smith: East of the proposal -- the three lots behind it -- are they landlocked? Mr. Perry: The M-1 owns it. They use it for nothing. It is all one piece but the back is RUFA. They tried for M-1 zoning but were not successful . Mr. Smith: I have a problem with dumping apartments this size in the heart of a residential area without access to a major road. I see a change in the future of housing. Without a detailed plan for widening the two streets, I feel it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. I sym- pathize with the petitioner. It is used for dumping of grass, sports, etc. Mr. Perry: Four people on the street are in favor of this petition. Mr. Vyhnalek: Were you the attorney in 1974? Mr. Perry: No. The last time I represented the petitioner was when we tried to develop it to industrial . Mr. Vyhnalek: How long have you given this petition serious thought? Mr. Perry: Approximately six months. ' Mr. Vyhnalek: Was any kind of survey with the residents taken? Mr. Perry: Not to my knowledge. Mr. Falk: With all the trouble they had last time, I would think they would check with the neighbors first. Mr. Perry: Times have changed. Cluster housing is a reality. With R-1 , we could not make it. We are not asking for the maximum density. Mr. Vyhnalek: Something is going to go on this property. It won't always be used for a convenient recreational area. They are going to eventually develop it. Mr. Morrow: Since 1952, has the zoning always been RUFA? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Falk: If the Chair will permit, are the owners of the northwest corner here tonight? Emil Kopiwoda, 20454 Osmus, Livonia: I say let him build what he wants. He has owned it for eighteen years now and paid taxes. Stanfred Silver, 20095 Parker, Livonia; I am opposed to apartments. i4y1 Jack Spencer, 20514 Osmus, Livonia: No apartments. Representative of G. Isaacson, 20540 Osmus, Livonia: They are opposed to it. They are in New York now. David Mroz, 20333 Osmus, Livonia: I submitted a petition. I talked to all the residents 1[00 of the area within 500 feet of the site. Only two people did not sign the petition. Mrs. Michael Zahn, 20535 Osmus, Livonia: We do not use this property for our pleasure. We would like single family dwellings. We do not need the extra traffic, the widening of the street and the extra burden of taxes, and it will not benefit the area. Resident, 20281 Osmus: I am not for apartments or condos. We look forward to the develop- ment of the property. We do not need the extra traffic on Osmus. It is the only through street going south. I can't go out of my driveway now without waiting for a car to pass. We are improving our homes. It is not the best area but it is coming along. We have to live with the M-1 . They should be made to clean up those places. We do not bring our people in that way, we bring them from the south. Just because you own property for more than ten years doesn't give you any rights to change the zoning. It is not a recreational area. We keep the motor bikes out. The dumping area in the middle can't be prevented. An apartment complex without an exit on a major road is unheard of. Homes, yes. Apartment dwellings bring transients. They don't keep them up that well . ILJ. Muir, President of North Central Civic Association: Our boundaries start at Eight Mile Road and Farmington to the Tarabusi , east one block short of Middlebelt. Is there a demonstrated need for this type of housing in the area? If there is, it has never been brought out. I do not think we need them if the need has not been established. Alan Rupick, 32220 Norfolk: How many petitions on this property have been brought to this Commission in the past? Mr. Perry: Two occasions. One was brought by the City Planning Commission on its own motion. Mr. Rupick: The reason the petition was not approved was that it was not in con- junction with the rest of the neighborhood. You stated times have changed. Other than that, is there any other reason for initiating the petition? Mr. Perry: The new owner disagreed with the precedent. There is a demonstrated need. There are young people who would like to stay in the area. There is no place for them to go. Mr. Rupick: What part of Livonia does Mr. Bucci reside in? Mr. Zimmer: I presume you are opposed to the petition. Mr. Bucci has taken the correct measures for rezoning. I have trouble with your line of question. ILThere should be no discredit to Mr. Bucci . 7492 Mr. Rupick: We take pride in our neighborhood. Someone who is not a resident of this City is trying to make a buck. (Cr. Perry: He is a taxpayer. Mr. Zimmer: It is proper for a property owner, regardless of where he lives, to petition for rezoning. There is a difference of ownership. Their opinion is different. They feel there is a need. You are getting too personal with regard to what the petitioner's motives are. Mr. Rupick: Could we have an informal stand-up vote for those opposed and those for the rezoning? Mr. Zimmer: No problem. We will have a show of hands for those who are opposed? Those for? There is one person for. Mr. Smith: I also take exception to comments made bout Mr. Bucci . I also take exception to comments made about apartment dwellers. We have very fine people who live in apartments. They require few services and demand very little from the City of Livonia. The question is, should this development be put in a residential area. A lady owns property in New York and her opinion was brought up here. Mrs. Sydor, 20381 Merriman, Livonia: I run the fruit stand near the Schubiner apart- ments and those apartments are never filled up. RobertHastings, 20220 Parker, Livonia: If Mr. Bucci tried to get rid of this property for single family dwellings, it would sell real fast. Why doesn't he want to sell it? We have people building here all the time. We did break up our lots. ILMike Zupanik, 20104 Hubbard; Livonia: I live down the block and we do not want it. This would downgrade our neighborhood. Mr. Keyes, Norfolk Avenue, Livonia: The chuckholes slow down speeding cars. Paving would make them drive faster. Resident, 32560 Norfolk, Livonia: We built in August, 1979, and people came down all the time thinking mine was a model home. They wanted to buy in the area because of the half acre lots. I could have sold thirty homes. Tom Herr, 20120 Parker, Livonia: Who is going to pay for the paving? I certainly don't want to so this man can build. Mr. Bertani , 33080 Norfolk, Livonia: The City stated when I called about the chuckholes that the road was not designed for the traffic it gets now. I will not pay for the road to be paved. Virginia Arnold, Livonia: I object. Rita Rupick, 32220 Norfolk, Livonia: We have a beautiful country setting and a beautiful area. We don't need apartments. We put too much money into our property to lose it. lipResident: Is a wall required? 7493 Mr. Zimmer: This doesn't require a wall . Resident: If more right-of-way is required on Norfolk, we are in trouble. The 1 lots are only 140 feet deep. here was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-11-1-35 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-1-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 13, 1981 on Petition 80-11-1-35 as submitted by Naldo Bucci , Nicholas and Larry Leo and N.A.L. Asset Company requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Norfolk Avenue, east of Osmus Avenue in the North- east 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-11-1-35 be denied for the following reasons: (1 ) The proposed change in zoning would provide for land uses which are inconsistent with the recommendations of the Future Land Use Plan which is for low density residential . (2) The subject property does not have direct access to a major thorough- fare which would result in overburdening the abutting local streets with traffic and which is contrary to the Planning Commission's t adopted goals and policies for medium density residential develop- ment. (3) The proposed change of zoning would provide for intensity of use and density which would be detrimental to and inconsistent with the surrounding single-family residential neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of December 25, 1980, and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-11-1-37 by Edmund T. Warren to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Grantland and Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-7. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from the Division of Engineering by Gary Clark. We also have a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hirschleib opposing the petition. We have a petition signed by approximately 40 residents opposing the petition. 10 Edmund T. Warren, 251 Merrill , Merrillwood Mall , Birmingham 48011 , petitioner: During the 1960s when I worked for General Motors, we were attracted to Livonia due to your beautiful industrial attractiveness. I saw a 74g4 ten-acre site on Newburgh. I thought it beautiful with the woods, birds and ducks. General Motors couldn't use it. I bought it myself from Moelke Realty in 1965. I left G.M. in the sixties and started to develop my sites. I was advised that the proper development of the parcel was M-1 . Ten years ago there was voice of opposition from my neighbors for the M-1 . It was stated that the Future Land Use Plan designated this area for industrial development. Mr. Zimmer: Do you own other property in the immediate area? Mr. Warren: No. Mr. Zimmer: The property immediately to the west, the L-shaped piece is not yours or a relative's? Mr. Warren: No, and no relative. Mr. Zimmer: Have you considered any less intensive use other than R-7? Mr. Warren: No sir. Listening to prior discussions regarding the vacancies, in my developments we have a waiting list for apartments. We bring in our own prospects. They are desirable tenants. They are an asset to the City of Birmingham. Our buildings are very well maintained. It doesn't devaluate the property. If there is development of my complex, your properties will accelerate. We fill our buildings up. We have proper management. Locations are a problem and vacancies are not a problem. That is why we are here. ;Mr. Falk: Are you a realtor? Mr. Warren: In 1967, when I left G.M. , I became a builder, developer and realtor. I have built in downtown Birmingham. I have built Merrill Arms and Birmingham Place. I invite you to see my places. Mr. Falk: What about lower density? Mr. Warren: I prefer R-7. Mr. Falk: Possibly if we met with you and the residents and discussed possibilities of development other than R-7 -- or are you locked in on R-7? Mr. Warren: I have a market for R-7. Mr. Falk: We could table this and meet with Mr. Nagy and residents and see what they are amenable to. Mr. Warren: I invite them to see the Birmingham apartments. I appreciate the beauty of the trees and that will be part of my development although someone is cutting down my trees and possibly using them in the fire- place. Mr. Falk: Mr. Gilmartin, Industrial Coordinator, feels this should be industrial . Possibly a tabling motion should be made. Mr. Scurto: Have you looked into the balance of the property west of you? 7495 Mr. Warren: No. 100 4r. Smith: I support Mr. Falk's position for tabling. A similar approach worked at Seven Mile and Merriman. An apartment developer came in a resi- dential area and they were opposed. After a few months, different landscaping was proposed, different elevations and it was ironed out. People are opposed to change. Mr. Morrow: We are looking at purely zoning. If they secure R-7, we cannot hold him to anything. He can put up anything he wants. Mrs. Sobolewski : I do not wish to mislead Mr. Warren. He should see what is going to happen down the road. If he goes ahead and meets with the neighbors and he does so and our minds are made up one way or another. There is no way he should have a meeting with neighbors unless he can change the zoning. Are we going along with the neighbors or how we feel? We may not go along. Jim Couillard, 37601 Grantland: I am abutting the property. We will fight tooth and nail any type of industry going up there. Also, we will do the same with apartments. We have concern with the traffic increase. Grantland is a dead-end. How long would it remain a dead-end? I disagree with property values going up. We are going to lose. Crime rate at apart- ments should be studied. There is a correlation. People in apart- ments do not have pride in their residence. We live in a unique neighbor- hood. There are wooded lots. I know why those trees arebeing chopped litdown. They are clearing it for house development nearby. We do not object to single family dwellings. There are apartment buildings farther down Plymouth Road. The parking lot is not filled up and there are always "vacant" signs up. I don't see any demonstrated need for them. arry Vartanian, 37920 Grantland: The kids have to stand on the corner waiting for the school bus. There will be more traffic. The traffic is terrible now. The kids stand 100 feet back now. People come tearing down the street and rip signs down. I think it would be a dangerous situation. They are building homes all over. Maybe he won't make as much but there is a market for homes. If he built fifteen or twenty homes in the price range of $50,000 or $60,000, some young people can afford that. They have to pay $400 or $500 in the apartments. They may as well have a home to pay on. We are dead set against M-1 . We know the City makes a fortune in taxes on M-1 . When Mr. Warren bought the land in 1967, it was zoned RUF. Mrs. Scurto: Every property owner has a right to bring a petition before us. We don't search petitioners out. It is not realistic to think you can have a nice wooded area at someone else's expense. Mr. Vartanian: We are only trying to preserve what we have. Mr. Gosset: West is Hygrades. There is also an orchard and farm. The other avail- able parcel will probably be developed as apartments too. 10'ichard J. Krajniak, 37611 Grantland: The turnover rate on Grantland during the last five years is very significant. We have 3/4 acre lots. People will con- sider moving out if these apartments are built. 7496 Mr. Raschella, 37680 Grantland: We are here once a year. We do live in fear. We are afraid of multiple story apartments and factories and we have the right to be. ' Nick Tchoukaleff, 9011 Houghton: Do apartments need walls all around? Mr. Zimmer: No walls are required. Mr. Tchoukaleff: No apartments. Mr. Warren: We do not convert to condos. We rent them. Mr.Smith: Are you amenable to a tabling resolution to see what can be done with R-7 or are you flatly opposed to it? Mr. Gosset: We could not hold him to anything. He started off wrong already. He did not come to us first. Mr. Falk: My vote to deny in no way means I am condoning M-1 zoning south of you. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing closed on Petition 80-11-1-37. On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #1-2-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 13, 1981 on Petition 80-12-1-37 as submitted by Edmund T. Warren requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road between Grantland and Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-12-1-37 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed zoning classification would provide for land uses which are contrary to the recommendations of the Future Land Use Plan as adopted by the City Planning Commission. (2) The proposed zoning classification would provide for uses which are incompatible with and detrimental to the existing uses in the area. (3) The proposed change in zoning would not promote the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding neighborhood in accord with the Future Land Use Plan. (4) The proposed change of zoning would encourage the expansion of similar type uses within the neighboring area and thereby diminish the long term use and enjoyment of the neighborhood. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official nesspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of December 25, 1980, and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 7497 Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-12-6-13 by the City Planning Commission to amend fee schedules contained in Section 19.03, Waiver Use Application; Section 21 .10, Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals; Section 22.04, Permit Fees, and Section 23.03, Zoning Amendment Applications, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia. There wasno one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-12-6-13 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously adopted, it was #1-3-81 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 13, 1981 on Petition 80-12-6-13 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend fee schedules contained in Section 19.03, Waiver Use Application; Section 21 . 10, Application to the Zoning Board of Appeals; Section 22.04, Permit Fees, and Section 23.03, Zoning Amend- ment Applications, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-12-6-13 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment will provide for various fee schedules that are more realistic. li, (2) The current fee schedules contained in the Zoning Ordinance have 'not been adjusted for at least eight years and some for sixteen Sears. (3) The current fee schedules are well below those of most communities of comparable size in this metropolitan area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the officia newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of December 25, 1980, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-12-2-29 by Wing Yee requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant business located within the Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center at the south- east corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the. Northwest 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter from Stuart Frankel , owner of the Plaza. Ir. Smith: Will there be additional signage? 7498 Mr. Markowitz was present representing the petitioner: Possibly the words "banquet hall" will be added. The addition will be used for a banquet hall and storage. 'Mr. Nagy: There will be a relocation of the front door only as shown on the building elevation plans submitted. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 80-12-2-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #1-4-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 13, 1981 on Petition 80-12-2-29 as submitted by Wing Yee requesting waiver use approval to expand an existing restaurant business located within the Newburgh Plaza Shopping Center at the Southeast corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-12-2-29 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Floor Plan #80-148-C, prepared by Gold Star Products, Inc. , dated 11/13/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that building elevations as shown on Plans #80-148-C, Sheet 2, dated 11/20/80, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that all other conditions imposed upon the petitioner by the City as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution #9-166-79, adopted on September 11 , 1979, are in full force and effect and shall be adhered to; for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Section 11 .03(c) of Zoning Ordinance #543 regarding special conditional uses related to restaurants. (2) The site has capacity to support the expansion of 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. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and unaimously adopted, it was #1-5-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.45(b) , Protective Wall Requirement, relating to bonds required in connection i with construction of protective walls. 7499 IL FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or railroad within the City of Livonia in accordance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto and seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek, it was #1-6-81 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 403rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on December 16, 1980 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Scurto, Falk, Vyhnalek, Sobolewski , Smith, Zimmer NAYS: None ABSENT: Andrew ABSTAIN: Kluver, Morrow Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-12-8-26 by Michigan National Corporation requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #990, submitted in connection with a proposal to renovate an existing gas station located on the east side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3. Mrs. Scurto: They are operating prior to approval . Is there anything wrong? Mr. Nagy: There is nothing wrong. They were granted approval to operate for a period not to exceed six months from the temporary trailer situated on the property. Mr. Bakewell : You have not seen the landscaping. There is supplemental landscaping in the boulevard. Mr. Zimmer: No problems? Mr. Bakewell : No. Mr. Morrow: This is the final landscape plan. Nothing in the future? Mrs. Scurto: To be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued? Mr. Bakewell : Yes. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mrs. Scurto and unanimously adopted, t was '1-7-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended L by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 80-12-8-26 by Michigan National Corporation 7500 requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 submitted in L connection with a proposal to renovate an existing gas station located on the east side of Farmington Road between Eight Mile Road and Norfolk in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that Site Plan #758, dated 1/9/81 , prepared by Trautman Associates, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevations for Job #758 and shown on Sheet 2, dated 11/26/80, and Sheet 3, dated 12/5/80, prepared by Trautman Associates, Architect, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that Landscape Plan #758, dated 1/9/81 , prepared by Trautman Assoc- iates, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (4) that all landscape materials as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the remodeled building and thereafter permanently main- tained in a healthy condition; (5) that any signage erected on the building shall be in full compliance with the City Sign Ordinance and any future free-standing sign pro- posed for this site shall be approved by the Planning Commission; and (6) no outside trash storage is allowed. 'Mr. Zimmer, Vice .Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution ladopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Scurto, seconded by Mr. Vyhnalek and unanimously adopted, it was #1-8-81 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Landscape Plan submitted in connection with a condition of approval of the Preliminary Plat for Sherwood Forest Estates Subdivision pro- posed to be located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9, subject to the following con- ditions: (1) that the Landscape Plan for Sherwood Forest Estates Subdivision dated 12/22/80, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the landscaping as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed on the site no later than the 1981 planting season; and (3) that the proprietor of the subdivision, or his agent, shall inform prospective buyers of lots which contain the landscape greenbelt easement about their responsibility of maintaining the greenbelt after the landscaping has been installed. toMr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution Adopted. r 7501 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 80-1-8-1P by John E. Roth & Sons, Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1468, sub- mitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on the north side of Schoolcraft between Inkster and Middlebelt Roads in Section 24. Mr. Bakewell : There is now an enclosure of the trash area. That includes the gates. They will appeal to the Zoning Board to move the wall back thirteen feet so as to set it back to the common property line. There is a small sign over the door. There is no freestanding sign. The plan indicates where exhaust fans are to be located. The back area will belit with lamps located on the building eight feet above the parking area, approximately five of them. No freestanding poles will be used. There will be a security light. The windows for office area on the east elevation are indicated. The front and west elevations remain as indicated at the study meeting. A painted block with masonry stained finish will be used. Mr. Zimmer: What about windows in front. Is glass that you cannot see through being used? Thomas Roth, representing petitioner: Dark solar bronze glass in that area. Mr. Morrow: That area will be used for storage. t Mr. Roth: The windows are two feet wide and are relatively narrow. We do not want sunlight. Sunlight gets to be a problem on their garments. There will be no night shift operation. if lights are on in the evening with the solar bronze glass, you might see in a little. Mr. Falk: Is there a revised east elevation? Mr. Nagy: Yes, it is taken care of. Mr. Falk: Landscape plan? Mr. Nagy: They have thirty days. We are not satisfied. Mr. Morrow: I would like to see them get relief on that wall . That trash container should stay off the thirteen feet. Do you want pure relief or move it back? Mr. Roth: Move it back to the property line and move the trash container back in that corner. Mr. Nagy: At the time of Zoning Board appeal , we can send a letter to the Zoning Board that we support their efforts to that effect. Mr. Smith: Will a portion of the building be rented out for retail spec? Mr. Roth: The westerly fifty feet. Mr. Smith: Will bronze glass be appropriate for a tenant? How will they display their goods? I feel you are an industrial business. I feel you are going to have trouble renting to commercial . 7502 LOn a motion duly made by Mrs. Sobolewski and seconded by Mr. Morrow, it was #1-9-81 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended by Ordinance #1468, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 81-1-,8-1P by John Roth & Sons, Inc. , requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on the north side of Schoolcraft between Inkster and Middlebelt Roads in Section 24, subject to the following conditions: (1 ) that Site Plan 8036, Sheet 1 , dated 1/8/81 , prepared by Roth Engineers which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that the Building Elevations as shown on Plan 8036, Sheet 2, dated 1/8/81 , prepared by Roth Engineers, whichare hereby approved shall be adhered to; (3) that the proposed sign for the building is subject to approval of the Planning Commission before the issuance of any building permit; (4) that front windows shall be equipped with dark solar bronze glass; (5) that a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Commission within thirty (30) days; and (6) that the trash container be enclosed with solid brick masonry screen on three sides and equipped with a gate on the fourth side. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Sobolewski , Morrow, Zimmer, Kluver, Vyhnalek NAYS: Smith, Scurto, Falk ABSENT: Andrew Mr. Zimmer, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 404th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on January 13, 1981 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION f: / �[ Yil------ �UL�LJoseph J. Fal9ty ATTEST: / , Je a Zimmer, Vi airman 1LZ/ac