HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1955-01-18 MINUTES OF THE 53RD REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
The 53rd Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was held on Tuesday
January 18, 1955 at the City Hall, Livonia, Michigan.
The 53rd Regular Meeting was called to order by Chairman Peter A. Ventura
at approximately 8:03 p.m.
Members present: Edwin Conway Adelaide Nielsen Peter A. Ventura
Karle Steinhoff H. Paul Harsha Rufino Salinas
Members absent: *Dallas F. Hay
Robert L. Greene
William Robinson
The following were present together with approximately 30 people attending
the regular meeting:
Lieutenant Bob Perry - Fire Department
Max Koehler, Building Inspector
*'Russell Ashmore, City Attorney
The secretary announced that the first item on the agenda was Petition No.
Z-76 by Henry J. and Ethel M. Exel asking that the zoning classification of
Lots 238 to 243, inclusive, Golden Ridge Subdivision, No. 1 located on the
South side of West Chicago Blvd. between Hix Road and Houghton Avenue in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 be changed from R-1-B to C-1. Mr. John J. Fish,
14940 Michigan Avenue, Dearborn was present representing t' e petitioner.
The secretary announced that a petition with approximately 37 signatures
opposed to this change was presented at the Public Hearing December 7, 1.954.
The secretary read heading on petition with approximately 53 additional
signatures opposed to this petition submitted by Mr. W. A. Cooper, 38116 Minton.
Approximately 25 people were present opposed to this petition.
Mr. W. A. Cooper, 38116 Minton stated that as stated in the petition submitted
to commission Lots 238 to 243 was before this commission for rezoning in 1953
and that at that time the petitioner was Donald L. Castle. Stated that it was
objected to at that time. The people bought realizing they were buying in
residential area and that if business comes in some of the value will be lost.
A precedent will be established if this petition is granted.
Mr. Salinas asked Mr. Cooper if he thought Lots 238 to 243 would be desirable
for residence. Mr. Cooper stated "yes".
Mr. Ventura brought it to the attention of those present that the Zoning
Ordinance is a living changing law.
Mr. Cooper stated it should hold if the area does not change in nature. Stated
he did not think anyiane would object to the proper type of business. Have
been considering shopping center which has replaced strip business
Mr. Ventura stated he bought his property on Middlebelt Road 18 years ago and
that now it is a busy highway. Mr. Conway stated he bought his property on
1 (`
1 0
Hubbard 14 years ago.
Mr. Conway asked Mr. Cooper whether they had any idea where a shopping center
might be established.
Mr. A. R. Chilson, 38807,E. Ann Arbor Road stated that what was the Triangle
Airport there will be 300 homes and that these people should be given
opportunity to state their opinion. Do not think time is right for business
to enter into this area.
Mr. Ventura asked whether the homes in the proposed subdivision on Triangle
Airport would be located on Ann Arbor Road. Mr. Chilson stated they are just
off of Ann Arbor Road.
Mr. Ventura stated that Mr. Chilson's point that it would be traffic hazard
is out of line as the people building residence would be parking on a road
other than Ann Arbor Road.
Mr. Chilson stated people who move in area and are presently established in
area will agree to any type of business that will be properly controlled and
that will have sufficient parking facilities.
Mr. Fish stated that if the commission has viewed this area they will agree
it is not desirable residential property and that the only issue before this
commission is whether or not zoning is fair and reasonable. Stated that spot
zoning is exactly what is there now. No reasonable person is going to put
house on that site because street is 160 feet wide, Ann Arbor goad is directly
across and cannot build house on 20 foot lot. Stated thatlast month a
decision was made by the court in a situation the same as this that the zoning
was not reasonable.
Mr. Salinas asked whether Mr. Fish's client had any immediate plans for type
of business.
Mrs. Exel, 1505 Kingsbury, Dearborn stated the did not have any plans at this
time as she did not know what would be needed in area but did not intend to
establish anything that does not come under the proper zoning. Lot would be
128 x 100 which would give adequate parking in the rear.
Mr. Ventura asked whether Mrs. Exel intended to go into business there herself
or did she intend to sell. Mrs. Exel stated that would depend on what would
be allowed and whether she would be able to make a success of it.
Mr. Cooper asked Mrs. Exel whether she knew when she purchased property it was
zoned RUF-B. Mrs. Exel stated 'lyesu.
Mr. Cooper asked Mrs. Exel how she intended to provide access to Lots 240
and 241. Mrs. Exel stated she would not have to build solidly.
Mr. Ernest Hammond, 9410 Butwell asked why Mrs. Exel had to pick residential
area for business.
Mr. Fish read from the subdivision restrictions that lots facing on Ann Arbor
Road and West Chicago may be used for business.
Mr. Ventura stated that this commission is guided by the will of the people
46,19
but on the other hand the people should be aware of the rights of Mrs. Exel.
The Commission should be guided by what has happened in past situations.
similar to this one.
Mrs. Marie Jennings, 9200 Butwell stated that the residents in Golden Ridge
Subdivision do not know how lots on the corner were zoned business.
Mr. Ventura stated it was his understanding that any restrictions running with
the land are as good as the land itself.
Mrs. Jennings stated a home could be built facing on Houghton. Mr. Ventura
stated the issue before commision is whether petition should be granted for
rezoning and whether petition is reasonable.
Mrs. Jennings stated Houghton is only access to subdivision. Mr. Harsha stated
West Chicago is shown on Master Plan as a through street and there is no
reason why it will not be such in the future. Stated this has always been
- dangerous corner. Some day if the State or County does not do something about
it, the commission will have to recommend that this curve be straightened out.
Mr. Steinhoff made the following motion which died for lack of a second.
RESOLVED that, Petition No. Z-76 by Henry J. and Ethel M. Exel asking
that the zoning classification of Lots 238 to 243, inclusive, Golden
Ridge Subdivision, No. 1 located on the South side of West Chicago Blvd.
between Hix and Houghton in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, be denied.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Salinas and seconded by Mr. Conway, it was
- #1-4-55 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 7, 1954 on Petition No. Z-76 as submitted by- Henry J.
and Ethel M. Exel for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 31 from R-1-B to C-1 the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition No. Z-76 be
granted, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of November 18,
1954 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison
Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Tele-
phone Company, The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and
petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Conway, Harsha, Ventura and Salinas
NAYS: Steinhoff and Nielsen
The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was the application
of William D. Smith (m-1) for a permit to remove topsoil and sand from Parcel
M3 containing 15 acres located South side of Five Mile Road approximately 1,725
feet West of Fairlane Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21. The secretary
stated Mr. Smith has not submitted topographic survey as requested by
commission at the previous meeting.
Mr. Smith or a representative was not present.
rte,
Mr. Conway stated Mr. Smith's wife is very ill and that he did state to him
that he fully intended to attend this meeting. Suggested the petition be
tabled.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Salinas, seconded by Mr. Steinhoff and
unanimously carried, it was
#1-5-55 RESOLVED that, application of William D. Smith (m-1) for a permit
to remove topsoil and fill sand from Parcel M3 containing 15 acres
located South side of Five Mile Road approximately 1,725 feet West
of Fairlane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21 be tabled until
February 15, 1955 in order to give petitioner opportunity to appear
and to submit topographic survey showing grade of Five Mile Road
as requested December 14, 1954.
The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted.
The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was Petition No. Z-81
by Alex Gordon, Gordon & Scheurman asking that the zoning classification of
Parcel B2aB2b1 located on the Southeast corner of Gill Road and Seven Mile
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 be changed from AG-B to R-1-B. The
secretary read letters dated December 30, 1954 from Alex Gordon and dated
January 18, 1955 from W. R. McCary, Supt. of Public Works.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Harsha and unanimously
carried, it was
#1-6-55 RESOLVED that, Petition No. Z-81 by Alex Gordon, Gordon & Scheurman
asking that the zoning classification of Parcel B2aB2b1 located on
the Southeast corner of Gill Road and Seven Mile Road in the North-
east 1/4 of Section 9 be changed from AG-B to R-1-B be tabled until
'ebruary 15, 1955 as requested by petitioner in his letter dated
December 30, 1954.
The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted.
The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was Petition No. Z-80
by Thomas D. and Marvel C. Boone asking that the zoning classification of
Parcel R6 located on the North side of Five Mile Road approximately 125 feet
West of Reddon Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 be changed from R-1-B
to C-1. Mr. Boone was present.
The secretary read letter dated January 18, 1955 from Russell C. Ashmore.
*3FMr. Ashmore arrived at meeting at this time and stated there is no legal
position one can take on this question other than statement on the zoning map.
Asked if commission could agree to statement on map and have measurements
start at the property line. Question is whether measurement starts at the
lot line or middle of road. When measurement is taken from the center of the
road, there is the problem of the road not shown on the zoning map.
Mr. Ventura asked whether if the measurement is taken from the property line
it would have to be an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. Stated Mr. Waring's
statement in court was that they always take measurement from the center of
the road.
1
Mr. Harsha stated that deeds are based from the center of the road.
Mr. Ventura asked if his deed stated his property started at the center of the
road and he petitioned for rezoning which the commission granted but from the
right of way line, would not that be confusing. Mr. Ashmore stated that he
would not own the road.
Mr. Ashmore stated there is a statement on the zoning map which people rely
on and that there should be a rule whereby one measures from a given point.
Mr. Salinas asked the practice elsewhere. Mr. Ashmore stated practice is to
measure from middle of road.
]1r. Ashmore stated to bisect a lot is legal but not good sense. Asked the
thinking of the commission behind rezoning a lot 250' deep for a depth of
only 150'.
Mr. Harsha stated he was new on commission when this was done but believed
that was to give sufficient depth for good size store and does not believe
much thought was given to remainder of lot.
Mr. Ashmore stated he has found the reminder of lot (100') is used forsomething
from which it was originally zoned, for example: collection of wood, junk,
etc. Where lot is reasonable depth and where it makes balance of lot useless,
the entire lot should be rezoned.
Mr. Ventura stated along the South side of Plymouth Road lots are 300' deep
which is a reasonable depth as against 600' or 800'. Recommended to commission
that lots not be cut in half as in the past.
Mr. Salinas stated that when it abutts residential property there would be
more to gain by rezoning entire lot because of the required greenbelt.
not
Mr. Ashmore stated he dig/have other letter as requested by commission
December 14, 1954.
**Mr. Russell Ashmore left meeting at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Mr. Boone stated his petition did not include the back portion of Parcel R7a1
Mr. Conway made the following motion which he withdrew after further consider-
ation.
RESOLVED that, Petition No. Z-80 by Thomas D. and Marcel D. Boone
asking that the zoning classification of Parcel R6 located on the
North side of Five Mile Road approxintely 125 feet West of Reddon
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 be rezoned from R-1-B to
C-1 be granted.
Mr. Ventura suggested Mr. Boone present to commission another petition in-
cluding the back half of Parcel R7al which would be consistent with Parcel R6
if it is rezoned.
Mr. Boone requested petition be tabled in order that he may abide by Mr. Ven-
tura's suggestion.
x(19
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Steinhoff and
unanimously carried, it was ;,
#1-6-55 RESOLVED that, Petition No. Z-80 by Thomas D. and Marvel C. Boone
asking that the zoning classification of Parcel R6 located on the
North side of Five Mile Road approximately 125 feet West of Reddon
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 be changed from R-1-B to
C-1 be tabled until February 15, 1955 in order to give petitioner
opportunity to present amended petition which would include Parcel
R6 and the back portion of Parcel R7a1.
The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted.
The Chairman called a recess at approximately 9:25 p.m.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at approximately 9:40 p.m. at which
tine all were present as stated at beginning of meeting except Lieutenant Bob
Perry and Max Koehler.
The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was the approval of
final plat of J. F. Ferry Subdivision, No. 2 as submitted by Mr. Peter W.
Decker. The secretary read the certified copy of resolution approving this
plat by the City Council April 7, 1954 and letter dated January 7, 1955 from
Marie W. Clark, Mr. Peter Decker was present.
Mr. Decker stated that there are a few slight additions and deletions on the
canvas plat from the plat that was given preliminary approval by this
commission November 17,. 1953, but that substantially it is the same except
for, 141 easement caused by the vacating of Sunset Avenue.
*Mr. Dallas F. Hay arrived at approximately 9:42 p.m.
It was noted by the commission that Lots 134 and 135 as shown on the canvas
plat shows 50 feet at the front lot line whereas the plat given tentative
approval shows 55 feet as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Decker stated at the City Council meeting April 7, 1954 this measurement
was discussed and the Council approved plat knowing full well lots were 50
feet at lot line. It was pointed out that it was mathematically impossible
to have 551 on this type of radius. The City Council approved plat with the
understanding that at the building set back line that radius would be equal
to or greater than 55 feet.
Mr. Harsha read portion of Section 4.05, Zoning Ordinance, No. 60 11provided,
however, that in passing upon or approving any proposed plat of a new sub-
division and in order to avoid a hardship or injustice, the City Planning
Commission is authorized to reasonably construe such minimum widths of 55 and
60 feet as the average width of the lots within such plat."
Mr. Ventura stated dimensions have been changed from preliminary plat without
our knowledge.
Mr. Decker stated he entered into this in good faith. When the actual survey
was made it was found there was less land than what Mr. Slavik sold to us
because of the widening of the road.
-76
ill
Mr. Ventura read Section 4.06, Zoning Ordinance, No. 60.
Mr. Harsha again referred to Section 4.05, Zoning Ordinance, No. 60 and stated
that some time ago the commission agreed with 45' at the lot line on cul—de—sac
Mr. Ventura stated that commission has had recommendation from City Council.
that plats not be approved where lots are less than required in Section 4.05.
Mr. Decker asked whether directive by City Council was made to proposed sub—
division plats not brought before them rather than plats already approved by
City Council. Did not realize that the Planning Commission superseded the
City Council in the interpretation of the Plat Act and assumed that when
Council agreed to accept final plat that we have fulfilled spirit of the
Zoning Ordinance. If we do change radius then it must go back to the City
Council and from a time standpoint it would harm our entire spring building
program which was set up after approval last April.
Mr. Ventura asked Mr. Decker how long they have owned property. Mr. Decker
stated March, 1954.
Mr. Salinas asked why Mr. Decker couldn't go to the City Council with this
canvas plat in regard to the 50' lot.
Mr. Hay stated that this subdivision has been "kicked-aroundu and as Mr. Decker
stated the City Council okayed plat and inasmuch as commission has okayed
plats with 50' on curve make the following motion:
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Hay and seconded by Mr. Salinas, it was
RESOLVED that, final plat of J. F. Ferry Subdivision, No. 2 located
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 be given final approval, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that
tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City
Planning Commission under date of November 17, 1953; and it
further appearing that said proposed plat together with the plans
and specifications for improvements therein have been approved
by the Department of Public Works under date of December 16, 1953;
and it further appearing that a bond in the amount of $92,500 to
cover the installation of improvements has been filed in the office
of the City Clerk under date of January 7, 1955; such bond having
been approved by Russell C. Ashmore, City Attorney on January 7,
1955 it would therefore appear that all the conditions necessary
to the release of building permits have been met and the Building
Department is hereby so notified.
Mr. Ventura stated the Chair is not ready to recognize motion and that motion
is out of order. Stated he thought commission was being derelict in their
duty.
Mr. Hay stated the chair was not the deciding factor.
Mrs. Nielsen asked Mr. Decker whether at the City Council meeting April 7,
1954 the size of Lots 134 and 135 was deliberately brought out. Mr. Decker
stated this point was deliberately brought out and the Council approved it.
770
194
Stated if this commission should approve this plat and this is not born out
stated that he would forget this meeting ever took place.
Mr. Harsha suggested that it be incorporated in the motion something about
City Council already having passed on Lots 134 and 135
*-Mr. Russell Ashmore arrived at meeting 10:08 p.m.
There was a discussion about another plat being returned to this commission
from City Council for lots smaller than as stated in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Salinas asked why Mr. Decker should be penalized for the change of
administration.
Mr. Ventura suggested this be tabled until commission can give more study to
matter, return plat to City Council for determination or investigate why City
Council returned other plat to this commission and what dimensions were.
Mr. Harsha stated he remembered talking to Mr. Hamill and that it was he who
noted size of lots being smaller and he did not know of the paragraph in
Section 4.05, Zoning Ordinance, No. 60 which gives this commission authority
to make lots smaller. It was Mr. Hamillt s fault that plat was returned to
this commission.
Mr. Ashmore asked whether there has been a position taken by this commission
in regard to cul-de-sacs and curved streets. Asked the rule of the width of
lot on a cul-de-sac or curved street.
Mr. Ventura asked Mr. Hay if he would withdraw his motion in order to give
him opportunity to relinquish Chair to Vice-Chairman H. Paul Harsha.
Mr. Hay statedmotion was maae, seconded and stands.
Mr. Conway read portion of minutes of Planning Commission dated April 20,
1954 (Page 411, Vol. III) "It is the opinion of our Land Planning Section and
that of many of the more progressive municipalities that the minimum lot width
determination on residential sites abutting cul-de-sacs, loop streets, etc.
is measured at the building set back line rather than at the street right of
way line."
Mr. Ashmore stated that there was no question in his mind that Chairman has
right to recognize or not recognize anyone he sees fit. The members can
challenge ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Ventura asked whether the commission wanted to make a motion on whether
the Chair should recognize motion made by Mr. Hay.
Mr. Ashmore stated at corporation meetings one can stand and ask for floor any
number of times and the Chairman does not have to recognize him if he does not
want to.
At approximately 10:27 p.m. Chairman Peter A . Venture relinquished the Chair
to Vice-Chairman H. Paul Harsha.
Mr. Hay read resolution adopted by commission April 20, 1954 (Page 419, Vol. III)
setting minimum width of front lot lines bordering on a culdesac.
7
Mr. Ventura stated that he and Mr. Harsha had been appointed on a committee
to study front lot lines on cul—de—sacs and brought findings to commission.
It was some time after this that City Council referred plat back to this
commission and that they would not accept l6ts less than as stated in
ordinance.
Mr. Hay stated that the reason he made motion was that plat has been "kicked
around" for some time but that the motion does not mean that he is going along
with less than the Zoning Ordinance calls for but his thinking was there have
been others in the same situation.
Mr. Ashmore read portion of Section 15, Municipal Planning Commission Act, Act
285 of the Public Acts of 1931 as amended "The Planning Commission shall approve
modify or disapprove a plat within 60 days after submission thereof to it;
otherwise such plat shall be deemed to have been approved, and a certificate
to that effect shall be issued by the commission on demand." Stated he be—
lieved that the 60 days starts from the time the canvas back plat is sub—
mitted but time has never been challenged.
Mr. Ventura stated he still maintained the City Council returned plat to this
commission and that was the only reason he assumed stand. Do not think
commission has right to ignore recommendation of the City Council.
Mr. Harsha stated he did recall Country Homes Subdivision being returned to
commission with comments.
Mr. Hay stated that there were nine lots in the preliminary plat whereas there
are now only eight.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Hay and seconded by Mr. Salinas, it was
#1-7-55 RESOLVED that, final plot of J. F. Ferry Subdivision, No. 2 located
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35 be given final approval it
appearing that the City Council approved Lots 134 and 135 which have
a frontage of 50 feet at the street line, although the width appears
to be in excess of 60 feet at the building line April 7, 1954, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that
tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City
Planning Commission under date of November 17, 1953; and it
further appearing that said proposed plat together with the pans
and specifications for improvements therein have been approved
by the Department of Public Works under date of December 16, 1953;
and it further appearing that a bond in the amount of $92,500
to cover the installation of improvements has been filed in the
office of the City Clerk under date of January 7, 1955; such bond
having been approved by Russell C. Ashmore, City Attorney on
January 7, 1955 it would therefore appear that all the conditions
necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the
Bmilding Department is hereby so notified.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Conway, Hay, Steinhoff, Nielsen, Harsha and Salinas
NAYS: Ventura
iDe
Mr. Ventura stated that the reason he voted "Nay" is because of previous
statement that commission does not have right to ignore request of Legislative
Body, commission should respect directive of City Council.
At approximately 10:45 p.m. Vice—Chairman H. Paul Harsha relinquished Chair
back to Chairman Peter A. Ventura.
The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was the requested
letter from Russell Ashmore regarding whether the commission has jurisdiction
to release bonds on topsoil.
Mr. Ashmore stated that he did not have letter although he promised to have it
available at this meeting. Stated that in order to answer the commission's
request he would have to convince Mayor Hartom which he has not been able t
do.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Salinas and
unanimously carried, it was
#1-8-55 RESOLVED that, letter as requested December 14, 1954 (Page 164, Vol. IV)
from Russell Ashmore as to whether commission has jurisdiction to
release bonds on topsoil be tabled until January 25, 1955.
The Chairman declared the foregoilg resolution adopted.
The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was the communication
dated December 3, 1954 from The International City Managers' Association re—
garding a handbook on Planning Administration. The communication was passed
to each member for inspection and comment. It appeared to be the opinion of
the commission that this communication be filed.
The secretary anno'inced that the next item on the agenda was the statements
dated December 1, 1954 and January 1, 1955 from Waring and Johnson for the
month of September, 1954 in the amount of $165.
Mr. Ashmore suggested that this statement be paid as when the commission hires
a consultant he might wish to contact Waring and Johnson for information.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Salinas and seconded by Mr. Conway, it was
#1-9-55 RESOLVED that, statements dated December 1, 1954 and Janu-ry 1,
1955 from Waring and Johnson in the amount of $165 for services
during the month of September, 1954 be paid.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Conway, Hay, Steinhoff, Nielsen, Harsha, Ventura and Salinas
NAYS: None
The secretary read letter dated September 28, 1954 from Mr. E. H. Knebush,
Mills & Knebush dated October 29, 1954 from Mr. Alfred A. Gannon, Wayne County
Department of Health and dated November 29, 1954 from Herald F. Hamill.
The commission a-peared to agree that copies of the letters from Messrs. Hamill
and Gannon be forwarded to Mr. Knebush with the statement "This commission has
been frowning on developments requiring septic tanks."
The secretory announced that the next item on the agenda was the requested
letter from Russell Ashmore regarding commission having right to revoke top—
soil permit if there is a known violation.
Mr. Ashmore stated he did not have letter avail^ble for commission as he had
promised. Stated that there is a case in the Justice Court which has been
postponed three times and that last Wednesday he personally requested that
case be postponed until this commission has acted on various permits six
months or older. Forgot facts about this particular case. Stated that there
was no question that this commission has power to revoke permits.
Mr. Ventura asked how commission members would know if there is a violation
Mr. Ashmore stated commission members do not have to and that State Agency
will do it for commission if co- mission takes action. Read portion of Section
4.13, Zoning Ordinance, No. 60 "Such bond shall be for a period of one year
and shall be conditioned on the full performance by the holder of a permit of
all the provisions of this section, due compliance with the laws of the State
of Michigan and ordinances of the City of Livonia."
Mr. Ventura read Section 18.06, Zoning Ordinance, No. 60 "Any permit issued
under the provisions of this ordinance may be revoked by the Bureau of
Inspection."
The commission again requested that Mr. Ashmore submit letter.
Mr. Ashmore stated if any member of the commission is notified that a property
owner is being delitered short quantity or poor quality of topsoil the
commission member should call City Attorney's Office or Department of
Agriculture.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Harsha and seconded by Mr. Steinhoff, it was
#1-10-55 RESOLVED that, minutes of meeti gs December 14, 1954 and
December 28, 1954 be accepted as received.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Conway, Steinhoff, Nielsen, Harsha, Ventura and Salinas
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Hay
The secretary read letter dated January 15, 1955 from W. A. Lokey, Chairman
Planni,g Commission, Township of Nankin.
Mr. Ventura stated that a member of the Nankin Planning Commission is a
member of his school board and that the Nankin Planning Commission is willing
to cooperate with tris commission which is the reason they are asking for our
plans in this area.
There was a discu-sion about the subdivisions planned for this area. Mr. Hay
stated on the original plat it showed business area but that this commission
denied request and pl-rt was amended.
1/6
Mr. Hay suggested a member of this commission be appointed to attend this (7)
meeting. Mr. Ventura suggested that commission not put anyone on a spot and
that a letter be sent instead.
Mr. Conway stated that in view of Shelden Center he did not think rezoning to
commercial South of Joy Road was advisable.
The commission appeared to agree that the secretary should answer this letter.
Mr. John R. Cahill, 16176 Westbrook, Det. 19 was present regarding a proposed
engraving plaht.
Mr. Ventura stated the reason Mr. Cahill was at this meeting was that when he
contacted Mr. Cahill after the last meeting it appeared Mr. Cahill misunder-
stood and thought his proposed engraving shop was to be discussed at this
meeting.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Hay, sedonded by Mr. Conway and unanimously.
carried, it was
#1-11-55 RESOLVED that, matter of Mr. John R. Cahill's engraving shop
to be located 33551 Seven Mile Rond be discussed at this time.
The chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Cahill stated some say it is Light Manufacturing yet we do not manufacture
and at the same time he does not do commercial work. Stated he did use a
machine.
Mr. Conway asked how many people were employed. Mr. Cahill stated hi-nself
and two men and that he never cares to employe more than five. During the
war he did employe eight.
Mr. Ashmore asked the maximum noise level outside building. Mr. Cahill stated
one cannot hear noise when walking by building.
Mr. Ashmore asked about plumbing facilities. Mr. Cahill stated there is a
water pump and lavatory. Building is 20 x 30.
Mr. Cahill stated there were no obnoxious fumes.
Mr. Ventura asked whether this could be construed as a manufacturing plant.
Mr. Ashmore stated it was a service and that he has boked into it.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Conway, seconded by Mr. Salinas and
unanimously carried, it was
#1-12-55 RESOLVED that, after discussion the City Planning Commission
agreed with the petitioner, Mr. John R. Cahill that the en-
graving business he considers establishing at 33551 Seven Mile
road which entails engraving on trophies, jewelry, etc. is a
service shop, which is a use permitted in a C-1 District.
The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Ashmore stated that he wised to discuss letter doted January 18, 1955
7
from commission regarding Bell Creek Farms Subdivision, No. 2 and the
resolution adopted on same January 11, 1955. Referred again to Section 15,
Municipal Planning Commission Act, Act 285, of the Public Acts of 1931, as
amended and that there is no question that if Mr. Baird wants to demand such
a certificate he can and that there is no question Mr.Eoff has violated Section
77a of Act 172, Public hits of 1929, as amended. Stated that the present
property owners in this subdivision are alarmed that this has not been
recorded and that for the past two years h=ve not been able to arrange an
escrow on the taxes. There is a defense to this and stated he did not want
to put this commission in that position. Mr. Baird knows tf the 60 days.
Stated he has no choise but to forward this to the Attorney General but that
before he did he wanted to bring it back to this commission and inform
commission of facts they may not be aware of. Wish to know what commission
wants to do. Mr. Baird has to demand the approval under Section 15,
Municipal Planning Act, Act 285 of the Public Acts of 1931, as amended. Desire
to settle difficulty peacefully. Feels that commission was very ill advised
to write this letter.
Mr. Ventura stated he had "no bone to pick" but had run across section in law
(Act 172, Public Acts of 1929, as amended) and thought it was his duty to
inform commission. Felt violation shouldn't be ignored and that was the
reason letter was written. Potion of commission was that matter be tabled
until we had such an opinion from City Attorney. Asked if Mr. Pshmore con—
siders this ill advised.
Mr. Ashmore stated there are at least six subdivisions not recorded in the
City of Livonia where lots h-ve been sold. People's rights have to be con—
sidered. Suggested that these people be urged to have plats recorded. Bring—
ing it to Attorney General's attention is a harsh method of handling
this. Stated it was his job to enforce ordinance, etc. but that does not
mean it has to be taken to the Pttorney General's Office. Mr. Eoff is
attempting to comply and if this matter is taken to Attorney General cannot
leave back subdivisions where nothing has been done.
Mr. Ashrore stated that when commission brings things to his attention he must
take action. Cannot cite this man and leave others and if all are cited we
will have sizeable part of Livonia. Some of the subdivisions are completed
and the subdividers are gone. The subdividers think they are finished.
Mr. Ashmore suggested that this subdivision be treated the same as others.
They are people who didn't realize what they should do. Suggested notice
be publi-hed in the newspaper naming these subdivisions not recorded so that
these people in subdivisions realize the situation; ask that they contact
their lawyers or myself and this commission should help them record their
plat. Mentioned the plat where the Garofalo Drive—In is located and that it
is not a recorded plat. Stated these people were surprised to know that they
were in that position.
Mr. Ventura stated he would like to have copy of statement made by Mr. Ashmore
so that commission can think things over. Would like something to guide us
in our thinking so that we can feel we are acting intelligently.
Mr. Ashmore stated that approval of this commission is holding up recording.
Mr. Ventura asked what commission should do withit
SA) IMON
Mr. Ashmore stated that if Section 77a of ^ct 172, Public Acts of 1929, as amended
is enforced this commission is in violation itself (Section 15, Municipal
Planning Commission Act, Pct 285, of the Public Acts of 1931, as amended.)
Stated he knew of no reason plat should not be approved and that it has been
unnecessarily delayed in the course of approval.
Mr. Hay stated that if this plat is approved, wouldn't this commission be
setting a precedent on the others mentioned by Mr. Ashmore as not having been
recorded.
Mr. Ashmore stated that he wishes to make it clear that anyone whose plat is
delayed that this commission is not the one who is delaying it.
Mr. Ventura stated that by approving plat commission is setting precedent and
condoning violation of law.
Mr. Ashmore asked what was wrong by setting a precedent if subdivision has
all necessary requirements.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Salinas and seconded by Mr. Conway, it was
RESOLVED that, final plot of Bell Creek Farms Subdivision, No. 2
located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15 be given final approval.
P roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Conway, Harsha and Salinas
NAYS: Hay, Steinhoff, Nielsen and Ventura
Mr. Ventura asked whether the commission has the right to close their eyes
to determined violation of the law.
Mr. Ashmore stated that purpose of Plat Act is to protect people to get them
to record subdivisions therefore they are not going to do anything to one who
helps them to record.
Mr. Harsha stated this could not happen now, that it happened in the past.
Mr. Ashmore stated even these people whuld have to come to this cormission.
What caused this was people who got discourrIged and dropped it.
Mr. Hay suggested that this be tabled until records and minutes can ?-)e
available to commission before a abeision is made.
Mr. Ashmore st°ted he would have to make his report to State authorities be—
fore the next meeting of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Conway stated that in view of the facts, what good will it do to have
records and minutes if it is going to be taken care of by Attorney General's
Office.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Hay, seconded by Mrs. Nielsen and
unanimously carridd, it was
#1-13-55 RESOLVED that, all past records and minutes pertaining to Bell
Creek Farms Subdivision, No. 1 and Bell Creek Farms Subdivision,
No. 2 located in the Notthwest 1/4 of Section 15 be formally
7Oi
presented to commission for study, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that photostat be made for each member of this
commission.
The Chairman declared thefbregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Ventura stated that inasmuch as the commission has interviewed all
available Planning Consultants and commission is aware of all proposals, is
it commission's desire to act and select a consultant or does the commission
wish to take it up at another date.
Mr. Hay stated it was a handicap without a consultant.
Mr. Ventura briefly reviewed each of the three consultants interviewed.
Mrs. Nielsen suggested that the matter be tabled in order to give members
opportunity to study salaries, etc. of the three consultants.
Mr. Hay asked what would be gained by tabling this matter and talking about it
when each one of the available consultants was interviewed for at least two
hours.
There was a brief discussion regarding tonights agenda and th-t if a con—
sultant was present at $10 or more an hour it would add up to a considerable
sum.
Mr. Hay suggested the job be offered to Mr. Munson for 90 days on a trial
basis.
It was ascertained that Mr. Steinhoff was the only member not present when
Mr. Munson was interviewed. Mr. Steinhoff stated that if the other members
were impressed with Mr. Munson and wished to hire him, he would not object.
Mr. Conway stated Mr. George Vilican is a member of the Detroit Planning
Commission in charge of Long Range Planning
Mr. Hay stated that with David Geer Associates the commission might have the
same difficulty as with Waring and Johnson inasmuch as there would be times
Mr. Geer would have to send one of his associates rather than attend meeting
himself. Mr. Salinas stated he did have to call Mr. Geer several times be—
fore he would accept an interview.
Upon a motio duly made by Mr. Hay and seconded by Mrs. Nielsen, it was
RESOLVED that, City Planning Commission offer Albe E. Munson
and his associate George Vilican, Jr. a 90 day agreement as
Planning Consultants for the Planning Commission of the City
of Livonia, and FURTHER that the City Attorney draw up terms
of contract that can be dissolved as this commission sees fit.
Mr. Ventura stated that the commission can draw up this contract and submit
it to the City Attorney for comment. Suggested that the contract be drawn
at the rates as proposed by Mr. 1' . E. Munson in his letter dated November 23,
1954.
X762
moral
grawil
Upon a motion duly rade by Mr. Hay, seconded by Mrs. Nielsen and unanimously
carried, it was
#1-14-55 RESOLVED that, City Planning Commission offer Albe E. Munson
and his associate George Vilican, Jr. a 90 day agreement as
Planning Consultants for the City of Livonia at the rate as
proposed by Mr. A. E. Munson in his letter dated November 23,
1954, and FURTHER THAT SUCH contract be drawn by commission
and submitted to City Attorney for approval.
The Chairman decl' red the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Salinas suggested that a letter be sent to Messrs. David Geer and
Richard Fernbach thanking them for their cooperation.
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, it was
#1-15-55 RESOLVED that, this meeting be adjourned.
At approximately 12:30 a.m. Chairman Peter A. Ventura declared the meeting
adjourned.
Rufino Salinas, Secretary
ATTESTED:
Peter A. Ventura, Chairman
\-c‘C:-.)
H. Paul Ha ha Vice-Chairman