Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-01-19 2731 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 111TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 19, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 111th Regular Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Angevine, Chairman called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:20 p.m. Members present: Dennis Anderson, Wilford Okerstrom, Leonard Kane, Robert L. Angevine, H. Paul Harsha, William Robinson, Charles Walker, Robert Peacock and Robert L. Greene Members absent : None Mr. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Rodney C. Kropf, Assistant City Attorney were. present along with approximately 150 interested persons. Mr. Angevine: I have been informed by our City Planner, Mr. McCullough, that there are a number of persons in the audience who are interested in Item #3, Petition M-1F3. Because of this the Planning Commission will consider Item #3 first. Mr. McCullough:The first item on the agenda is Petition M-183 by Wm. J. Krause on behalf of the Redford Livonia Dad's Club, Inc., who is requesting permission to operate a private park on the west side of Inkster Road and East of C-rdwell, approximately 400' north of Joy Road on Lots M53 through M64 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36. A petition signed by approximately 75 persons has been submitted to the Planning Commission, objecting to the proposed private park. Mr. Peacock: I would like to know if it is possible to have two baseball diamonds and a football field under the zoning of Rl. I feel that the ordinance, which clearly states that land under R1 can be used for private parks, "provided such use does not impair the natural appearances of such land or tend to produce noise or annoyance to surrounding properties". The plan as submitted would be against the ordinance. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Robert Brang, Attorney representing petitioner: I have submitted a diagram showing an athletic field and a playground for the children in the area. We will have two baseball diamonds, football field, several tennis courts, a playground area to the west for slides and swings for the little ones. We have provided an area to the north for off-street parking. This is a Michigan non-profit organization, no one has received a dime for this and no salaries have been spent. As far as the park is concerned, there will be no facilities for picnicing. We do not intend to have picnics or will we permit them. It is only a play area for the children. It is my understanding that Livonia does not have facilities for parks. It will be closed at night. It has been rumored that it is to be a profit making park, it is strictly a civic minded group that is behind it. There will 273'2 be no noise after dark. It is an ideal location for children in that vicinity. We have already 2/3rds of 9 Acs.A good deal money I spent, approximately 311,000.00 on land contract. We have actually put out 311,000. Do not get the idea that it will be left wide open so as to become a nuisance to the surrounding community. Mr. Greene: What teams will you have and what about spectators? Mr. Brang: Only the Little Leagues will be using the park. No other teams. Mr. Greene: Will you have bleachers? Mr. Brang: I do not think there will be bleachers. Mr. Greene: I feel this would create crowds, noise and traffic. Mr. Brang: The only spectators would be the parents and friends of the children. Mr. Greene: At present it is only to be used as stated tonight but what assurance do we have that it will always be used only as stated? Could it re- vert to a private type park we have mentioned? Mr. Brang: The only guarantee that it wouldn't revert to something different would be the By-Laws which clearly state it will be for playgrounds, etc. I feel that the Articles of the Corporation would limit the use of this playground. Mr. Greene:1[40 Why didn't you go through the Parks & Recreation Department of Livonia? Mr. Prange: Because we thought we could do it ourselves. Mr. Robinson: Couldn't the existing school fields be used? Mr. Brang: The school playgrounds are pretty well taken care of and are crowded. This is for Redford, Livonia and also Dearborn Township. There are no sufficient facilities at the present time for these three communities. Mr. Harsha: Will bhis property be completely fenced in? Mr. Brang: Yes, with an eight foot cyclone +ype fence as stated in your ordinance. Mr. Anderson: Will it ever be used for a carnival? Mr. Brang: No. Mr. An,;erson: Will the fence be gated and locked after dark? Mr. Brang: Yes. 1[40 Mr. Peacock: There are four school playgrounds within one mile of this area, two with football fields, three with baseball diamonds, plus the facilities of Edward Hines Parkway which is located only 1/2 mile away. There are very good facilities there. I think that the area is very well provided with park facilities. 2733 II Mr. Walker: This property in question is surrounded with frontage on Inkster 1 and frontage on Cardwell. Have you purchased this property from one owner or separate owners? Mr. Brang: The frontage on Inkster was purchased from five owners. Mr. Walker: Does any of the property come from owners on Cardwell? Mr. Brang: No. Mr. Walker: Those property owners who have sold their property to you do not object to the use, but those surrounding the area do protest. Mr. Brang: I feel that those who have protested thought it was going to be a picnic ground. This is not going to be a picnic ground. This is strictly a play area for the children. It will never be rented out. Mr. Greene: Regardless of private ownership, this is a recreational function for the children. Under the Department of Parks & Recreation, all parks are carefully supervised. What supervision will you have under this private ownership? Mr. Brange: The children will be going over any time they wish to. When the Little Leagues are using the playgrounds they will have their regular supervision. The Board of Directors will be supervising this at other times very closely. II: Mr. McCullough: Will you have hired supervision? Mr. Brang: I could not say because of economics. Mr. Stanley Markley, 9000 Cardwell: How long has your group been functioning? Mr. Brang: About the middle of February, 1959. Mr. Markley: Where did the funds come from for this park? Mr. Brang: Paper drives, donations. Mr. Markley: No connection with the church? (St. Robert Bellemine) Mr. Brange: None whatsoever. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Bruce Coulter, Attorney for Mr. Ernest Phear, 8939 Inkster: Mr. Phear owns Lot 59 and he feels he has quite an investment in his property. He is concerned that that having it so close will be harmful to his property; he is concerned about the noise and confusion in that area as it would be hard to eliminate the noise. Also, there is 1[0 no assurance that you will be the owners of this property in the future and that it will be run as you say it will be, tonight. Mr. Brange: Mr. Phear offered to sell 400 ft. of his property for $1,1CC more than the others. Mr. J. Marsh, 27650 Joy Road: We have put up with the prob lem of water, sewers and floods. It is a swamp hole with no surface drainage whatsoever. 2734 I do not know if the new sewer will help us. Mr. Krause is going to raise the park property, that means the surface water will be running off onto surrounding property. The City of Livonia has a Master Plan for Parks. I know money is tight. The area have to be developed. If you have $11,000, it could be used for their sites. Also, the school board would be glad to accept equipment for their playgrounds, such as at Emerson, Wilson and Cleveland. These schools have park sites next to them, and they are not on main throughfare highways like this particular site on Inkster. Why do we have to have a park for the Redford Township children? We have no knowledge of what the future will bring in this park; will it ever revert to the City? There will be a parking problem. Fences will not keep children from climbing and there is no ordinance in the City for a private park. I can see no basis on which the Planning Commission can approve it. Mr. William Wren, 27680 Joy Road: 60% of the owners of surrounding property are retired or about to retire. Most of us have lived here twenty years. This is an ideal place to have peace and quiet when I come home from work. This property is presently a swamp hole. There is a ditch on my property which is used by my neighborh and myself to handle the excess water. This water runs to Joy Road. If Joy Road is widened and paved, what will happen to the ditch? Mr. Marsh: We were told it was a private park. We thought it was to be like the Liberty Park on Middlebelt. Mr. Clark, 9031 Inkster, owner of Lot 56 understood it was going to be an old Dad's Club. He thought this was a good thing. Mr.Bc:n Martin, 8915 Inkster Road; I do not intend to sell. Mr. Al. Laskowski, 8911 Inkster (owner of Lots 61 and 62 which are included in area for park): I have lived a long time in Livonia. I know the topography of the ground and the drainage. I want to be fair to everyone else. If it will hurt anyone it should be taken off. Mr. James Darnell, 8091 Inkster Road: I feel that the playground would devaluate my property which is right next door. Why should they come in from another community and disturb this area. I know there are many people who feel the same way. Mr. James Clark, 9031 Inkster: Where are the children going to go if this is not approved? Mr. Angevine: I believe that there are quite a number of playgrounds in the area for them. Mr. S. Markley: I feel there is enough land in everyone's backyard that they can have their own baseball diamond. Mr. James Clark: The schools' playgrounds are crowded. Mr. Markley: Mr. Girardin, Parks & Recreation Department, has stated that if there is a need, we would gladly accept this arm and have it 27:.?5 supervised by the Parks & Recreation. II:: Mrs. H. Vess, 9152 Cardwell: What about the people who work nights and afternoons? Mr. William P. Holmberg, 27520 Joy Road: This park is on my property line. I understood it was to be a park, now I understand it is going to be a athletic field. Isn't this out of order? Mr. Kane: Could we have a show of hands of those in the audience who are against and those who do not object? There were approximately twenty hands against the petition; approximately six were for it. Mr. Greene: What would happen if the Parks & Recreation Department showed an interest in it? Would you be receptive to this? Mr. Brange: I do not think there would be as much enthusiam for it if it was not a civic venture. I know that St. Robert Bellemine with 600 or 700 children do not have a playground. Mr. J. Clark: St. Bellemine's can use the land they have behind the church and school for a playground. Mr. Walker: I would like to say on behalf of the Planning Commission that I admire what the petitioner is attempting to do. Certainly all of us active in City Government realize the need for recreational areas for Livonia. I think there has been a lot of pros and cons. I think that the Planning Commission should take consideration of both arguments and that this should be taken under advisement. We should contact the Parks Commission as to their views on the particular location and the plan which was submitted to us. I would like to hear from the Department of Public Works and Engineering on the problem of drainage in the area. There are other matters to be considered and looked into so that we can come up with the most equitable and fair solution to this problem. Mr. Peacock: There is question in my mind. Mr. Martin was asked if he was going to sell his property and he said No. What will this do to the park? What lot does Mr. Martin own? It was determined that Mr. Martin owned Lot 63 which is included in the park area. Mr. Al. Laskowski restated his previous objections for the record in relation to the drainage problem in this area. Mr. Melville Hood, 9174 Cardwell, concurred with Mr. Laskowski. Mr. Frank J. Moran, 27655 W. Chicago: I am concerned over this park. During the past couple of years I have spent considerable effort and money to improve my property. The City has a Master Plan for parks and I see no need of any park in that particular area because there are IL plenty;: of parks and playgrounds in that area. Also, Edward Hines Parkway actually takes children from the school playgrounds and parks. The local playgrounds are not used extensively. I q uestion the need of a park in this area. Since it is a private park in— volving two communities, what about the future of the project? What if one or the other drops out? Anything could happen since it is private property. I live here now and I take considerable pride in 2736 C my property and I do not want to see anything happen that will deprive my property or anybody else?s property. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement for further study. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-54 by Samuel S. Simmer, attorney for Carey Homes, Inc., is requesting vacating the west two feet of the east six feet of Lot 7, located in Bretton Gargen Cdbny Subdivision in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. We have received a letter from Michigan Bell Telephone Company dated January 5, 1960; from Detroit Edison Company dated January 14, 1960 and from the Engineering Department dated December 30, 1959. Property owner of Lot #7 built his home on easement as presently located. He wishes to vacate two feet of the easement so that his house does not encroach on ]this easement. Mr. George Blostine, representing Carey Homes: Carey Homes, Inc., made the mistake. The excavator used the wrong plat. Mr. Harsha: Is the house actually on the easement? As I understand it, it would be in violation of the ordinance because it would be within the four feet. ' 1 Mr. Blostine: The present easement is six feet frnm the property line. Mr. Harsha: The subdivision Rules & Regulations states "...Where alleys are not provided, easements of not less than six (6) feet in width shall be provided on each side of rear lot lines and of side lot lines where necessary for utilities and shall be noted on the record plat f4 In order to permit what is asked tonight, we would have to change the regulations, unless the Attorney can clear this up. Mr. Kropf: Do you plan to add on the two feet which you taking off Lot #7 onto Lot #6? Mr. Blostine: Yes Mr. Anderson: Will one lot have an eight foot easement and the other a four foot easement? Mr. Blostine: When it is relocated the owner of Lot #7 will not be in the easement and the two feet taken off his seeement will be added onto Lot #6 which will then have an eight foot easement. Mr. Anderson: Will it affect the driveway for Lot #6? I: Mr. Blostine: No, the relocation of the easement will not affect either driveway. They are both close to the homes. Mr. Anderson: Does the new home owner realize that ane will not be able to build a garage on the easement? Mr. Harsha: Then there will be an eight foot easement on Lot #6? 2737 Mr. Blostine: Yes, we already have a survey on this. Mr. Okerstrom: Will the utilities agreeto the new relocated easement? And also the owners of Lot #6, will they agree to the 8 ft.easement? Mr. Blostine submitted a survey to the commission members for examination. Mr. Angevine: A letter should be obtained from the owner of Lot #6 that he will be agreeable to an eight foot easement. We should have this for the records. Mr. Kropf: A grant of easement could be obtained from the property owner. Mr. Anderson: We should have on record a letter from the owner of Lot #6 that he will be agreeable to the two feet being added onto his easement. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? There being none, this item will be taken under advisement until we receive the necessary affidavits. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-182 by Al Oil, Inc., requesting permission to erect and operate a gasoline service station on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads approximately 5004 east of Stark Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Al Mallory was present representing the Al Oil, Inc., He submitted the proposed plans for the gasoline station to the commission members. Mr. Angevine: How far is this property from Stark Road and is there anything on the property now? Mr. Mallory: About 600 ft. from Stark Road. There is one house between this property and the shopping center. Mr. Mallory submitted photographs of a similar gas station located elsewhere. Mr. Angeline: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Wilfred G. Donaldson, 34125 Wadsworth Dr.: What happens to the remaining part of the parcel, the rear part not being used for the gas station? There is approximately 300 ft. left between my property and the portion for the gas station. Mr. George Cart acs, 2032 Dime Bank Bldg. : I object to the proposed gas station in this area. Mr. Frank J. Riegel, 33910 Plymouth Road, owner of Antique Shop: I feel the property is too valuable for a gas station and I object to so many gas stations. Mr. Walker: I would like to say I differ with the gentleman as to the location of the gas station. I have felt for some time that a corner at a busy intersection is not the best place for a gas station. The intersections are undesirable and unsafe in relation to traffic. Gas stations are more desirable in our plan in the middle of the block than at the intersections. We are at the present time 2738 If: studying a master plan of this whole area. I do not want to see the commercial land sacrificed for the land at the rear of it. Therefore, I feel that this commission has to come up with a plan of opening this land so that we know what the use should be before we allow too much of the frontage to be used. There is the matter of the North and South road of Wayne Road north of Plymouth, which at the present time we do not know where it will exactly be located. I feel that I would like to know the answers to these questions before I decide on this petition tonight. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Harsha, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #1-2-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing at approximately 9:40 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 1960. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Anderson, Peacock, Greene, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Okerstrom, Kane, and Angevine IENAYS: None Zr. Angevine: The motion is carried so the foregoing resolutinn is adopted. There will be a ten minute recess at this time. The meeting was again called to order at approximately 9:50 p.m. by Mr. Angevine with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called with the exception of Mr. Robert Greene,who was excused at the time recess was called. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-418 by Jack Coleman, Unity Construction Company who is asking that the zoning classi- fication on property located �.n the Northeast corner of School- craft and Levan Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20 be changed from AGB to R1A, R-3 and C-2. Public Hearing 10/20/59, item taken under advisement; regular meeting 11/10/59, taken under advisement; stuly meeting 11/24/59; regular meeting 12/15/59, taken under further advisement; study meeting 1/12/60. A revised plan of the proposed three different zonings has been submitted by the petitioner. You will note that the C-2 has been changed to a C-1 as requested by the Planning Commission at one of the study meetings. Mr. Walker: I have talked with the owners of the property across Levan and they were in favor of the plan as submitted. They have plans which call for building in the Rear future as on the Northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Levan iey propose to break ground in six months to build a college. They have had difficulty due to the condition of Levan Road and also due to Levan Road having only one bridge. They have had meetings with the City and the State to try and clear this up but they do not expect them to do too much about it. They felt that if some type of development should 2739 be built in this area on the opposite side, it might bring about an improvement in the street. They prefer the R-3 development on Levan Road due to the greater set back and the marginal access street which would be a safety factor for the hospital. They also feel that the R-3 development would be best for that area as it would be needed for those who would attend their college and also some of the staff for the hospital. They are also in need for some type of professional building. They have asked me to express their sentiments to the commission. In lieu of the report I have just made and the facts that I have found out in relation to this proposed plan, I would like at this time to move that the zoning as indicated on the plat as submitted to us at the last meeting be approved, and that whatever legal advertising is necessary that it be taken care of. The legal advertisement would have to conform with the submitted plan. Mr. McCullough: Another public hearing will have to be held on the R-3 area. You can approve so much as is shown for R-1A and the C-1 area. Mr. Kropf: You can approve the petition except that portion reserved for R-3. Mr. Okerstrom: What if after the public hearing, the R-3 area is objected to. Would it interferewith the planning of the approved portions? Mr. Peacock: I would like to see it advertised properly before I vote on the petition. Mr. Kropf: You can go ahead and approve the R1A portion. Mr. McCullough: Why not approve the R1A as shown on the Exhibit "A" except the west 250 ft, which would be for the R-3 area. Since there was no support to Mr. Walker's motion to approve petition, it died for lack of support. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #1- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 20, 1959 on Petition Z-418 as submitted by Jack Coleman, Unity Construction Company for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20 from AGB to R1A, R-3 and C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-418 be approve only that portion shown as R1A on the attached Exhibit "A", except the west 250 feet, and complete There was a brief discussion as to whether or not the/petition should be readvertised according to the submitted sketch. IL Mr. Anderson: I withdraw my support. Mr. Walker: I withdraw my motion to approve. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Harsha, it was 2740 Ir: #1-3-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission on its own motion does hereby determine that Petition Z-418 as submitted by Jack Coleman, Unity Construction Company requesting a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20 from AGB to R1A, R-3 and C-2, be readvertised in accordance with the submitted sketch, Exhibit "A" and request a zoning from AGB to R1A, R-3 and C-1, and FURTHER that, a hearing be held and that notice be given as pro- vided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried, therefore the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, and unanimously adopted, it was #1-4-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, December 15, 1959 on Petition V-52 as submitted by Arthur Swanson for the vacating of an easement along the South : line of Lots 704 and 705 and the West 254 of Lot 703, Coventry Gardens Subdivision in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition V-52 be granted, subject, however, to the recommendations of the City Engineering Department and the Detroit Edison Company and the Michigan Bell Telephone Company, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November 25 1959 and nct ice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison "ompany, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., Michigan Bell Telephone Co., The Consumers Power Co., City Departments, petitioner and abutting property owners as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the fore g ing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The petitioner for the next two items on the agenda has asked permission to withdraw both petitions, Z-426 and M-179. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, it was #1-5-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant permission to Dr. Powell to withdraw Petition Z-426 requesting 1[0 a change of zoning on property located on the Southwest corner of Middlebelt and Wentworth in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from RUFB to R-2. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried so the foregoing resolution is adopted. 2741 If: Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, it was #1-6-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant permission to the Reslo, Inc., to withdraw Petition M-179 requesting permission to erect and operate a hospital on property located on the Southwest corner of Middlebelt and Wentworth Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried so the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the aenda is Petition Z-428 by Mr. & Mrs. Adolf Altenburg who are asking that the zoning classification on property located on the Southwest corner of Harrison and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 be rezoned from RUFB to R1A. Public Hearing 12/15/59 item taken under advise- ment; study meeting 1/12/60. There was a brief discussion among the commission members as to how much R 1 A was in the surrounding area. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #1-7-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, December 15, 1959 on Petition Z-428 as submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Adolf Altenburg for a change of zoning in the `F Southwest 1/4 of Section 13 from RUFB to R1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-428 be denied for the reason that the tier of lots along the south side of Broadmoor and along the east side of Harrison contains no lots smaller than RUF minimum, consequently the proposed rezoning would be inconsistent with existing zoning elsewhere in these blocks, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November 25, 1959 and notice of whbh hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co., Chesapeaks& Ohio Railway Co., Michigan Bell Tele- phone Co., The Consumers Power Company, City Departments, and petitioners as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Harsha, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: Walker, Robinson and Anderson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: Phe next item on the agenda is the proposed Ellen Kay Subdivision submitted by Elmdale Inc., located between Middlebelt and Harrison; suituated on the North side of Five Mile Road approximately 350 IL ft. East of Middlebelt and 1,000 ft. West of Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13. Public Hearing 12/15/59 item taken under advisement; study meeting 1/12/60. The only objection raised at the last meeting was the location of Garden St. The developer has relocated the street in order that it may be connected with the proposed subdivision located 2742 { north of the proposed Ellen Kay Subdivision. It was determined that the developer of the VIV Manor Subdivision located north of the Ellen Kay Subdivision had dedicated a 60 ft. street which will tie in with Garden St as the developer of Ellen Kay Subdivision has platted it. It was also determined that the City Council is to be notified that there is a parcel of land between the proposed Ellen Kay Subdivision and the proposed VIV Manor Subdivision which would have to be dedicated in order to link the street together. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #1-8-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, December 15, 1959 the City Planning Commission does hereby give approval to the preliminary plat of the Ellen Kay Subdivision located on the North side of Eve Mile Road approximately 350 ft. East of Middlebelt and 1,000 ft. West of Harrison in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice having been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation Department and Members of the Plat Committee. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #1-9-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant request from the Practical Home Builders for a one- year extension on the preliminary plat of the Stark Gardens Subdivision located on the North side of Schoolcraft Road, approximately 1300 W. of Gill Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimosly adopted, it was #1-10-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having given due consideration to the designated proposed location of Harrison Avenue between Schoolcraft and Lyndon in the City of Livonia which is located in the South 1/2 of Section 24 of said City, and it appearing that the designated proposed location of such thoroughfare as presently shown on said Master Thoroughfare Plan should be changed to relocate the proposed location of such thoroughfare in futherance of the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and that said relocation of Harrison Avenue between Schoolcraft and Lyndon Roads in the South 1/2 of Section 24, City of Livonia should designate the center line thereof to read as follows: 2743 The description of the centerline of the relocated Harrison Avenue is described as beginning at the E. and W. 1/4 line, Section 24, T1S, R9E, City of Livonia, Wayne County, a distance of 166 feet west of the Center Corner of said Section 24 and proceeding thence SO°07435' E, 1417.99 feet; thence along the arc of a curve concave westerly 340.87 feet whose radius is 950 feet, central angle is 20°333430", long chord is 339.04 feet and long chord bearing is S10°09910" W; thence along the arc of a curve concave easterly 340.87 feet whose radius is 950 feet, central angle is 20°33430", long chord is 339.04 feet and long chord bearing is S10°09410" W; thence S0°07435" E, 445.00 feet to a point on the North line of Schoolcraft Road (204 feet wide) which point is 282 feet west of the N & S 1/4 line of said Section 24, the City Planning Commission on its own motion does hereby establish and order a public hearing to be held in the City Hall of the City of Livonia to determine whether or not Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, that is, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, should be amended so as to relocate Harrison Avenue in the South 1/2 of Section 22 from its present location as shown on the Master Thorough- fare Plan to a new location, the legal description of which is hereinabove set'forth, for the reason that said relocation would be in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the community and more appropriately carry out the purpose of intent of the City4s Master Thoroughfare Plan; and I: IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circu- lation in the City of Livonia and that a notice by registered mail 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 p rovisions of Section 5.2998 of Michigan Statutes Annotated and in accordnace with the provisions of Act 2. 5 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the forega.ng resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #1-11-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60, as amended, the City Planning Commission on its own motion does hereby provide for a public hearing to be held to determine whether or not to rezone all land zoned R 1 B in the Northeast and North- 17;77.74 orth- west 1 4 of Section 31. to R 1 A, and That a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and 1[410recommendation thereon to the City Council. Mr. Angevine: The Motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. It was determined that a letter is to be written to the Inspection Department of the City of Livonia requesting that building permits not be issued for this particular area. 2744 g Mr. McCullough: There is a conference scheduled by the Michigan Society of Planning Officials on Thursday and Friday, January 28 and January 29, 1960 at the Pick-Fort Shelby Hotel. If any of the commissioners wish to attend, please contact the office and reservations will be made. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby duly adjourn this 111th Regular Meeting at 10:40 p.m. on Tuesday, January 19, 1960. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Leonard K. Kane, Secretary ATTESTED: ir/- P .bent L. Angevine teirman