Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-11-01 3020 AL: ;MINUTES OF THE 123RD SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 1, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held the 123rd Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, ' Michigan. Mr. Charles Walker, Chairman called the Special Meeting to order at approximately 8:15 p.m. Members present: William R. Robinson, Robert L. Greene, Robert L. Angevine, Wilford E. Okerstrom, Leonard K. Kane and Charles W. Walker. Members absent : **Dennis Anderson and Robert M. Peacock Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner u s present along with approximately 5 interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition M-208 by Kenneth D. Ockerman reyuesti'.g permission to construct an auto electric service garage on property located on the East side of Farmington Road, approximately 340 feet North of Schoolcraft Road. ii. Wolfe Gardens Subdivision' in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. Public Hearing 10/lo/60, item taken under advise- ment. ": Mr. Ockerman was present. There was a lengthy discussion during which it was determined that Mr. Ockerman would be able to purchase the remaining 40 ft. immediately north of the property in the petition,which will eventually be used for parking. The present parking is sufficient but it was thought that it would be advisable for the p' ' !ticner to acquire more land for additional parking. Mr. Ockerman was advised that before this property could be used for parking, he would have to petition to have it rezoned. Mr. Robinson: Aren't we circumventing the ordinance allowing the split of this lc;? . . been Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Pinto, who had/at another meeting in the building, to answer this question. It was determined that the petitioner needs the permission of the adjoining property owner to operate a garage. In this particular case, the adjoin- ing property did not wish to give his permission. It was then determined to split the lot leaving a forty foot FLrcel between the property owner who objected and the proposed garage. Mr. Ockerman was purchasing his property on land contract. Mr. Pinto: You must get permission from tl.s adjoining property owner, becF'.:ae in this case, the property in the petition is not owned by the petitioner. He is buying it on option and the person he is purchasing the property from still has the deed. The purpose and the intent of the law is to protect • that adjoining property owner. At this point the petitioner does not own the 60 ft. If he had the deed and owned the 60 ft. outright with a deed in his name and the adjoining 40 ft. was owned by an entirely different person then this would alter the situation. Mr. Robinson: The type of business isn't actually a garage business. We -w 3021 may be able to classify it as another use which would not require the permission of the aji oining property owner. Mr. Ockerman will not be doing heavy repair work. Mr. Ockerman: It was the only catagory we could classify this use. All the other adjoining property owners did not object. There was only one property owner who objected and she said she didn't want anything on this property. Mr. Pinto: A land contract purchaser is an equitable property owner • If Mr. Ockerman is the land contract purchaser then for all practical purposes I would have to say that the re- maining 40 ft. is another property owner. Mr. McCullough: I suggest that Mr. Ockerman's lawyer contact Mr. Pinto to see what needs to be done to create this ownership so that this item cen be taken care of. Mr. Pinto was excused at this time, (6:30 p.m.) to return to another meeting. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until we hear from Mr. Pinto. Mr. McCullough: The next 1.-.:em on the agenda is Petition M-211 by Lavon V. Grimm requesting permission to construct and operate a practice golf range on property located on the North side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Haggerty Roads, approximately 600 feet West of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. Public Bearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. Mr. Grimm was present. in Mr. McCullough: Mr. Grimm has offered to provides lease that the lease would terminate after three years and that the lessee would be obliged to seek City approval anew at that time. Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at 8:35 p.m. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Greene, it was #11- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition M-211 by Lavon V. Grimm requesting permission to construct and operate a practice golf range on property in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 for the reason that the proposed use will discourgae the development of the adjoining property for homes, Mr. Anderson: I feel that if this property gets to the point that developers want it to develop residentially, the value of the property will automatically eliminate the use. For this reason, I would vote against this motion. 1[01 Mr. Kane: I am in agreement with Mr. Anderson. Mr. Angevine: I am also in agreement with Mr. Anderson. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 3022 AYES: Greene, Robinson and Okerstrom 11[: NAYS: Angevine, Anderson, Kane and Walker Mk. Walker: The motion is not carried, therefore the resolution is not adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #11-233-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-211 by Lavon V. Grimm requesting per- mission to construct and operate a practice golf range on property located on the North side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Haggerty Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Angevine, Anderson, Kane and Walker NAYS: Greene, Robinson and Okerstrom II: Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-476 by James S. Bonadeo asking that the zoning classification on property located on the Northwest corner of Orangelawn and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be rezoned from R-3 to C-2. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson it was #11-234-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby allow the petitioner for Petition Z-476 to verbally amend said petition to request a change of zoning from R-3 to C-1 on the Northwest corner of Orangelawn and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, said request to be followed by a letter of confirmation. A roll call vote on the foregoing reaiution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 11[: Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #11-235-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 on Petition Z-476 as submitted 3023 by James S. Bonadeo for a change of zoning in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 from R-3 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-476, as amended by Res. #11-234-60, be granted for the reason that it forms a desirable transitional use between the commercial to the north and the apartments to the south, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the abcve hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of September 28, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Tele- phone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is curried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item ;:,n the agenda is Petition Z-478 by the City Planning Commi..cion on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend portions of Section 4.37 and Section 4.38 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. There was a general discussion of the proposed ordinance. It was determined that there was no control of parking for the drive-in restaurants. It was suggested that it could possibly be based on the capacity of the kitchen of each drive-in. Mr. Anderson was asked how would it be worded so that it could be included in the ordinance. He answered that he would have to study it further. It was suggested that the ordinance be passed as it was proposed and that the City Planner would be in the meantime look into this to determine how it could be worded so that it could be included in the ordinance. It was also suggested that the problem of off-street parking on Plymouth Road be studied to determine what could be done to help the situation since the road was widened and decreased the present off-street parking facilities. It was then suggested that the wording "not otherwise specified" be deleted from Sub-section 20 of Section 4.38 Off-Street Parking; Schedule. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #11-236-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 on Petition Z-478 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend certain portions of Section 4.37 Off-Street Parking; Requirements and Section 4.38 Off-Street Parking; Schedule of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-478 be granted, subject, however, to deleting "not otherwise specified" from Sub-section 20 of Section 4.38 Off-Street Parking; Schedule, for the reason that the existing provisions were probably copied from another Ordinance in a City having a highly developed public transportation system, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of September 28, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 3024 Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is IL: adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-479 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend the Zoning 0rdinanc , Ordinance No. 60 by adding thereto Article 5.25 RM District Regulations. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. There was a brief discussion in relation to whether or not a cogdition should be included in the proposed new ordinance whereby a homeowner with a corner lot who hasn't sufficient side yard area will be allowed to have an attached garage. At the present, this is not allowed in the ordinance. Mr. Pinto returned to the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until it has had further study. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Item #10, Petition Z-470 which is in relation to a proposed ordinance to determine whether or not Section 4.45 of Article 4.00 should be amended by changing the type of protective wall required by the existing ordinance. Mr. Al Meredith, 14182 Cardwell and Mr. L. Bohling, 27529 Buckingham are here tonight to discuss the proposed new wall ordinance. Mr. Byron Canvasser the builder of the nursery on Schooicraft and Inkster was to be present also. Mr. Canvasser is to put in the protective wall at the rear of the nursery. The reason it hasn't been erected as yet is that they did not want to pc, r the footing until the ground was able to take the footing. There is a wooden fence along the rear of the shopping center behind the drug store and the Ben Franklin store. Mr. Al Meredith: Mr. Canvasser has made an agreement that if we can get President of the this new wall ordinance approved by the Planning Buckingham Village Commission he will not only erect the wall behind the Civic Association nursery but will also remove the present fence behind the drug store and the Ben Franklin stcre and replace it with the new type up to the A & P store in the shopping center. Mr. Pinto: Do you know what the new wall looks like? Mr. Meredith: No, but I utderstand there is one like it at Middlebelt and Warren. Mr. Okerstrom: What is underneath the present fence? Mr. Meredith: Under portions of it there is a drain running east and west and because of this it wouldn't hold if concrete I[: is poured on top of it. Mr. Canvasser informed us of this. Mr. McCullough: If there is an existing sewer which would prevent pouring the foundation for a wall, would'nt this be a legitinate case for the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. Pinto: Yes, but the Engineering Department does not agree with 3025 Mr. Canvasser. IL: Mr. Walker: There is certainly a lot of difference in walls. The one before us has an 3" space at the bottom which would be detrimental. It is an inferior wall to the one we now have. This type of wall shdluld only be allowed in cases of an emergency where it would be impossible to build the other kind of wall required. Knowing the situation at Buckingham Village I can see why they are enxicus to have some kind of wall erected to protect them from the shopping center. Mr. Meredith: All we want, in representing the home owners of the Buckingham Village Civic Associations is a suitable fence to protect the residents from the shopping center. Mr. Anderson: Mr. Canvasser has offered to put up C in order to get this present type of wallnofrinferior type. I feel that it would not be maintained as it should. A wall should be erected teat would not require such maintaining. Mr. Bohling: The wall presented tonight does not comply with the one proposed by Mr. Canvasser. Mr. Anderson: I would like to suggest precast would float on thegradeof the land. I do e n not like els h the space at the bottom of the wall presented tonight. Mr. Walker: We will try to come up with a solution because we do not agree on the wall as presented here. We can not do anything about the existing fence. At the present Mr. Canvasser is obligated to put up the required wall as stated in the ordinance. If,in the event, we can not come up with a solution then this matter can be presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. But, if you could possibly wait a week or two we may be able to help you. Mr. McCullough: We will try and obtain recommendations on a different type of wall from some fabricators. Mr. Robert Greene was excused at 9:50 p.m. It was suggested at this time that the occupancy permit be held up until the pro- tective wall is erected. Mr. McCullough suggested a meeting in two weeks with representatives from the Buckingham Village Association, Mr. Canvasser and several fabricators. L. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. . Walker called a recess at approximately 9:55 p.m. ******** The meeting was again called to order at 10:10 p.m. by Mr. Charles Walker, Chairman with the following members present: Dennis Anderson, Leonard K. Kane, Robert L. I . 3026 Angevine, W. E. Okerstrom and Mr. Walker. Mr. Robinson was excused for the balance of the meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a petition by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not Article V of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations should be amended by adding thereto Section 5.04, Rehearing. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not both the petitioner and the objectors could ask for a reheating, how many rehearings would be allowed and whether or not a time limit should be stated. It was suggested by Mr. Pinto that the objectors who ask for a rehearing be limited to those who Live received a notice of the public hearing. This rehearing was for those petitions pertaining to land use. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until there is a full commission. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a petition by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not Section 4.10 of Article IV of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations should be amended by adding thereto Sub-Section (c) Protective Wall. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not the protective wall should be erected on the residential property line or the commercial easement. It was sug- gested that the residential subdivider be made to put up the wall at the time the subdivision is put in. It was also suggested that the easement be entirely on the commercial property. Mr. McCullough suggested that this be taken under advise- ment until he had spoken with the Detroit Edison Company in relation to easements. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-477 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #265-60 to determine whether or not to amend Section 17.02 of Article 17.00 (Authority to Approve Uses, Appeal to Council) with pro- vision. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #11-237-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 on Petition Z-477 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to City Council's Resolution #265-60 to determine whether or rot to amend Section 17.02 of Article 17.00, (Authority to Approve Uses, Appeal to Council) with provision, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-477 be denied for the following Irso reasons: (1) that the State of Michigan in setting up the laws governing the planning procedures has taken great care to determine that insofar as possible such commission shall be free of political influence, thus enabling the Planning Commission members to make their decisions uninfluenced by the pressure of obvious n 3027 minority groups; the present Zoning Ordinance governing the li: Planning Commission of the City of Livonia follows the intent of the State statute in this regard and while it may be that the Council may have some good reason for desiring that the Council have final decision in certain planning matters, such reason has not been conveyed or submitted to the Planning Commission for its consideration; (2) land use is the subject matter of constant review by the Planning Commission and, for that reason, decisions regarding that subject matter ought to be left with the Planning Commission; (3) the proposal only affords an appeal to an applicant, which deprives other aggrieved parties of the equal right; FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livnnian, under date of September 28, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a discussion of possible revision of Biltmore Estates Subdivision approval to permit the north part of one of the outlots to be plotted. Mr. McCullough presented a revision of the subdivision to the commission members. It was suggested that this be taker under advisement until all the details were straightened out between the developer and the property owner who had originally objected to be locked in by the proposed subdivision. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-474 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.02 of Article 5.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #515-60. This is in regards to privately owned and operated neighborhood, community or club swimming pools in R-1. Public Hearing 10/4/60, item taken under advisement; Regular meeting 10/18/60, item taken under advisement. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not it might be advisable to amend sub-section 4 to read "300 feet of any existing residence" instead of "400 feet", and whether or not to amend sub-section (11) to require the written consent of 51% of all land owners within a 300 foot redius, instead of 500 ft. as stated in proposed ordinance. It was stated that the proposed ordinance does not protect against a builder Ire erecting homes after a pool is installed. Mr. McCullough suggested that the Council be aaked to consider the representative of the Rosedale Gardens Civic Association since they do have a hardship case. It was also suggested that there be a 20 foot limit on the height of any lights, and that in sub-section (11) the 300 foot radius should be from the pool not from premises since the pool is in the middle of two acres. 3028 IL] Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #11-238-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 4, 1960 on Petition Z-474 as submitted by D. R. McCullough, pursuant to City Council's Res. #515-60, to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.02 of Article 5.00 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-474 be granted, subject, however, to the following etggested modification: (1) that sub-section (4) in section (k) be amended to read 300 feet instead of 400 feet since the latter appears to be in excess of what is actually needed to protect the residential land owners, and (2) that sub-section (11) of section (k) be amended to require the written consent of 60% of all land owners within 360 foot radius from the pool, and (3) that the Council be advised that it might be wise to include additional provisions on the height of lights, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of September 14, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request from Mr. Pollack whether or not the Planning Commission will consider a new zoning petition without having to pay the fee. Mr. Pollack had a petition for rezoning his property from RUFB to C-2 some time ago at which time it had been denied. It was determined after a brief discussion that any new zoning petition would re- quire a fee. Mr. McCullough stated he would notify Mr. Pollack of the decision. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously approved, it was #11-239-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is Irer adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is in relation to the annual Christmas Party held by the City Planning Commission. The secretary was instructed to make the reservations for Saturday, December 10, 1960 3029 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, it was #11-240-60 RESOLVED that, final plat of the Fairway Farms Subdivision #3 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17 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 on February 3, 1959; 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 July 20, 1960; and it further appearing that a 1;..sety bond in the amount of $11,700.00 and a cash bond in the amount of $1,300.00 to cover the installation of improvements have been filed in the office of the City Clerk under date of October 27, 1960; such bonds having been approved by Mr. C. J.Pinto, Assistant City Attorney on October 27, 1960 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. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a revision of Kimberly Oaks Subdivision #2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. There are some minor changes that have been made by the develcler, Mr. George Pastor. After a brief discussion it was determined that this item would be taken under advisement until the plat could be more fully studied. Upon a motion duly . made by Mr. Anderson, suppLrted by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 123rd Special Meeting held on Tuesday, November 1, 1960 at approximately 11:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4(32i66 -9-2W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTES ' 1: (/--). i(� Cha les W. Walker, Chairman