HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-11-22 3030
MINUTES OF A:PUBLIC HEAP.ING AND THE
121ST REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 22, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held a public hearing and the 121st Regular Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001
Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the
public hearing to order at approximately 8:05 p.m.
Members present: Robert M. Peacock, Wilford E. Okerstrom, William R. Robinson,
Leonard K. Kane, Robert L. Angevine, James A. Cameron
and Charles W. Walker
Members absent: **Dennis Anderson and Robert L. Greene
Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Charles J. Pinto, First Assistant
City Attorney were present along with approximately 21 interested persons in the
audience.
Mr. Walker: Before we start our meeting I would like to announce the
Chairmans for the various committees of the City Planning
Commission.
Zoning & Ordinance Amendment Committee - Robert L. Angevine
Topsoil Committee - Robert M. Peacock
Plat & Subdivision Regulation Committee- W. E. Okerstrom
Off-Street Parking & Protective Wall
Committee - Dennis Anderson
Greenbelt & Yard Committee - Leonard K. Kane
City Council Liaison Committee - Robert L. Gre ne
Mr. McCullough: Mr. William Lindhout, petitioner for Item #3, Tall Trees
Subdivision, has asked that his item be heard first because
he has another meeting to attend in the City Hall. They
are waiting for him now.
Proposed Tall Trees Subdivision located on the Northwest
corner of Wayne Road and Curtis in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8. Submitted by
William P. Lindhout. Letters have been received from the Department of Parks &
Recreation dated November 13, 1960; Police Department dated November 21, 1960;
Bureau of Inspection dated November 21, 1960 and the Livonia Public Schools dated
November 22, 1960.
Mr. Lindhout presented a sketch of the proposed subdivision and explained it to the
commissioners. He stated that since there were no sewers in that area, septic tanks
and wells would have to be used. These would have to be approved by the Department
of Health.
**Mr. Anderson arrived at 8:10 p.m.
11:: Mr. Lindhout f"• stated that they are faced with the dedication of 43 ft. for
Curtis Road and 60 ft. for Wayne Road. At the present time it is owned by his
client to the centerline. The eight lots in the subdivision cannot carry the load
of the required curbs, paved streets, etc. We are loolfing for relief in this
quarter. We are coming to you at this time in order to see what can be done to
reduce the requirements so that we may be able to retain the aesthetic quality of
this property.
3031
1140 Mr. Walker: We can only act upon the subdivision layout. We have no power
1 act upon street improvements. That is up to the Council.
Mr. Lindhout: I have some sketches with me of the first home in the
subdivision which we are committed to even if we have to
give it a private egress to the property. But it will give
you au ilea of what kind of homes will be going into this
subdivision.
Mr. Walker: The Planning Commission can only approve the plat as to
the street plan and the lot area. Your other problems will
have to go to the City Council, We can certainly go
ahead with the proceedings of the plat.
Any questions from the Commission?
Mr. Robinson: This will create a dead end street longer than 400 ft.
Mr. Lindhout: You mean Curtis Road not going through? Yes, I have dis-
cussed this with Lt. Perry of the Fire Department and
he seemed to be satisfied with the amount of radius shown
to maneuver the fire equipment. It was also felt that
the dead end street would not prevail very long, that it
would soon be opened for other building.
Mr. Kane: The west pxcperty line of your subdivision - is that the
continuation of the centerline of Van Road which is north
of you?
Mr. Lindhout: Van Road just misses otr subdivision. It is a private
road. There are no dimensions of it and it is not on the
plat book.
Because of the heavily wooded area we feel we can back
two of the homes onto Wayne Road. They would be screened
from the road by this wooded section.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Charles Adams: My parcel is very close to the proposed subdivision to
18675 Wayne Road) the north. At the present time this particular area is
quite swampy. What do they propose to do to alleviate
this? The water drains to the north where my property is
located. After a heavy rain the drain washes out Wayne
Road. Any new building will cut down the drainage we do
have.
Mi . Lindhout: Some nature of a drain in the Curtis Road right-of-way will
have to be installed. This will lead to the natural drain.
Mr. Hiltz felt that something could be worked out to take
care of the drainage.
C
Pair. T. Mitchell: What size are the lots and what does "Professional Suites"
15882 Northlawn mean. (Mr. Mitchell was referring to the name on the
Detroit 31, Mich. colored sketch)
Mr. Lindhout: "Professional Suites" just happens to be my client's
business name. The land can only be developed residentially
3032
because it is zoned•kL. We have exceeded the minimum
If] lot size required in this area. The lots range in size
from 16,000 to 19,000 sq ft. in area.
Mr. Angevine: I have no questions other than the dead end street. We
should hear from the Fire Department.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-480 by Richard
T. Gieryn who is asking that the zoning classification on
property located on the Northwest corner of Merriman Road (if cut through) and
Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3 be rezoned from RUFA to C-2.
Mr. Richard Gieryn was present.
Mr. McCullough: We have a letter dated November 19, 1960 from the Spring
Valley Homeowners Association objecting to the proposed
rezoning.
Mr. Gieryn: The particular piece of property we have regc sted to be
rezoned is on the corner of Merriman and Seven Mile Road.
Merriman Road is an established mile road and eventually
this road will be cut through and approved in the same
manner as South of Seven Mile Road. There are very little
service facilities for that fast growing area except for
the retail sales on the Southwest corner of Merriman and
Seven Mile Road. Our proposal for additional service
facilities would -ct be objectionable. Merriman Road is
presently an existing mile road to Seven Mile Road and
recently paving has been completed from Joy to Plymouth
which indicates that this will be a through street.
Commercial developments are located on the four corners of
Plymouth and Merriman Roads. On Schoolcraft and Merriman
Roads there is commercial property and in the immediate
area there are expensive homes. On Five Mile Road and
Merriman there is a small shopping center and again homes
in the immediate area. Every year in the City of Livonia
the mile roads have been used for commercial purposes,
therefore, we feel that Merriman and Seven Mile Road lends
itself for commercial development to adequately service the
needs of the many people in the area.
Taking all of this into consideration the owners of this
parcel feel that the request for rezoning is a fair request
since the parcel does not lend itself to residential
facilities. There is no existing residence within three
or four hundred feet of the property to be rezoned.
Mr. Okerstrom: Why is C-2 zoning required?
Mr. Gieryn: C-2 will give us a little more lattitude than C-1, such
as banks and studios, which are not allowed in the C-1 zone.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Harvey Moelke: (President of the Merriman 'Six Civic Association) We have
31740 Curtis) several questions we would like answered.
3033
Who owns this property? What is size of parcel? What use
is intended for this property?
Mr. Gieryn: The ownership is that of several corporations which were
presented to the City Clerk in the petition. The property
is approximately 260 ft. square and we intend to use it
for service facilities.
Mr. Moelke• informed those present that a vote had been taken in their civic
association and they they object to the rezoning.
Mr. Jack Breitenbach: The southwest corner of Merriman and Seven Mile Road is
31750 Seven Mile Road) being used for retail sales but all the owner sells is
what he produces on his property and that is not a year
around business. I certainly object to the rezoning.
Mr. Irving Hutchins, 17275 Merriman, Mr. Robert Hinsburg, President of the Spring
Valley Home.:wners Association, 19631 Ingram Street, Mr. Eddie Cicotte, 31540 Seven
Mile Road, Mr. M. J. Costello, 18845 Merriman, Mrs. W. Simon, 17300 Merriman and
Mr. G. E. Harmon, 31670 Seven Mile Road all voiced their objection to the proposed
rezoning. They felt that there was sufficient shopping facilities available.
Mr. Anderson: I am opposed to this rezoning. I believe we had thought
that there was sufficient commercial on Seven Mile and
Middlebelt Roads and on Seven Mile and Farmington Roads.
Mr. Harvey Moelke: In RUF zoning I believe you are permitted to have a small
stand to sell produce from the land; we have no objection
to the owners of that piece of property to continue with
this use.
Mr. Kane: As we move westward across the City our land areas for
residents become larger and we feel that we do not need
so much commercial area to service these homes and that
is one reason we did not want commercial on this corner.
There is a great amount of commercial on Seven and Middle-
belt and at Seven Mile Road and Farmington Road. I feel
there is sufficient commercial areas to take care of the
homes in this area.
Mr. Gieryn: There are about 500 homes in the Spring Valley Subdivision
which changes the theory of large lots in this vicinity.
Mr. Kane: That is right, but those 500 homes are being serviced by
the commercial corners of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads
and at Seven Mile and Farmington Roads and they are not
completely developed as commercial as yet.
Mr. Hinsburg: The only way to get out or in the Spring Valley Subdivision
is by Osmus and Auburndale and this means at least a half
mile walk to the proposed commercial area. This would mean
they would have to drive and they would go further to the
larger shopping center to complete their shopping rather tha:
at the smaller center and not complete it.
Mrs. W. Simon; We lived here five years with only Sheldon Center as a
shopping center and I have no reason to complain. For
that reason I can not see any reason for any more of these
3034
shopping centers.
Mr. Angevine: This is certainly a residential area and the commercial
zoning would be irha=rmcnious with the surrounding
area. This definitely represents spot zoning.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr, Angevine, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#11-241-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-480 as submitted by Richard T. Gieryn for a change of
zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3 from RUFA to C-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition Z-480 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) that this is a residential area and the commercial zoning would
be inharmonious to the surrounding area,
(2) that this represents spot zoning, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the
official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November 2, 1960
and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The
Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petitioners as listed
in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the folbwing:
3
AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: Robinson
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Yr. Walker: The moion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-57 by the
Socony Mobil Oil Company requesting the vacating of the
east/west alley between Arcola and Inkster which is located approximately 100 ft.
South of Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36.
Letters have been received from the Michigan Bell Telephone
Company dated November 10, 1960 and from the Detroit Edison
Co. , dated November 15, 1960. They both approve vacating
alley providing an easement is created for the full width.
A letter from the Engineering Department does nat recommend
approval.
The petitioner has received approval from the Zoning Board
of Appeals to move the protective wall within one foot of
the property line of the residential lot south of the alley.
Mr. Walker: The wall would be on the easement of the commercial property
and would abut the residential property. Because of this,
would you have to increase the easement?
Mr. McCulbugh: No.
Mr. Peacock: I feel that the easement should be spread half and half
3035
and that the wall should not be put on the northern
property line of residential lot. There is a model
home on this lot at the present time.
residential
Mr. Pence: The owner of this/ property will convey to the owner of
(Representing Socony gas station one-half of the easement. They have permission
Mobil Oil Company) from these owners to erect the wall on one foot of the
residential property. Anyone who purchases this residential
lot would be notified of this before the lot is purchased,
because of the conditions imposed by the Bd. of Zoning Appea:
Mr. McCullough: At the public hearing for Petition M-209 by Socony Mobil
Oil Company held on October 4, 1960 it was thought that
there wasn't sufficient room for turning at the driveway
by the alley, that this could be increased if the alley
were vacated. Also that if the Zoning Board of Appeals
gave approval to place the protective wall,required on
the easement line, further south, this would help the
situation. Because of this, Mr. Pence went before the
Zoning Board of Appeals and received approval subject to
certain conditions. He also filed a petition to vacate
the alley.
Mr. Walker: Have you agreed, Mr. Pence, to construct the wall on both
Lots 320 and 147?
Mr. Pence: We have agreed to build the wall on the north end of Lot
320 which is behind the gas station and at such time when
the remaining commercial property fronting on Plymouth
and directly west of the proposed gas station is developed,
the wall will then be erected on the north end of Lot
147 which is south of the undeveloped commercial property.
The North/south alley between Lots 147 and 320 has been
vacated and we do not know if a wall can be built across
this portion. But if it can, we will.
Mr. Anderson: You are requesting the vacating of the alley for the
entire length? Then why shouldn't the wall be erected
for the entire length?
Mr. Pence: The intent of the ordinance is to screen the commercial
property from the residential property. To require a
wall on the other lots which are not developed, does not
seem necessary until such time that they are developed.
Mr. Pinto: I think that the wall can be built upon the 12 ft.
easement running north and south as long as it is agreeable
with Detroit Edison and Michigan Bell Telephone Company.
Mr. Walker: Was there any stipulation in relation to a bond to
insure the erecting of the wall in the approval by the
Zoning Board of Appeals?
IL
Mr. Pinto: No, they were only concerned with the locati-n of the
wall. They granted it subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Walker: Would you be willing to post a bond for the erection of
the wall?
3036
Mr. Pence: Yes, if it is required but the plans will be submitted to
the Building Department and if the wall is not approved of
they certainly would inform us.
Mr. Walker: The posting of the bond is not required but we are merely
asking that you will do this.
Mr. Pence: We were proposing to erect a hard-burned brick type of
wall rather than the reinforced concrete type, because we
felt it would be better looking. The gas station is not
to be porcelain but rather a face brick building on all
four sides.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
There was a general discussion as to whether or not there would be sufficient room
for turning around on the driveway along the protective wall. It was determined
there was sufficient room.
Mr. Robinson: I feel that this alley is needed to serve the businesses
in this area because the lots are so shallow, therefore,
I d. ..uot feel this alley should be vacated.
Mr. Anderson: Not in this case - because they are not blocking off any
one else.
Mr. Pence: At the time of the public hearing for the gas station,
it was the concensus of opinion that this alley should
be acated.
Mr. Peacock: I brought it up at that time but it was my intent to
vacate the alley and convey one-half to the home owner
and one-half to the gas station owner. I had no intention
of having the wall built upon the northern side of the
res ide.rc ial lot.
Mr. Anderson: Would you at this time build this wall for the full
length of the alley from Inkster to Arcola?
Mr. Pence: Yes.
Mr. Walker: They have also agreed to post a bond.
Mr. Peacock: A cash bond at $11.00 a lineal foot?
Mr. Pence: Yes, we do.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
I #11- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, November 22, 1960 on Petition V-57 as submitted by
the Socony Mobil Oil Company for the vacating of the east/west
alley between Arcola and Inkster in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition V-57 be granted subject, however,
to the following:
(1) that the protective wall be built for the full length of
3037
the vacated alley from Arcola to Inkster,
IL: (2) that the petitioner will post a cash bond at $11.00 a lineal
foot for said protective wall,
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Angevine, Anderson and Kane
NAYS: Peacock, Robinson, Okerstrom and Walker
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion was not carried, therefore the foregoing
resolution is not adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#11-242-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, November 22, 1960 on Petition V-57 as submitted by
Socony Mobil Oil Company for the vacating of the east/west
alley between Arcola and Inkster in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition V-57 be denied,
(1) for the reasons given in the Engineering Department's letter
dated November 15, 1960,
(2) because it is felt that the wall should not be built on the
residential lot line, and
(3) that the use of Lots135-139 in the remainder of the block
serviced by said alley, has not been determined as yet,
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November 2,
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, petitioner and abutting
property owners as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Peacock, Robinson, Okerstrom, and Walker
NAYS: Angevine, Anderson and Kane
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is proposed Kimberly Park
Subdivision located on the Southeast corner of Farmington
Road and Lyndon Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. Submitted by Ce:rge H.
Pastor & Sons.
lie
Mr. George Pastor was present.
Mr. McCullough: Letters have been submitted by the Dept. Parks & Recreation
dated November 18, 1960; from the Fire Department dated
November 18, 1960; the Department of Police dated November
21, 1960; the Bureau of Inspection dated November 21, 1960
and from the Livonia Public Schools dated November 22, 1960.
3038
After examination of the proposed plat, it was noted that Lots 13, 14 and 15 were
also Lots 324, 325 and 326 in the Kimberly Oaks Subdivision #2 previously given
approval. Mr. Pastor stated that Lots 324, 325 and 326 were to be deleted from
Kimberly Oaks Subdivision #2 when it is revised. It was also determined that
that there were already 5 existing homes in this new plat.
Mr. McCullough: Since this plat is on a mile road, it is necessary to
have a turning arrangement on the lots except for those lots
already having homes upon them. Mr. Pastor has agreed to
this. Also that these driveways will be of a permanent
nature, which/will be included in the deed restrictions.
/condition/
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Robinson: An access drive would be preferable but since there
are already several homes built, it may be difficult to
do this.
It was determined that the access road was preferred by all but in this case, it
was not advisable and the turning arrangement was the best alternative.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was
#11-243-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, November 22, 1960, the City Planning Commission does
hereby give approval to the preliminary plat of the Kimberly Park
Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, subject to the
following:
(1) that a turning arrangement must be provided as a condition
precedent to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for
any of the following lots: #3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13,14 and 15.
These must be of concrete or bituminous material to insure that
the buyers retain this feature, the purpose of which is to dis-
courage backing of autos into the mile road, and
(2) the design of the turning arrangement must be approved in
writing by the City Planner prior to the issrxnce of any
certificate of occupancy.
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, Super-
intendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks
& Recreation Department and Members of the Plat Committee.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
3039
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane and supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#11-244-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, November 22, 1960 at
approximately 9:45 p.m.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is
adjourned.
Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9:46 p.m.
* * * * * *
Mr. Walker called the 121st Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:00 P.M.
with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the ,.Jenda is Petition M-208 by Kenneth
D. Ockerman requesting 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, in Wolfe Ga rdens Subdivision
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under
advisement; 123 rd Special Meeting 11/1/60, item taken under advisement.
Mr. McCullough submitted a letter dated November 21, 1960 from Mr. C. J. Pinto,
Assistant City Attorney which indicated that the Planning Commission has juris-
diction of this matter.
The question was raised as to whether or not the protective wall should be erected
now or later. Mr. Ockerman had indicated that he would not be building for at
least two years, but that the building will not be erected without the wall in the
proper place.
Mr. Anderson: This wall will be built on the north side of the property?
Mr. Ockerman: This x: 11 will be built on the north side and at the rear
of the property.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane, 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 grant Petition M-208 by Kenneth D. Ockerman requesting
permission to construct an auto electric service garage in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, subject to a two-year time limit
co the approval.
y
The question was raised whether or not the Planning Commission has jurisdiction
to set a time limit on the approval.
Mr. Pinto: Mr. Ockerman is limitthg himself.
3040
Mr. Ockerman: If there is no need for it, I don't want the time limit.
Ir]
Mr. Walker: I can't see any need for stating any time limit.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#11-245-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant Petition M-208 by Kenneth D. Ockerman requesting
permission to construct an auto electric service garage on
property located on the East side of Farmington Road, approxi-
mately 340 feet North of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 22, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notce 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: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the revision of Kimberly
Oaks Subdivision #2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 22 and submitted by George H. Pastor & Sons.
Mr. Pastor was present.
Mr. Pastor explained the revision details. de stated that Lots 324, 325 and 326
originally in the subdivision have been deleted because they have been included
in the Kimberly Park Subdivision approved earlier in the evening. There were
some other small changes in the street layout.
The question was asked if this revision required a public hear;ng but it was de-
termined that since no additional property was being included in the plat a new
public hearing was not required.
Mr. Pastor also informed the commission that they have proposed to pay for the
cost of making the ditch deeper and wider which is to go down Schoolcraft and
extend it almost to Middlebelt and which in turn will eliminate the retention
basin. This is to be in conjunction with Gordon-Begin Company also, although they
have informed Mr. Pastor they wish to wait until the sewer ban in lifted in Livonia.
It was determined that the conditions on the previous approval will prevail on
this revised plat.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#11-246-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 121st Regular Meeting having been
held on Tuesday, November 22, 1960 , the City PlanningCommission
does hereby give approval to the revised preliminary plat of
the Kimberly Oaks Subdivision #2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of
3041
of Section 22, subject, however, to all conditions in the
original preliminary appro\?l, Resolution #11-348-60
adopted on November 10, 1959.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Peacock, Ango ine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron and 0kerstrom
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-470 by D. R.
McCullough to determine whether or not Section 4.45 of
Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended by changing the type of
protective wall required by the existing ordinance. Public Hearing 9/20/60, taken
under advisement; Special Meeting 10/4/60 taken under advisement; Special Meeting
11/1/60, item taken under advisement.
•
Mr. MacRae of Flesi:ore was present with a new type of protective wall, which was
presented to the commission.
Mr. McCullough: This new wall is a panel type, pre=stressed concrete
wall as a substitute for the wall presently before the
commission and which has been under discussion for the
IC3 past few weeks. Mr. Mac Rae has indicated that it would
be flush with the grade and no space at the bottom of
the wall. It would run about $9.00 a lineal foot, in-
stalled.
Mr. MacRae explained in detail the construction of the wall.
Mr. Walker: The first thing we will have to do is have our City Planner
inquire as to whether this cost would be acceptable to
those we have to deal with in the erection of this type
of r:ai1. If they are in accordance with it, then we can
decide whether or not to approve it for others. I would
like to suggest that asampleof this wall be made so that
it can be examined.
Mr. MacRae agreed to have a sample made and to inform Mr. McCullough when it would
be ready for inspection.
Mr. Pinto was excused at this time to attend another meeting in the City Hall. It
was approximately 10:35 p.m.
Mr. Angevine: Our only question is whether we can approve this type for
the City or not. I am in favor of approving a wall so
that we can amend the wall ordinance.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until we hear
from Mr. MacRae.
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 Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 by adding thereto ,.irticle
5.25 RM District Regulations. Public Hearing 10/18/60, item taken under advisement.
123 rd Special Meeting 11/1/60, item taken under advisement.
3042
There was a brief discussion about the revist.x.s suggested at the previous meeting.
Mr. Robert Peacock was excused at approximately 10:45 p.m.
Il] Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was
#11-247-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 'n Petition Z-479 as submitted by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to
amend the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 by adding thereto
Article 5.25 RM District Regulations, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-479 be
granted, subject, however, to the following modifications:
(.A) that in Section 5.32 the clause beginning with "provided
however", and ending with the word "projections" is to be •.
deleted;
(b) that appropriate language shall be included to exempt lots
included within plats which have received preliminary approval
prior to the date of this ordinance,
(c) that in Section 5.31 the front yard shall be reduced from
30 to 25 feet;
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. ,
Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Depart-
!: ments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is ..arried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. Walker: Petition M-209 by Socony Mobil Oil Company, Item #5, on
the agenda will be taken under advisement until action
has been taken or. V-57 by the City Council. The vacating
of the alley will have to be determined before action
can be taken on the petition for the constructicn of the
gas station.
Item #9 will also be taken under advisement. This is
a petition 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 was held on 10/18/60.
1[: Mr. McCullough: Item #12, final approval for Meadowview Subdivision #4
will have to be taken under advisement also. The bond has
not been set as yet.
The next item is a discussion of parking shortage along
seg^ents of Plymouth Road and possible remedies.
3043
It was suggested after a brief discussion that the City Planner forward a letter
to the City Council explaining the matter to them and suggesting that a joint
meeting be held in order to discuss it more fully. Mr. McCullough stated he would
do so. He also suggested that maps be drawn which would explain the matter more
clearly.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request from Irving Levine
for minor revisions in streets in the Meri-Lynn Farms Sub-
division located on the West side of Merriman Road between
Lyndon and Schoolcraft in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22.
Mr. Levine has suggested putting in cul-de-sacs along the
northern boundary of the subdivision instead of having
houses side on Lyndon Road as they presently show on the
plat.
It was determined after a discussion that the cul-de-sacs were not thought advisable,
since it would result in houses backing into the half-mile road.
Mr. Pinto returned to the meeting at approximately 11:05 p.m.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a petition to determine
whether or not the Rules of Procedure of the City Planning
Commission adopted in October, 1958 should be amended so as to stipulate whether or
not a petition can have a rehearing.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#11-248-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 121st Regular Meeting held by
the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 22, 1960 on
a petition to determine whether or not the Rules of Procedure
of the City Planning Commission should be amended, the City
Planning Commission does hereby amend said Rules of Procedure
by adding thereto Section 9 to Article VI - Hearings, which
reads as follows:
(9) In cases in which new evidence is presented subsequent
to the disposition of the matter, the City Planner
shall have the discretion to permit a rehearing of the
matter only if it can be shown that the new evidence
was unavailable at the time of the first hearing and
would have materially affected the disposition of the
cause.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron and Okerstrom
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
It was determined that the foregoing resolution would take the place of Item #8 on
3 the agenda, a petition to determine whether or not to amend the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations in relation to rehearings.
3044
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was
#11-249-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, November 1, 1960 except for
that member who was not present, he abstain from voting.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following;
AYES: Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Waller
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Walker discussed the letter dated November 16, 1960 from Mryor Brashear to all
city employees and commissions in relation to the Goodfellows Paper Sale uhicb
is to be held on Saturday, December 10, 1960.
Upon a motion duly mc :a by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 121st Regular Meeting
held on Tuesday, November 22, 1960 at approximately 11:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
lL'11 (544. 1-7-0^-1
Wilfo d E. 0kerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
• A Ate_
C a es W. Walker, Chairman