Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1962-02-20 3397 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 136TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF IL: ' LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 20, 1962 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 136th Regular Meeting at the City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia. . Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the public hearing to order at approximately 8:10 p.m. Members present: James W. Watson, Jr. , Robert L. Angevine, James Cameron, W. E. Okerstrom , Dennis Anderson and Charles W. Walker Members absent : Leonard K. Kane,�Robert L. Greene and Arthur Samuels# Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner, was present along with approximately 20 interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-542 by Mabel J. Sharpley asking that the zoning classification be changed on property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Minton and Westfield in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 from RUFB and R-2B to PS. Mr. John Griffin, 15714 Plymouth Road, was present representing Mrs. Sharpley who was in the audience. ,,f Mr. Griffin stated that the house presently situated on the property will be re- moved, the hill will be cut down and the whole area landscaped from Westfield to Minton. They plan on spending approximately $100,000 to $150,000 for the building which will consist of two stories. It will be a masonry building. The company is an old, reliable company. They already have three funeral homes located in Detroit; one downtown, onethe east side and another on McNichols. Mr. Griffin felt this would add to the taxes and be an added improvement for this area. Mr. Walker asked if the entire block would be used for this one specific use? Mr. Griffin stated it would. The Commissioners examined the area in the plat book. #Mr. Arthur Samuels arrived at approximately 8:14 p.m. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience qac. wished to speak? Mr. McCullough asked,why a portion of Middlebelt on the north end of the parcels in question, was never dedicated along with the rest of the property? Mr. Griffin stated he did not know why. It may be because the properties were not purchased at the same time. Mr. Walker asked if there was any thought of dedicating this portion to the County? 1[40 Mr. Griffin stated that it has never been settled, even the tax bills show this portion and taxes are paid upon it. Mr. Walker felt it was possible that it may have been cledicated before Mrs. Sharpley owned the property. This would have to be investigated. Mr. Watson ask','. : 7 `h,.r^ -0-,-- -'iiplexes on Westfield? Mr. Griffin stated there were. • 3398 Mr. Charles Forrest, Assistant City Attorney arrived at approximately 8:15 p.m. 1E: Mr. William H. Sullivan, 30442 Westfield, Bel-Air Civic Association stated they were primarily interested in whether or not if this petition is granted, would they have any guarantee that this property will be used for a funeral parlor an d not some other use. They were not objecting to the use if it were going to be a funeral home provided they have sufficient off-street parking. Mr. Walker stated that the Planning Commission was concerned about this particular petition and others where a change of zoning gives a right to certain use. He did not know if the Planning Commission could compel them to use it for the express purpose they claim they want the rezoning for. Mr. Forrest concurred with Mr. Walker that there was no way of compelling them to use the property for the use they claim in the rezoning. Mr. Walker informed Mr. Sullivan that should the petitioner use the property for some other use, they would have to go to the Inspection Department for a permit and they would be aware that this was not what was presentedto the Planning Commission and it probably would discourage the petitioner not to change the use. Mr. Angevine asked if there were any plans to make certain they had sufficient off- street parking? Mr. Watson stated that this was an identical piece of property to one across the street which was recently given a rezoning for a funeral parlor also. He felt if one had sufficient parking, the other would have it also. Ire Mr. Okerstrom suggested rezoning only that portion of the property needed for the funeral parlor and leaving the remainder RUFB which would be used for parking. He felt also that the question of the right-of-way should be straightened out first before any decision is made. Mr. Walker asked if it wouldn't be advisable for the petitioner to bring in a plan indicating the off-street parking? Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Griffin if the whole property would be used for the funeral parlor or is it intended to use it for some other use also? Mr. Griffin answered that the only use intended for the property is a funeral home and the required off-street parking. Mr. Walker asked him if it would be a hardship on them to bring in a land plan scheme on this, showing the building, the parking and the ingress and egress? Mr. Griffin answered they could bring in a plan to the commissioners. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak? Mrs. James McIntosh, 29424 Minton stated that at a meeting last month they had filed a petition objecting to a proposed funeral home on the east side of Middlebelt Road. They had also received a notice from the city that this was being heard before the Council tomorrow night. Mrs. McIntosh wondered if there could be two funeral Ir. homes across from each other. Mr. Walker stated there could be two. Mr. James McIntosh, 29424 Minton stated at the time they purchased their home, they had been informed this property would be for duplexes. He felt his property would be in jeopardy if this funeral home was allowed. He wished to state his objection to the proposed rezoning. 3399 **Mr. Robert L. Greene arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m. 1[40 Another interested person in the audience '.tated he was concerned about the funeral home detracting from his rental property and the sale value of the homes. They could not sell at this time which meant they would have to rent. He felt it would be difficult to rent with a funeral home located in this area. Mr. McIntosh asked why was this property chosen, why not further south? Mr. Griffin stated that the purchaser had been shown various parcels and this was the one he chose. He also knows of the other funeral home going across the street. Mr. Walker informed those present that this item would be taken under advisement. He stated those present are welcome to come to the next meeting at which time there would be plans of the proposed funeral home. Mr. McIntosh requested that a notice be sent to him informing him when the meeting would be held. Mr. Walker stated the secretary would notify him and he in turn could notify the others. Mrs. McIntosh asked if this property could be rezoned to commercial allowing a gasoline station or restaurant? Mr. Walker answered that if the petitioner wishes to spend the money to pay for the filing fee, he can petition for any zoning in the ordinance. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-510a by the City Planning Commission pursuant to City Council's Res. #72-62 to determine whether or not to change the zoning classification on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road and 1[40 the East side of Newburgh Road between Levan and Newburgh Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20 from R-2 to C-2 and R-3. Mr. Theodore Zukowsky, representative of the Felecian Sisters, was present. Mr. Zukowsky informed the commission that an addition to the college is proposed for the latter part of this year. The high school is being expanded. The college will run into $3,500,000. The expansion of the hospital will be after the college is finished. The petition for rezoning to R-3 along Newburgh Road is for multiple apartments for the personnel of the hospital and college. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Zukowsky to point out in the plat book the area intended for the housing and the commercial. Mr. Zukowsly did so explaining that the area planned for commercial was approximately 800 ft. less than what was originally asked for the first time this petition was before the Commission. The 800 ft. located on the Southwest corner of Levan and Five Mile Road will be landscaped, and driveways will be put in for the hospital. Mr. McCullough stated if one looks at the plat book or zoning map, you can readily see why the property owner north of Five Mile Road is objecting to the proposed rezoning to commercial along Five Mile Road. There is an approved subdivision across the street. He asked Mr. Zukowsky if it would be possible to match the commercial presently on the north side of Five for the present time. Later if it is found that more is needed, they could come back and repetition. I: Mr. Walker stated that the subdivision across the street has homes facing on Five Mile Road at the request of the Planning Commission because it was thought at the time the subdivision was approved that the south side of Five Mile Road would be a cultural area. Mr. McCullough stated that the developer of the subdivision has his concrete poured for his homes and it would be very difficult for him to make any changes now. 3400 Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? 1[411 Mr. Irvin Hermanoff, Secretary of the Harry Slatkin Builders, Inc. , was present. He stated a letter had been forwarded to the Planning Commission objecting to the proposed commercial rezoning on the south side of Five Mile Road. He further stated at the time they first platted their subdivision they had been aware of the fact that the Felecian Sisters owned all of the p-operty on the south side of Five Mile Road. It was their further understanding that this whole area would be part of the cultural development of the City of Livonia with hospital and educational facilities which the City would be very proud and it would be an asset to the entire residential area. He continued by stating that they would never have planned the subdivision if the south side of Five Mile Road would be used for Commercial. They have no quarrel with matching the commercial on the northeast corner of Five and Newburgh with that on the Southeast corner of Five and Newburgh. Approval for the subdivision was given four or five years ago but due to the sewer ban it was held for some time. Mr. Zukowsky stated it was because of a sewer problem that this petition was brought about. Because there was a ditch between the Felecian Sisters property and the right-of-way of Five Mile Road it was thought to rezone this strip to commercial. The ditch presently separates the Felecian Sisters property and the proposed commercial property. Mr. Walker gave a brief outline of the background of this area. He stated that something would have to be worked out in complete fairness to both sides. 1[40 Mr. Angevine asked how long was the R-3 area on Newburgh? Mr. McCullough answered approximately 900 ft. It did not include the corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Road. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone else in the audience? Mrs. Lucille Garrett, 33818 Oakdale, Livonia objected to the proposed commercial zoning on Five Mile Road. She stated she did not want to see Five Mile Road become a second Plymouth Road. She did not believe a tax free piece of property should be rezoned to Commercial although she felt they were entitled to the corner to be rezoned. Mr. Walker stated the Planning Commission will have to determine whether or not there is a need for this type of use in this area and whether or not it would be an asset to the betterment of the future development of the community. He stated that in making a decision it will have to be kept in mind what effect the change or granting of the petition would have on the design and master plan of the entire area. Mr. Zukowsky asked what could they do with the property in the event the zoning is not approved? Mr. McCullough answered that at the present time duplexes would be allowed under the R-2 zoning. If the developer on the north side of Five Mile Road did not have his streets in, he could change the street plan but to face into commercial would make it impossible for them to obtain committments. Mr. McCullough stated this 1E: was just a suggestion,'did Mr. Zukowsky think it was worthy? Mr. Zukowsky stated he was before the Planning Commission at the request of the City Council. Mrs. Garrett stated she would like a legal opinion on how can a piece of property that has been off the tax rolls for thirty years suddenly be rezoned to commercial • 3401 and expect the tax payers to support it? li: Mr. McCullough felt that the attorney would not be prepared to answer that tonight. Mr. Zukowsky stated he had a letter dated April 4, 1961 from the City Assessor's office on that matter. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Zukowsky if he was able to accept a change in order that a vote may be made tonight? Mr. Zukowsky stated he was empowered to do so but he did not feel that the subject had been discussed fully with regard to splitting it. Mr. Walker asked him if he would rather have a decision on the whole petition as presented or would he prefer to have a compromise worked out with the Planning Commission and send that to the City Council? Mr. Zukowsky asked if action was taken tonight without an amendment what action would be taken? Mr. Watson stated he would move that the petition be denied. Mr. Walker stated he hesitates to call for a vote in lieu of the fact that there might be a chance to compromise rather than send a denial to the City Council. Mr. Okerstrom stated that this petition can be voted on without a compromise. Mr. Zukowsky asked if the suggestion of matching the commercial on the south with I: that on the north side of Five Mile Road meant that there would be more commercial than just the southeast corner of Five Mile and Newburgh Road? He stated they did not want any commercial in the area 800 ft. west of Levan Road but would the commission approve the next 200 ft. to be rezoned to commercial which would be immediately south of commercial on the north side of Five Mile Road? Mr. Watson answered that if he made the motion for a decision it would be only for the corner not any other commercial area. Mr. Zukowsky said this was not matching the north side of Five Mile Road. It was brought out that if the 200 ft. were also approved, this would constitute spot zoning. Mr. Anderson asked if the area to be zoned R-3 were approved, would these multiple dwellings be owned by the hospital? Mr. Zukowsky answered that they would be liquidated for commercial enterprise and for the apartment building. He felt this would probably lay idle for some time that nothing was proposed for this time. Mr. Okerstrom asked when was the commercial area going to be developed? Mr. Zukowsky answered that it was felt there was no market for commercial on Five Mile Road at this time. He asked if the Planning Commission would consider PS for the 200 ft. instead of Commercial? Mr. Walker felt that it might be wise to leave the zoning along Five Mile Road as it is until it was determined what was going to be built upon it. Mr. Okerstrom suggested that this petition be set aside until such time that this 1[40 is determined. Mr. Walker stated that a decision has to be made now one way or the other because the City Council has referred this to this commission for a decision at this time. Mr. Watson felt that possibly a discussion should be held at a study meeting on 3402 this item in order to determine what the plans are. IL: Mr. Zukowsky asked if the Planning Commission would consider the 200 ft. strip as PS zone? Mr. Watson asked what did he have in mind in the PS zone? Mr. Zukowsky answered a clinic would be built. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #2-39-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-510a as submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to City Council's Res. #72-62 to determine whether or not to change the zoning classification in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 20 from R-2 to C-2 and R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-510a be denied for the following reasons: (1) if it were granted it would eventually tend to produce "string type" commercial development rather than the more desirable integrated shopping center develcpment; (2) if granted, it would generate requests by the owners of residentially zoned land on the north side of Five Mile Road for similar treatment. If the latter were denied, our legal position might prove to be untenable; and re FURTHER, the Planning Commission suggests that if the petition is granted that the commercial area along the south side of Five Mile be matched with that on the northeast corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Roads in the Country Homes Estates Subdivision; FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of January 31, 1962 and notice dwhich hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Samuels, Cameron, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-64 by owners of certain lots in the Assessor's Plat Argonne St. Subdivision asking that the alley located at the rear of Lots 31 to 43, both inclusive, Assessor's Plat, 1[40 Argonne State Subdivision be vacated. This is located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. W. Colwell, 15775 Asbury Park, Detroit, was present. Mr. McCullough informed the commission that only part of the alley is being requested to be vacated. Letters have been received from the utility companies and the City engineer. 3403 EMr. McCullough asked Mt. Colwell for what reason is he requesting the vacating? What was intended for this property? Mr. Colwell stated that it was to be improved for a mercantile site if the vacating was approved. Mr. Walker asked what was the condition of the alley? Mr. Colwell stated that the alley is never used and that he submitted pictures along with his petition which showed the condition of the alley. Mr. Kearney, 27428 Long asked what was the reason for vacating the alley? Mr. McCullough informed him that the owner wants to improve the land and he needs the land in the alley in order to connect the lots on Grand River and Long Street. Mr. Colwell stated the party interested in the property won't improve the land unless he can have the use of the alley also. Mr. McCullough stated it was possible that you can not build upon this because an easement would be necessary. Mr. Colwell stated that they would pay for any relocation of the utilities in order to be able to use the property. He said he had been informed that no easement would Ire be necessary, that the sewer can be blocked off at the west end of his portion of the alley because the water flows westerly to Rensellor and not Inkster. Mr. Walker stated that the letter from the City Engineer indicates that they recommend the petition be granted provided a 20 foot easement is created to permit the servicing of utilities presently existing in the alley. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. Bill Shoop, 27530 Long stated he felt that there should be a reason given for the request for vacating of an alley upon the public hearing notice. He also stated that he could not see vacating only part of an alley, if it is vacated, it should be vacated for the full length. He then asked if this is granted, does this property then go on the tax rolls. Mr. Walker stated that it does go on the tax rolls. Mr. Harry Schultz, 27432 Long objected to the vacating unless it was to the advantage of the city. He stated he would object to a parking lot up to the rear portion of his property. He said he had been approached by someone to purchase his property also but nothing had been said what they would do with the property. Mr. Colwell stated that the owner of the lots on Rensellor and Grand River was not interested in selling because he wanted to use his property for a drug store. 1[40 Mr. McCullough stated the Engineering Department has recommended a twenty foot easement. Mr. Colwell stated if that is the decision then he would rather withdraw the petition. Mr. Walker suggested that he work this out with the Engineering Department. It is possible that some remedy could be found to help him out. Mr. Anderson felt that as far as the easement is concerned, the Planning Commission 3404 could approve the vacating subject to an easement being created upon the approval of the Engineering Department. ILMr. Walker asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. Shoop asked if a greenbelt is required where there is a street separation? Mr. Walker stated there was no such requirement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Cameron and unanimously adopted, it was #2-40-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, February 20, 1962 on Petition V-64 as submitted by owners of certain lots in the Assessor's Plat Argonne St. Subdivision for the vacating of the alley located at the rear of Lots 31 to 43, both inclusive, of said subdivision, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition V-64 be granted, subject, however, to the creation of a private easement across the southerly 12 feet of said alley, said easement to be extinguished upon the relocation of the existing utilites now existing within said 12 foot easement, and further that said relocation costs will be paid by the petitioner, and FURTHBIRESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in IL the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of January 31, 1962 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments, petitioners and abutting property owners 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 Petition V-65 by Mervin Grosberg who is asking that that portion of Hamlin Court lying between the east line of Deering Avenue and the west line of St. Francis Avenue as shown on the Plat of Argonne Annex, and also that portion of a ten (10) foot easement lying at the rear of Lots 93 - 102, inclusive in the same sub- division located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, be vacated. The Commissioners examined the plat book as to location. Mr. Grosberg explained his reason for requesting the vacating of the street and easement. A motel, restaurant and swimming pool is proposed for this area. Mr. McCullough submitted letters from the utilities and the Engineering Department all recommending that the petition be approved. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audiei,ce who wished to speak? 1[40 Mr. Bill Shoop, 27530 Long stated that in view of the fact that this court has never been used as a street and also that Mr. Grosberg owns the lots where the easement is presently located, he would like to recommend that this petition be approved. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Cameron, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was 3405 #2-41-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been.held on Tuesday, February 20, 1962 on Petition V-65 as submitted by li: Merwin Grosberg for the vacating of that portion of Hamlin Court lying between the east line of Deering Avenue and the west line of St. Francis Avenue as shown on the plat of Argonne Annex and also vacate that portion of a ten (10) foot easement lying at the rear of Lots 93 - 102, inclusive in the same subdivision located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition V-65 be granted with a provision for the conveyance of an easement for utilities if either Detroit Edison or Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , indicate they want such an easement, the City Engineer having indicated in writing that the City does not need an easement, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of January 31, 1962 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumer Power Company, City Departments, petitioner and abutting property owners as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #2-42-62 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn 1[40 the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, February 20, 1962 at approximately 10:00 p.m. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. The Chairman called for a recess at approximately 10:01 p.m. * * * * * * * * Mr. Walker called the 136th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:04 p.m. with all those present who were present at the time recess was called with the exception of James Cameron who was excused for the balance of the meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, January 16, 1962 and January 30, 1962. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Samuels, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, 4t was #2-43-62 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the meetings held on Tuesday, January 16, 1962 and January 30, 1962 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 1[40 AYES: Samuels, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker; The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. • 3406 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the Newburgh Heights Subdivision which was recently given preliminary approval on Tuesday, December 12, 1961. The developer, Paris Home Builders, Inc. , has split the subdivision into two parts. The Department of Law has determined that any subdivision which has been given approval as one subdivision must also receive approval by the City Planning Commission at the time the subdivision is split into two subdivisions. This is the reason Newburgh Heights Subdivision is before the Planning Commission tonight. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #2-44-65 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 136th Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1962 and to a request dated February 16, 1962 from Warner & Warner Engineers, on behalf of the Paris Home Builders, Inc. , with reference to splitting the previously approved Newburgh Heights Subdivision (under Resolutions #11-207-61 and #12-221-61) into two (2) parts, the City Planning Commission does hereby split said subdivision and give approval to that portion of the original subdivision located between Five Mile Road and the Bell Creek Drain, said portion to be known as Newburgh Heights Subdivision and further, that any conditions made at the time the original preliminary approval was granted will prevail. The commissioners examined the two parts of the subdivision. It was determined that there were no changes since the original approval was granted. 1[40 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Samuels, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by ML. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, and unanimously adopted, it was #2-45-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 136th Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1962 and to a request dated February 16, 1962 from Warner & Warner Engineers, on behalf of the Paris Home Builders, Inc. , with reference to splitting the previously approved Newburgh Heights Subdivision (under Resolutions #11-207-61 and #12-221-61) into two (2) parts, the City Planning Commission does hereby split said subdivision and give approval to that portion of the original subdivision located between the Bell Creek Drain and the northerly boundary of the original subdivision, said portion to be known as Newburgh Heights Subdivision #2, and further, that any conditions made at the time the original preliminary approval was granted will prevail. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 136th Regular Meeting held o Tuesday, February 20, 1962 at approximately 10:10 p.m. CITY PNNCWOMMIS Char es W. Walker, Chairman W. E Okerstrom, Secretary