HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1964-06-02 1[
I4182
MINUTES OF THE 182ND SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, June 2, 1964, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
the 182nd Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia,
Michigan. Mr. Edward G. Milligan, Chairman, called the 182nd Special Meeting to
order at approximately 8:00 p.m. with approximately 15 interested persons present
in the audience.
Members present: Charles Walker Donald E. Heusted Edward G. Milligan
W. E. Okerstrom R. L. Angevine
Members absent: Dennis Anderson*
James Cameron
Mr. William J. Strasser, Chief City Engineer, Division of Engineering, was also
present.
Mr. Milligan announced the first item on the agenda is proposed Garfield Subdivision
being a part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, located on the south side
of Myrna Avenue between Hubbard Road and Loveland, approx. 250 feet west
of Hubbard Road, submitted by Garfield Pryor. Public Hearing 4-14-64,
advisement. Mr. & Mrs. Garfield Pryor were present.
4 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, seconded by Mr. Angevine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-90-64 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 14,
1964, the City Planning Commission does hereby give approval to the
revised preliminary plat dated April 23, 1964, of Garfield Subdivision
located on the south side of Myrna Avenue between Hubbard Road and Loveland
approximately 250 feet west of Hubbard Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
15, subject to the following:
1. Dedication of sufficient right-of-way to make Rayburn a 60 foot
wide street.
2. Sewer easements and installation of sewers and other improvements
as required by the Engineering Department, 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 and Recreation Department, and Members of the
Plat Committee.
1[141; Mr. Milligan, Chairman declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
•
[ ..
4183
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is a request from Mr. E. J.
McNeely for Himander Corporation to split Beatrice Gardens Subdivision,
located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8 on the south side of Seven
Mile Road, approximately 1700 feet west of Wayne Road and directly north
of the proposed Denmar Estates Subdivision.
Mr. Okerstromasked if the Commission could come back to this petition after hearing
an item on the Public Hearing pertaining to the relocation of Levan Road in this
subdivision?
Mr. Milligan stated he would prefer the Commission to take this matter up now,
as there is no question that the proposed relocation of Levan Road is any different
then shown on the Beatrice Gardens Subdivision plat.
Mr. Okerstrom made a motion to approve the split of Beatrice Gardens, however
there was no second to his motion.
Mr. Milligan stated that Mr. Okerstrom's motion did not carry.
* Mr. Anderson arrived at 8:12 p.m.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Kropf if there was any particular reason why his clients
did not want to include Levan Road in the plat at this time?
4 Mr. Kropf stated, in October, the Planning Commission granted a preliminary approval
on a plat of Beatrice Gardens but the approval was typed on a plat dated January,
1964. We have put certain improvements in the ground and we want to go further
but can't because no bond has been set. Mr. Strasser felt that Levan Road should
be relocated and we can't get a bond until this is done, so we felt we would split
the plat so we could continue working, and also get our bond.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Kropf if the preliminary plat that we approved included Levan
Road.
Mr. Milligan stated, there are changes in this plat above and beyond the orginal
requests. Tie resolution which was passed by this Commission with certain conditions
was typed on a plat received in the planning office in January, 1964.
Mr. Milligan stated that he would like to have the opinion of the Legal Department
as to whether the Commission will have to hold another Public Hearing on this
revised plat.
Mr. Firestone, Assistant City Attorney, stated, we have previous opinions as to
the necessity of Public Hearings. Also, Mr. Strasser was in my office and I
reviewed the maps with him. As I understand this situation, the original plat
dated September 16, 1963, was before the Commission on a Public Hearing at which
1[ time the question of Levan Road and it's location came into the plat, and by
Resolution 10-202-63, the approving resolution, the plat was approved subject to
the following conditions:
i
1. That the applicant provide the City Planning Commission with an engineering
description of the centerline of relocated Levan Road;
2. That the applicant provide the City Planning Commission with a letter from the
Chief Building Inspector that every lot is a buildable one without any variance
having to be granted;
1! . „.
•
3. That street names will be supplied by the City Planner; 4184
4. That lots 204 and 207 be moved westward 60 feet so that the centerline of
proposed Westbrook will not be staggered.
Subsequently, a second plat was presented to the commission, it shows the proposed
split. It also shows that lots in the northern part of the plat have been changed
to accomodate what is Park Lane Drive to come out on Seven Mile Road and replaces
a short street that was, I presume, Westbrook. Lots 1 through 4are arranged so
they are against the easterly border instead of being boxed in along the northerly
border. The general opinion of our office, is that if a change is a substantial
change then it requires a new Public Hearing. I have to rely on the City Engineer
and I reviewed this with him and he has advised me that he is of the opinion that
there is not sufficient reason to warrant another Public Hearing.
Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, stated that the plat before the Commission tonight
is still in the same form as the original description. There have been some changes
within the plat itself and the only question I have is the stub end street.
However, inasmuch as the parcel that would be serviced by this stub end street is
the only question I feel there has not been a substa,ntiaa, change to warrant a Public
Hearing,,
Ili Mr. Okerstrom stated that there has been a few lot changes and some switches the
Commission hasn't seen or had an opportunity to review. They might want a stub
street going into this exception. The stub street was on the initial plat and was
taken out. Perhaps the Commission would like to study this at a Study Meeting.
Mr. Kropf stated that if this is what the Commission wants, his clients will do it.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Kropf if they could go ahead if the Commission gave approval
of the entire plat.
Mr. Kropf stated they could go ahead with the engineering.
Mr. Walker asked if the Planning Commission approves the entire plat could you set
a bond before an official resolution on Levan Road?
Mr. Strasser stated, no, this is still a condition that would have to be met. Before
we go to the council with a bond, it should be signed, sealed and delivered. Also
if the split is approved, the Planning Commission should consider one other require-
ment, that is a couple of turn arounds.
Mr. Milligan stated that this item will be taken under advisement until the meeting
of June 16th, 1964.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a Public
Hearing to amend the Master School and Park Plan by deleting Lots 579 &
580 on the Master Park Plan and adding Lots 579 & 580 to the Master School
IL Plan.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#5-91-64 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission after carefully reviewing
Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia entitled, "Master School
and Park Plan", which plan was adopted by the City Planning Commission on
December 15, 1953 and amended from time to time and revised on August 16,
1960 and thereafter certified to the City Council and filed with the Wayne
4185
'Fa
County Register of Deeds in accordance with law, and it appearing that
certain property hereinafter described should be deleted on such plan,
the City Planning Commission on its own motion does hereby order and
establish a public hearing to be held in the City Hall of the City of
Livonia to determine whether or not Part V of the Master Plan of the City
of Livonia should be amended so as to delete for future public park purposes
and designated for Board of Education purposes, the following described
property:
Lots 579 and 580 of Supervisors Livonia Plat No. 10 of part of East 1/2
of Section 15, Town 1 South, Range 9 East, Township and City of Livonia,
Wayne County, Michigan, according to the plat thereof as recorded in
Liber 66 on pages 61, 62 and 63 of plats in the office of the Wayne
County Register of Deeds, and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the time and place of said public
hearing be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City
of Livonia and that proper notice by registered mail be sent to each
public utility company and railroad company owning or operating any public
utility or railroad within the City of Livonia in accordance with the
provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of 1931, as amended.
Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is a years extension for Arbor
Estates requested by Richard Bleanak, President Arbor Development Company,
located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-92-64 RESOLVED that pursuant to a request from Richard Bleznak dated May 6,
1964 for a year's extension on Arbor Estates Subdivision, located in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby
grant said request of the revised plan of said subdivision which incor-
porates the conditions of the original preliminary approval, with the
deletion of the previous requirement that a street opening be allowed
for at the south end of Knolson Street into Dover Estates Subdivision,
since Arbor Estates Subdivision #2 would provide such connection, subject
however, to the Engineering Department reviewing said subdivision before
the canvasback plats are presented for final approval.
Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is preliminary approval of
proposed Arbor Estates Subdivision #2, located approximately 670 feet
south of Ann Arbor Road, 1300 feet west of Hix Road and 660 feet north
1[: of Joy Road, immediately west of the proposed Arbor Estates Subdivision in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. Public Hearing May 19, 1964, advisement.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
4186
#6-93-64 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held May 19, 1964,
the City Planning Commission does hereby give approval to the Revised
drawing #4 dated May 25, 1964, of Arbor Estates Subdivision #2, located
approximately 670 feet south of Ann Arbor Road, 1300 feet west of Hix
Road and 660 feet north of Joy Road, immediately west of the proposed
Arbor Estates Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the aubtting
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 and Recreation Department, and Members of the
Plat Committee.
Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is request for a year's
extension on Dover Courts Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 31, by Mr. Harry Lightstone, letter dated November 25, 1963.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, and unanimously
adopted, it was
11:
#6-94-64 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from Harry Lightstone dated November
25, 1963 for a year's extension on Dover Courts Subdivision located in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby
grant said request for a year's extension from June 2, 1964 to June 2, 1965,
subject, however, to the following:
1.Developer install gravel base on Eckles Road in accordance with County
Road Commission specifications.
2.Install masonary or wood screen wall along Eckles Road in accordance with
Engineering Department specifications.
3.Install Engineering Department approved green belt along inside of fence.
4.Have deed restrictions of subdivision provide that no building of structure
shall be placed within 10 feet of the rear lot line of Eckles Road, that
no openings shall be made in the screen wall and that the wall shall be
maintained in good condition and that no residential buildings shall be
placed closer than 50 feet to the lot line and that no signs of any kind
shall be posted on the screen wall or within 10 feet of the screen wall.
5.Add a turn around on the north end of Basset Drive where it dead ends.
ALSO, subject to all conditions prevailing on the original preliminary
approval and also, subject to the Engineering Department reviewing said
subdivision plat before the final canvas back plat is submitted for final
approval.
1[0 Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is acrried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
,
i '
1[ .
4187
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is request for a year's extension
for VIV Manor Subdivision located in theSouthwest 1/4 of Section 13,
submitted by Nelson Dembs, dated May 12, 1964.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-95-64 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from Nelson Dembs dated May12, 1964
for a year's extension on VIV Manor Subdivision, located in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 13, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said
request, subject, however to all conditions prevailing on the original
preliminary approval and also, subject to the Engineering Department
reviewing said Subdivision plat before the final canvas back plat is
submitted for final approval.
Mr. Milligan declared the motion is carried and the resolution is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is application for license for
Cloverlanes Bowl Inc. , Parking Lot at 28900 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Angevine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
II #6-96-64 RESOLVED that, City Planning Commission does hereby approve application
request for License for Cloverlanes Bowl Inc. , at 28900 Schoolcraft Road,
Livonia.
l
Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is request for License renewal
for Parking Lot as 28186 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia, by Hans A. Hartman.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Anderson, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-97-64 RESOLVED that, City Planning Commission does hereby approve application
request for License for Parking Lot at 28186 Schoolcraft Road, Livonia
by Hans A. Hartman. .
Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is Petition Z-645 by Daniel
Williamson of Gordon Williamson Company, for Blanche Houghton who is
requesting the rezoning of property located on the southwest corner of
Six Mile Road and Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 15,
from RUFB to PS. Public Hearing May 19, 1964, advisement.
IL Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-98-64 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on May 19,
1964, on Petition Z-645 as submitted by Daniel Williamson of Gordon
Williamson Company, for Blanche Houghton for a change of zoning on the
southwest corner of Six Mile Road and Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 15, from RUFB to PS, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-645 be denied because this
is an exclusively residential area. Rezoning would provide precedence for
other corners, and
4 4188
FURTHER E3SOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official
newspaper, The Livonian-City Post under date of April 29, 1964 and notice
of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, The Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, the Consumers
Power Company, City Departments and petitioners as listed in the Proof of
Service.
Mr. Milligan, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is TA-101 by Franklin M. Hurn,
President of Continental Sand Co. , requesting permission to remove topsoil
and sand from the proposed Beatrice Gardens Subdivision, this property
is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, approximately 1700 feet
west of Wayne Road, and directly north of the proposed Denmar Estates
Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8. Public Hearing May 19, 1964,
advisement.
Mr. Strasser, City Engineer asked if he could make one more stipulation on this
topsoil permit, and that would be that there would be no access to the Denmar Estates
Subdivision.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson, and unanimously
4
adopted, it was
4
#6-99-64 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday,
May 19, 1964, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application
TA-101 by Franklin M. Hurn, President of Continental Sand Co. , requesting
permission to remove topsoil and sand from the proposed Beatrice Gardens
Subdivision, this property is located on the south side of Seven Mile Road,
approximately 1700 feet west of Wayne Road, and directly north of the •
proposed Denmar Estates Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 8,
subject however, to the following:
(a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on
the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall main-
tain adequate drainage;
(b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed
subdivision streetsor that the excavation be no deeper than the grades shown
on submitted topographic survey;
(c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic require-
ments established by the Police Department;
(d) that 90 days after soil has been stripped, applicant shall be obligated
to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed
acceptable to the Engineering and Inspection Divisions of the Department of
Public Works unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release
of the topsoil bond that the Planning Commission relieves the petitioners
of this obligation, and
IL
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk a
corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for seventy-two (72) acres or
$36,000.00 which bond shall be for at least a one-year period, and
THAT, the period for which the permit herein, authorized shall be for a
period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond
as required therein, whichever is the shorter period, and
. 4189
4
THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein
authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution,
and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the property
owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the
Department of Public Works under dates of April 28, 1964, and from the
Police Department under the date of May 19, 1964.
Mr. Milligan, Chairman declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is TA-102 by Franklin M. Hurn
President of Continental Sand Co. , requesting permission to remove topsoil
and sand from the proposed Philip Judson and Renwick Park Subdivision,
this property is located on the south side of Six Mile Road, approximately
1650 feet east of Newburg Road, in the Northwest and Northeast 1/4 of
Section 17. Public Hearing May 19, 1964, advisement.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Olcerstrom,
it was
#6-100-64 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday,
May 19, 1964, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application
TA -102. by Franklin M. Hurn, President of Continental Sand Co. , requesting
permission to remove topsoil and sand from the proposed Philip Judson and
Renwick Park Subdivision, this property is located on the south side of
Six Mile Road, approximately 1650 feet east of Newburgh Road, in the
Northwest and Northeast 1/4 o f Section 17, subject however, to the followitg,
(a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on
the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall main-
tain adequate drainage;
(b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed
subdivision streets or that the excavation be no deeper than the grades
shown or: submitted topographic survey;
(c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic require-
ments 3stablished by the Police Department, also that signs be posted on
both sides of Six Mile Road 300 feet east on the north side and 300 feet
west o-1 the south side of the said ingress and egress to read "Warning
Trucks Crossing", and to conform to the following:
The City of Livonia Ordinance 212.
At no time shall the trucks constitute a traffic hazard. Also, no trucks
shall usc any of the side streets under any conditions unless en order has
been previously placed for delivery on that street.
IL (d) that 90 days after soil has been stripped, applicant shall be obligated
to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed
acceptable to the Engineering and Inspection Division of the Department of
Public hcxks unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of
the topsoil bond that the Planning Commission relieves the petitioners
of this obligation, and
4 ' 4190
I[
a
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk a
corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for One Hundred Seven (107)
acres or $53,500.00 which bond shall be for at least a one-year period, and
THAT, the period for which the permit herein, authorized shall be for a
period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond
as required therein, whichever is the shorter period, and
THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein
authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution,
and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the property
owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Depart-
ment of Public Works under date. of May 8, 1964 and from the Police
Department under the date of May 19, 1964.
A roll call on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Anderson, Okerstrom, Heusted, Angevine and Milligan
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Walker
I[
Mr. Milligan declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is TA-103 by Leonard Raneszeski,
Redford Excavation, Topsoil Contractors requesting permission to remove
a stockpile of topsoil from the proposed Golf View Meadows Subdivisions
#1 and #2, this property is located on the south side of Six Mile Road
approximately 600 feet west of Riverside Drive in Burton Hollow Subdivision
#3 which property is in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17. Public Hearing
May 19, 1964, advisement.
Mr. Okerstrom stated that he would approve the bond but that bond set on this request
should not be reduced from the previous request of 76 acres at $38,000.00. (Permit #88)
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-101-64 RESOLVED that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tesday,
May 19, 1964, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application
TA-103 by Leonard Raneszeski, Redford Excavation, Topsoil Contractors
requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil from the proposed
Golf View Meadows Subdivisions #1 and #2, this property is located on the
south side of Six Mile Road approximately 600 feet west of Riverside Drive
in Burton Hollow Subdivision #3 which property is in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 17, subject however, to the following:
4
(a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on
the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall main-
tain adequate drainage;
(b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed
subdivision streets or that the excavation be no deeper than the grades
shown on submitted topographic survey;
4191
1[0
(c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic require-
ments established by the Police Department;
(d) that 90 days after soil has been stripped, applicant shall be obligated
to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed
acceptable to the Engineering and Inspection Divisions of the Department of
Public Works unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release
of the topsoil bond that the Planning Commission relieves the petitioners
of this obligation, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk a
corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for seventy-six (76) acres or
$38,000.00 which bond shall be for at least a one-year period, and
THAT, the period for which the permit herein, authorized shall be for a
period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond
as required therein, whichever is the shorter period, and
THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein
authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed
in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the
Department of Public Works under dates of May 19, 1964 and from the
II:
Police Department under the date of May 14, 1964.
Mr. Milligan declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is final approval of Golf View
Meadows Subdivision No. 1 located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16 and
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17.
Mr. Milligan asked Mr. Strasser, City Engineer if he had seen the plat and if every-
thing was is order as far as he was concerned and if he had signed the plat.
Mr. Strasser stated "yes" he had signed the canvas back plat.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-102-64 RESOLVED that, the final plat of Golf View Meadows Subdivision No. 1
located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16 and the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 17 be given final approval, in that it met the requirements of the
law when approved and no changes have been made, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative
approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission
August 15, 1961; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together
with plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved
by the Department of Public Works under date of April 16, 1964; and
1[: it further appearing that a bond in the amount of $103,000.00 in the form
of an Irrevocable Commercial Letter of Credit issued by the Manufacturers
National Bank of Detroit in the anount of $93,000.00 plus a cash bond in
the amount of $10,000.00 pursuant to Council's resolution #426-64 to
cover the installation of improvements has been filed in the office of
the City Clerk under date of June 1, 1964; such bond having been approved
by Milton I. Firestone, Assistant City Attorney, on May 18, 1964, it
4192
140
" 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. Milligan declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is Petition M-321 by Klein &
Shenkman who are requesting permission to put an oversized sign on property
located on the Northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt Roads
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Milligan stated that the consultant for the Planning Commission suggested that
the petitioners be requested that the setback of the sign from the property line
be at least equal to the height of the sign.
Mr. Milligan asked Mr. Shenkman what/ fe height of the sign? Mr. Shenkman stated
the sign stands approximately 85 feet tall.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Angevine
it was
#6-103-64 RESOLVED, that Pursuant to a *motel Meeting having been held June 2, 1964
the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition M-312 by Klein &
Shenkman who are requesting permission to erect an oversized sign on
property located on the Northwest corner of Seven Mile and Middlebelt Roads
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, because it would be contrary to the
I[:
intent of Section 11.02 (b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia.
A sign of 30 to 40 feet in height would appear to be more in keeping with
the spirit of the ordinance and the needs of the center.
•
A roll'catl vote on the fcregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Anderson, Heusted, Angevine
NAYS: Walker and Milligan
ABSTAIN: Okerstrom
Mr. Okerstrom wanted the Commission to know that the reason he abstained from voting
was because Mr. Shenkman would not agree to the 85 foot setback.
Mr. Milligan declared the motion is carried and foregoing resolution is adopted, the
Petition is denied.
Mr. Milligan advised the Petitioners that they . 10 days to appeal to the City Council.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item, on the agenda is resolution to approve application
to HHFA for a grant to assist for the acquisition of land needed for the
proposed Municipal Golf Course, .loc Ke ,,i1}.-the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Heusted and unanimously
adopted, it was rr:L
#6-104-64 RESOLVED whereas the City .of ,�,iuonia_ ,#a �,an up to date Master School and
I[:
Park Plan which is being considered for adoption as an element of its
Master Plan prepared under Act 285, Public Acts of 1931, as amended, and
whereas such plan designates a municipal golf course generally located
in the northwest 1/4 of Section 5, and whereas such recreational
facility is necessary to the public health, safety and welfare
I
4193
•
'I- of the community, and whereas such proposal has been made on the basis
of. careful and thorough sutdy and projections of population, densities,
land use, and other aspects of community planning, be it resolved that
the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia approves of the
application to the Housing Home Finance Agency for a grant to assist in the
acquisition of land needed for the proposed municipal golf course.
Mr. Milligan declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is resolution in answer to request
from City Council, Resolution #961-63 dated December 18, 1963, requesting
a study on apartments.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-105-64 RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby transmit Study
on the Effect of Apartments in the City of Livonia. This study was
requested by the Council in their Resolution #961-63, dated December 18,
1963.
MULTIPLE STUDY & POLICY
1 . Multiple Trends in Midwest
By the end of 1963, apartments were being built at a record rate in this midwest region.
In 1963, one-family houses fell to postwar lows in 5 of the 11 metropolitan areas.
Chicago and Cleveland built houses in 1963 at less than half the average rate of the
1950's, and apartments at 5 times the average of that period. Indianapolis' 1963 one-
family house starts were less than 2/3 the 1950's average, but apartment starts were 10
times as high. In the midwest as a whole, rental units accounted for 46% of the housing
starts during the last quarter of 1963. Nationally, it was 52%.
A recent study by Advance Mortgage Corporation says,
"Does this mean that there has been a wholesale shift in housing demand, that the
apartment market is swallowing up the house market? We believe this is only
partially true. A shift is taking place and apartments will not soon fall back to
the 12% share of market they held in the 1950's. But neither will they hold at
or near their current 46% share. We remain convinced that a large part of the
current apartment surge is a response to favorable financing rather than demand.
Some pause in rental starts is due before the end of 1964 in many or most of these
cities, to give demand time to catch up. In Cleveland and Chicago, the largest
apartment markets, the pause may have begun. In Cleveland, the rental share of
starts fell to 35% this quarter from 71% a year ago." (1)
In addition to favorable financing, other factors in the multiple upsurge are population
changes, and increased land costs.
By 1975, the nation's population will increase about 22%. The 25 - 44 age group will
increase about 14%,while the 15 - 24 age groups will increase 23.7%, and the 65 and
over age group will increase 20.5%. There will be many potential apartment dwellers
among the older and younger age groups. Until 1970, the 25 - 44 age group, a prime
market for more expensive homes, will remain almost stationary. (13)
Coupled with these population changes, the price of land continues to rise, making
single family housing more expensive. The cost of land to put a house on has tripled
since 1950. (15)
1
1
2. Multiple Trends in Metropolitan Detroit
In Metropolitan Detroit, which includes Wayne, Oakland, and Macomb Counties,
20,392 dwelling units were built in 1963, of which about 75% or 15,075 were one-
family units, 270 were two- to four-family units, and 5,047 were five-family units
and over. The 1963 multiple construction was more than double the 1962 volume,
and the 1962 volume was likewise more than double the 1961 volume. (2)
On a county basis, nonsingle family units accounted for 50% of the units built in
Washtenaw County, 30% in Wayne County, 31% in Oakland County, 17% in Macomb
County, and 4% in Monroe County.
Building permits for multiple housing were issued in 49 of the region's 178 communities
in 1963. Of these, 19 communities authorized at least 50 units, and 13 communities
more than 100.
Building permits issued in Livonia last year were as follows.
Single family units 1 ,326
Two-family units 0
Multi-family units 224
Gross Total 1,550
Less demolitions 18
NET TOTAL 1 ,532
The range of multiple construction has been wide. Certain special FHA programs have
provided special inducement to multiple construction, such as the 221d3 Program, which
has played a part in multiple construction in Nankin Township, Clinton Township, and
Roseville. Low cost multiple housing has not, by any means, been the overall picture.
Birmingham issued permits for 258 units; Bloomfield Township, 276; Farmington, 74;
City of Royal Oak, 714.
Advance Mortgage Corporation paints a general picture of caution in the multiple housing
market for most metropolitan areas. It feels that in several cities the market has been
overbuilt. However, it reports in regard to the Detroit area,
2
"the prospect of overbuilding also appears remote in Detroit, where the vacancy
rate has been falling steadily for the past year and a half. It has some 7,500
fewer rental vacancies than a year ago."
"Of the entire inventory of apartments in the Metropolitan Detroit area, about
80% is more than 30 years old."
"There is no such thing as an average city-wide multiple market. There are only
many neighborhood markets, rental range markets, markets for particular require-
ments and designs. Regardless of the area-wide vacancy rate or rental scale,
the well-located, well-planned project, backed by good market survey and
experienced and sophisticated property management, will prove successful ." (3)
3
11/ 9 ;,
3. Social and Economic Factors
Contradicting a common stereotype, a lower percentage of Detroit area apartments are
occupied by nonwhite tenants than other forms of housing., The highest nonwhite tenancy
is in two- to four-family housing. The next highest is in one-family housing, and the
lowest is in apartments (excluding public housing). (4)
Multiple housing has an important role in diversifying the area's housing inventory. Mile
upon mile of housing, predominantly of the same type, size and price range, contributes
to real estate instability, and physical monotony.
High concentration of the same type housing weakens marketability and value of the
individual house; in the normal real estate turnover of housing, practically all houses
for sale at a given time are more or less competing for the same buyer.
to . As the typical family passes through various phases of the family cycle, its housing needs
change. If variety of housing is available to match these needs, more families will find
it possible to remain in the community. By reducing family in- and outmigration, this
directly contributes to stability of the community and school system.
Much suburban resistance to multiple housing stems from its sad history of maximum site
exploitation and cheap construction. These characteristics are not intrinsically inherent
in multiple housing. Rather than providing a method for exploiting maximum site capacity,
suburban multiple housing is capable of being used as a way of consolidating dwelling
units into a few buildings, instead of scattering them in single units, thereby allowing
greater areas of outdoor space to be reserved for recreation, parking, and aesthetic setting.
Referring to multiples, Urban Land Institute points out,
"Since raw land is a low-percentage component of the total-housing cost, great
reductions in total-package costs cannot come from squeezing the land. We
have seen that intensification of land use produces relatively small cost savings
at the sacrifice of very great losses in livability space." (5)
Evaluation of tax revenue and municipal costs of any particular type of development is a
highly complex matter, and the hazard of oversimplifying the many variable factors
should be avoided. As a general statement, we conclude that quality multiple develop-
ment:
1) Need not devalue or depreciate adjoining single family if carefully designed.
2) Can produce a favorable revenue/cost ratio.
4
The following Table is necessarily based on hypothetical assumptions, but is considered
to reflect realistic expectations. In 1960, there were about 1 ,05 school enrolled children
per family in Livonia , (6) (This included a small number of parochial and private students,
which are ignored for purposes of this analysis.) In the Table, we have indicated a ratio
of 0.3 school children per dwelling unit in multiples. Assuming that most multiple units
will not exceed 2 bedrooms, we consider this a generous ratio, and will probably exceed
actual experience. We have used 1 pupil per dwelling unit for single family, reflecting
the recent ratio in Livonia. The results show that even though the per dwelling unit valu-
ation in multiples will be lower than that in single family, the value per acre, and the
value per pupil, will be considerably higher.
It should be remembered that a substantial portion of the City's tax revenues are derived
from nonproperty tax sources; in 1963, 57% of the total revenues of the City were derived
from nonproperty tax collections. Important nonproperty tax revenues are the State Sales
Tax Diversion and the Intangible Property Tax, both of which are distributed on the basis
of population. In 1963, tax revenues from these two sources totaled over $565,000, The
estimate for 1964 is about $581 ,000. These revenues are allocated directly on the basis
of population of the municipality. The higher population per acre yielded by multiples
would therefore directly contribute to a higher tax revenue from such nonproperty tax
sources. Revenue from the Michigan Highway Fund, which for 1964 is estimated at
$525,855, is also to a considerable extent based on the City's share of the State popu-
lation. It is roughly estimated that about $1500 per capita per year, currently being
received from these portions of Sales Tax Diversion, Intangible Property Tax, and Michi-
gan Highway Fund, are directly related to population. (This figure excludes that portion
of Highway Fund revenues not affected by population.) Multiple development would
therefore yield an excess of about $300:00 per acre in these revenues over single family
60' x 120' development, and an excess of about $375.00 per acre over single family
80' x 120' development,
Taking an extreme case to illustrate this point, if 1,000 acres of presently R1 land were
rezoned and developed to R3 multiple, the excess in these nonproperty tax revenues
would be $300.000
The full valuation excess per acre of multiple over R1 is about $84;000, which at a
State Equalized Value of about $42,000 would yield an excess of about $42 00 per mill
of tax rate for the City, County and School District, or roug6ily $1 ,830 per acre, and
$1 ,830,000 for 1 ,000 acres for 43 mills tax rate.
Not counting other less direct effects on tax revenues, the above would total an excess
of $2, 130,000 for 1 ,000 acres of multiple compared with R1 . Of this $2, 130,000 about
$674,000 would be City taxes for operation and debt service
5
27/
C = O O O /
a •° a 0 0 0
0 j a O 10 O
0 .3 44 44 to
1
k
C a)
0 2 U
s -..k 4t O
N S N V. %O .a.
U a
C
O L a)
} U
o < CO 00
uJ D N
ce O Q-
C) a
Q
I
W a)
Za)NCC C3 O O% O
LU d CD- T M CO Nh
0
-4. C
Li-
LU
_ +
Z 0 O O O
O D u 0 0 0
Q j a� a a
J a - 444 44
D
a
A
0
a
a) 0 0
Z- 8
' 0 0
Z o- w 44 4
O —
c
J - U to O tf) a)
Q a) Q 4 `o 4 E)
3 m
u_ p a
O ,o
Z `-
O
c
J a- ._ O O O
— 0 O O
}
O N ,0
Z ,,t- Q M I� O. 6
O _N
U o O a
N N +.
X X '
� O
[0., x T a-
E E C
U li IL CO
C- a) a)
f O
} CD
> C C
N N do
6
I
Although the trend is not yet apparent in Livonia, there appears to be a long-term
historical trend in the local property tax declining percentagewise to the total revenues
of most cities. If such should prove to be the case, and if population should replace
property tax revenues as the principal basis of tax revenues, the financial attractiveness
of multiples from a tax viewpoint would be further enhanced. Since Livonia is growing
much faster than the State as a whole, its proportionate share of Sales Tax Diversion,
Intangible Property Tax, and Michigan State Highway Fund will likely increase after
the 1970 Census.
Fewer feet of sewer and water lines per unit, less street, curb and gutter, less area to
serve with police and fire protection; and other similar factors lead to a lower per
family community cost. In addition, the significantly higher valuations per acre of
multiple land results in a much higher tax return per acre than other less dense resi-
dential uses. These financial considerations are not presented as an argument for
zoning land for multi-family use. If cost/benefit ratio were the controlling factor,
it would probably result in decisions to zone the whole City commercial or industrial .
Rather, these facts are presented to demonstrate that all factors considered, quality
multiples can be financially attractive from the municipal viewpoint.
7
1-/P2
4. Effectiveness of Controls
The following is quoted from a recent F.H.A. study.
"Controls have not necessarily netted better housing. The criticism has been made
that the original objective of improving the housing environment has become lost in
a proliferation of controls which have tended to standardize mediocrity."
"Many present day regulations are outgrowths of efforts to eliminate some of the
notorious, congested, unsanitary, and unsafe conditions of city tenements of the
19th and early 20th centuries. Aimed at providing better housing and promoting
the general wellbeing of occupants, regulations have been adopted which specify
such characteristics as minimum interior space, maximum occupancy for each
dwelling, and height and spacing of buildings. These standards, and others, have
influenced the intensity of development of housing today. The intensity of housing
is controlled, and presumably the livability of housing has improved by the enforce-
ment of minimum and maximum standards for density, coverage,floor area ratio,
building type and size, and building spacing. However, among housing experts
there is considerable disagreement over the effects of these standards on livability."
"What constitutes high, medium, or low density is relative to a number of factors,
namely, a country's or city's tradition of residential development to location of
housing and building type. For example, what is high density housing on the fringe
of a city, may be considered medium or even low density at its core. 15 dwelling
units to the acre is regarded as high for single family detached structures, medium
for row houses, and low for multi-story structure. "
"Standards specifying limits for the intensity of housing development first adopted
to correct some of the ills of early multiple housing in the United States have not
proved to be a panacea. All too many examples exist of new projects which have
been built to conform to current site development standards, yet which rank low in
quality. "
"No one argues for the abandonment of standards; clearly some type of development
controls are necessary, especially in urban areas, but the plea for greater flexibility
in their application is heard. . . . "
"Although there is no inherent reason for it, . . . . .large sites frequently lack high
quality design. As a consequence, . . . .use small and medium size sites and not
large ones, if possible." (7)
b
8
i
5. Zoning Multiples
Multiples have often been given an unfair shake in demonst ating their potential quality
On the one hand, municipalities have looked with a jaundiced eye on the quality of
multiples, and on the other hand have imposed zoning policies which make attainment
of quality almost impossible.
The old zoning attitude considers residential "more desirable" or "higher" than com-
mercial or industrial . The idea of "higher" and "lowe'" uses is based largely upon the
notion that the "higher" use would have least likelihood of c'eating a nuisance. Another
aspect of this attitude is the pyramiding of uses; the least number of uses is permitted in
the "highest" district, while the "lowest" district became the catchall for virtually every
conceivable type of use,
The traditional corollary of the "higher" to "lower" hierarchy is the assumption that
"higher" uses need to be protected or "buffered" from those lower down the scale or
pyramid. It was assumed that all adjoining classes of uses have "zone boder compatibility"
and that the intervention of a zoning district immediately lower on the scale preserves to
4 protect a "higher" use from one still lower down , The need for such protection may be valid
in certain circumstances However, in determining compatibility of neighboing uses, such
factors as property values, traffic conflict, mixture of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
noise, light, odors, building height, and others must be weighed Evaluation of such
factors in any particular instance might reveal that a terrace-family development or an
office building is just as compatible to single family uses as other single family houses .
There is no way to be absolutely specific on these points, since so many factors are involved
What can be said, however, is that various uses are not inherently incompatible as neighbors
to single family residential
Over the years the idea of "good" and "bad" has been injected into the scheme and
substituted for "high" and "low" - words that in themselves possess no ethical value,
but relate to population density or intensity of land use. All classes of land use have
a definite place in the metropolitan area, and none is inherently either "good" or "bad" .
There seems to be a belief that where there is a use that may have an adverse effect on
neighboring areas, the way to solve the problem is to maximize the number of people upon
whom this supposed ill-effect is imposed, by inserting multiple family zoning between the
two uses. It is difficult to justify this belief The tendency to use multi-family zoning as
[
9
an insulating or buffering strip between single family areas and other use districts
is a technique which is much overworked, and apparently is based on the theory
that those who choose to live in a multi-family development do not deserve the same
type of environment as those who choose to live in single family areas. It is precisely
this approach which has largely undermined the quality of multiple development, and
has led to critism of its quality.
Persons choosing to live in a multi-family environment, be their choice based on
economic, social, physical, age, or other reasons, should have their range of choice
extended to include both central or suburban living. Multi-family living is an accepted
and increasingly popular mode of living appealing to wide segments of the population,
and deserves more consideration than merely a type of development allowed by sufferance
on the least desirable sites.
Consideration of multi-family rezoning will cause objections from some residents of
adjoining neighborhoods. Often such expressions of concern are based on valid consi-
derations; just as often they are based on unfounded beliefs. Necessarily, zoning takes
into consideration the effect on neighboring areas. An equally valid consideration is
the effect on the general welfare of the community stated in its broadest terms. Adjacent
property owners' acceptance or rejection is not in itself the only criteria for zoning
change. Rights of the owners of the property proposed for rezoning are an equally valid
consideration; and overriding both of these are the rights and welfare of the total commu-
nity as determined by legally responsible representative bodies. Zoning by popular
opinion poll is as equally capricious as is zoning without concern for adjacent property
owners or the community-at-large.
The following Table compares multiple lot area requirements of Livonia and some other
cities. Livonia's density standards are more restrictive than most cities, but are con-
sidered reasonable in context with the community's character and regional location.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance provides for "Open Space Planned Residential Devel-
opments" in certain single family zones in which the consolidation of open space is
encouraged. However, no such approach is provided for in multiple districts in the
proposed Ordinance. Such approach is beneficial in multiple development, research,
and office campuses, and similar developments.
While a zoning ordinance must necessarily establish fixed standards on area, height,
bulk, and placement, certain elements which decide the quality multiple projects are
by their nature not capable of being reduced down to a set of rigid rules, and largely
depend on the skill of the site designing. It is for that reason that the "Planned Projects"
.4
10
4
'IC
_ co
1
Q O
CD CD CD
Q ccCD CD
C CV CV COC
d
N
C
Li. E O O 0 i
0 fl 00, NT
+- +- N N CO
V D
0
N
I-
UJ 0 'a 0000 c
E 0 0 Lo 0 D
w U � co s0
72
D O
a
W N
>- _ LO o
1=' D) I L
Z ' 0 E c
W N A D O -
U C '- N N D
N
Z p Co . )
•
9 D
N Q 0 0
" 0 i0 0 0 0 _a
o_ --I '} 0000 Q
I- 15 0 c0 f. V0 u
ti .4" N M '4t Z
V c '-
N D0
LL D _ L
Z N .c
O -° °- E
Li) °' s 0 0 0 0 '• c
4- = 0000 0 •-
ce Q E 3 u") O � O 0(0
[0 H Cl) •`
O ,,, N
V .....
@ �
L
•D CD
D• Q
L :i-
U E
c
D N
c z..>
� U-
I N
C▪ •c •c •c a- }
DDDD
tn
04CeCC � .X
CO CO CO m W
▪ N CO d .*
11
---
4-7 -) 3
4-7 -) 3
ti904s
approach will play an important role in determining the quality of future multiple
development. Since this would involve an additional revision to the proposed
Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission will furnish recommendations on this
matter in a separate report to Council .
4
4
i 091
12
4
4
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
(a)Prevailing Quality
Multiple housing has a contribution to make in Livonia's development. The
City Planning Commission is not anti-multiple housing. The Planning Commission
is deeply concerned about the quality of multiple housing currently being built
in Metropolitan Detroit. The prevailing quality, particularly in regard to the
site planning of multiple housing, is generally disappointing and suggests concern
for long-term stability and condition.
(b)Zoning Map Changes
The Zoning Ordinance Map should be viewed as a regulation of development which
reflects careful and thorough planning of the community, and is therefore a docu-
4
ment that is only subject to change on the basis of either:
1
1 . a demonstrated error in the facts that were used in establishing the zoning
districts, or a demonstrated error in judgment;
2. significantly changing or changed conditions which render obsolete the
mapping of a particular zoning district.
In either case, the burden is upon the petitioner to establish specifically why the
zoning should be changed. A mere request to rezone property is not in itself
sufficient. Neither is the claim that rezoning would result in a higher economic
return, either in income to the petitioner or in tax revenue to the City. While
these factors may be valid considerations as part of a larger picture, in and of
themselves they are inadequate. It is therefore emphasized that a detailed and
factual presentation of the basis for rezoning the property is the responsibility
and the burden of the petitioner.
(c)Multiple Use of R3 Multiple Sites
The fact that a particular site is zoned multiple does not imply automatic or routine
site approval for multiples. Among other things, single family and two-family
dwellings are permitted in multiple districts. Disapproval of multiples therefore
leaves alternatives.
0
13
(d)Variances by Board of Zoning Appeals
It is extremely rare where the Board of Zoning Appeals can properly allow an increase
in the density of a multiple site as a hardship variance. A variance should be based
on singular difficulties unique to a particular property. A variation from zoning regu-
lations to increase the financial return on a property is not a legitimate basis for a
variance as long as the property can reasonably be used as zoned.
(e)Jurisdiction of Bureau of Inspection:
Under the Zoning Ordinance, the Bureau of Inspection has the administrative authority
and responsibility to enforce the Ordinance. Site plan approval by the Planning
Commission or other departments, therefore, does not waive or assure approval by the
Bureau of Inspection.
(f) Location & Type
The quality of multiple development will be directly related to the locations involved.
If multiple is limited to adverse locations, it cannot be fairly expected that the resulting
quality will be very high.
High-rise apartments have a future in Livonia, if designed as integral to a large develop-
ment area.
Multiples should contribute to a coherent structure of the community. Generally speaking,
multiples should reinforce the build-up and importance of community and subcommunity
centers. However, certain types of low-density multiples can also contribute to the
variety and strength of more outlying zones.
(g)Site Approval Application
The information that will be required for site approval for multiples should correspond
with the purpose of such review and approval . The City Planning Commission needs
sufficient information to review and arrive at conclusiais on net densities, designation
of streets to be dedicated, setbacks, height of buildings, relationship between buildings
in the project itself, and the relationship to adjoining properties, adequacy of offstreet
parking, adequacy of traffic and pedestrian circulation, facilities for outdoor recreation
and provisions for landscape treatment, and other information resonably related to the
14
. /0) 0 C-
ti
site planning, area, height, bulk, and placement of the buildings and the
project as a whole and its relationship with adjoining areas.
The attached form indicates the information required by the Planning Commission
for site approval . The application should be accompanied by preliminary archi-
tectural drawings of the site plan, typical floor plan, and typical elevations.
Detail beyond the purpose of the review is not desired at this stage. If the site
is in excess of 1 acre, the site plan shall be prepared by a registered landscape
architect and/or registered professional engineer or architect. Architectural
plans shall be prepared by a registered architect.
The site plan shall clearly indicate the boundaries of the ownership involved in
the application, as well as the lotting and general location of existing buildings
on contiguous property within at least 100 feet of the ownership boundary. The
site plan shall clearly identify the number of units proposed in each building, the
number of stories, the type of unit, such as row house or terrace apartment, the
general pattern of pedestrian circulation and entrance to units, existing drainage
courses and easements, identification of proposed fencing and green belts, a
general depiction of plant material masses, dimensioned setbacks to the nearest
foot, the date and scale of the drawing, north arrow, and inset map showing the
general location of the property, the person or firm by whom prepared, and such
other information as is reasonably required for an intelligent review of the pro-
posal on the basis of the purpose of the review by the Planning Commission.
In evaluating the acceptability of site plan submittals, the City Planning Com-
mission intends to use the following guidelines, in addition to specific require-
ments of Ordinance 60, the Zoning Ordinance as amended.
(1) Multiple developments of more than 20 acres or 200 dwelling units at any
one location are generally considered to be out of character with the
pattern of community development in Livonia, since such development
would offer an excessive impact on neighborhoods that are basically
laid out for single family densities.
(2) A major part of all of the offstreet parking should be separate offstreet
parking lots and not directly off the roadway in parking bays. Site plans
which result in multiple buildings being surrounded by a sea of asphalt
and cars is contrary to the objectives of the Planning Commission. A
14
conscious effort should be made to avoid the dominance of offstreet parking
15
in the appearance of the project. Where parking will uniformly
be prohibited in such streets, the pavement width of the right-of-way
can be reduced in width accordingly to accommodate two moving lanes
as specified by the engineering department.
(3) Special attention will be given to the visual relationship of multiple building
masses to adjoining single family lots.
(4) All multiple buildings should have direct access to public rights-of-way. This
does not necessarily mean that the entire facade of the multiple building need
face a street, but entrances to dwelling units and multiple buildings should be
directly accessible from a public street. Dedicated rights-of-way should be
at least 60' wide. Dedicated rights-of-way should not be included in the
computation of site density.
} (5) Any multiple site of more than 5 acres or 50 dwelling units should have at
least 2 street entrances of which the major entrance should be directly from
a major thoroughfare.
(6) A density lesser than the maximum allowed by the Ordinance may be necessary
and required in order to result in an otherwise satisfactory site plan.
(7) Any multiple proposals involving dwelling units in excess of 2 bedrooms will be
subject to particular attention in regard to the question of provision of open
recreation areas and play areas.
16
INFORMATION TO ACCOMPANY APPLICATION FOR MULTIPLE SITE APPROVAL � /d
a. Application No. 19
b. Name of development (if any)
c. Applicant's name
d. Present owner (if different from c)
e. Developer (if different from c)
f. Located in 1/4 of Sec. , near intersection of
and .
g• acres in ownership.
h. acres to be dedicated as street.
i. acres net to be developed.
j• dwelling units proposed.
k. dwellings per net acre (j/i) .
I. Distribution of dwelling units and bedrooms:
Type Units Bedrooms
ft
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom & more
Total 100% 100%
m. offstreet parking spaces.
n. spaces per unit (m/j).
o. acres to be covered by buildings.
p. % site building coverage (o/i).
q. bedrooms/net acre (I/i).
r. sq. ft. floor area of all stories devoted to residential use, mea-
sured to outside faces of exterior walls.
s. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.).(r/i).
t. acres to be in open land (other than buildings, parking, and
streets). % of net acres.
u. Describe play and recreation facilities proposed:
v. Describe landscape treatment proposed:
w. Describe method of garbage and rubbish storage, disposal:
x. Describe proposed tenure (rental, co-op, condominium, etc.)
y. Optional . Describe proposed rental range:
Will this be F.H.A. financed?:
z. Are basement or half-story apartments proposed?
Attachments: (check)
Site Plan Preliminary architectural design.
Floor plans
Elevations
Other
A
I
Sources
1 . Advance Mortgage Corporation, "Midwest Apartment Markets", December, 1963.
2. Detroit Metropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, "Residential Construction
in the Detroit Region", January, 1964.
3. Advance Mortgage Corporation, "Midwest Apartment Markets", December, 1963
and "Midwest Housing Markets", 1963.
4. Advance Mortgage Corporation, "Midwest Apartment Markets", December, 1963.
5. Urban Land Institute, "Urban Land", Vol . 22, No. 9. , October, 1963.
6. United States Census of Population, 1960.
7. Federal Housing Administration, FHA Technical Studies Program #509, "Intensity
of Development and Livability of Multi-Family Housing Projects", January, 1963.
Other general sources used in Study:
8. Federal Housing Administration Land Planning Bulletin #6, "Planned Unit Develop-
9.
ment", December, 1963.
City Planning Commission, City of Ann Arbor Memorandum "Philosophy and Policy
of Multi-Family Housing in Ann Arbor", June 10, 1963.
10. Urban Land Institute, "Urban Land", Vol . 22, No. 8, September, 1963.
11 . Journal of the American Institute of Planners, "Applications of Cost-Revenue Studies
to Fringe Areas" by William L. C. Wheaton, November, 1959.
12. Zoning Ordinances of the Cities of Bloomfield Township, Troy, Birmingham, Livonia,
and Ann Arbor.
13. Federal Housing Administration, "Minimum Property Standards for Multi-Family
Housing," FHA #2600, November, 1963.
14. The W. E. Upjohn Institute, "What's Behind the Apartment Boom?", Business
Conditions in Kalamazoo, Vo. VI, No. 3, April, 1964.
15. Wall Street Journal, "The Cost of Property For New Home Building Has Tripled
Since 1950", May 19, 1964.
18
4212
II4
Mr. Milligan, Chairman declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
W. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is approval of minutes for meetings
held on April 14, May 5th and May 19, 1964.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Angevine, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-106-64 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes
for meetings held on April 14, May 5th and May 19th, 1964.
The Chairman declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. . Ckenstr s4 supported by Mr. Walker, and unanimously
adopted the City Planning Commission' does hereby adjourn the 182nd Special Meeting
held on Tuesday, June 2, 1964 at approximately 9:36 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Edward G. Milligan, Chairman called the Public Hearing to order at approximately
9:53 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the audience
as were present Et the Special Meeting.
Mr. Milligan announced the first item on the Public Hearing agenda is petition by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not
to relocate the centerline of Levan Road on the Master Thoroughfare Plan
I from Six Mile Road to Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Milligan asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this
1 item, there being no one, Mr. Milligan declared this item will be taken under
1 advisement.
' Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is preliminary approval of
Tiffany Park Subdivision #2, located approximately 120 feet south of Mix
iRoad and Lyndon Avenue in the Castle Gardens #3 and adjacent to the proposed
i Tiffany Park Subdivision. This plat is approximately 1950 feet north of
Schoolcraft Road and 2250 feet east of Eckles Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 19. Submitted by Richard T. Gieryn for Alto Building Company.
Mr. Gieryn was present.
Mr. Milligan asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this
item, there being no one, Mr. Milligan declared this item will be taken under
advisement.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is Petition M-318 by Livonia
Police Department for the U.S. Post Office Department, requesting the
approval to establish a second drive with a reduction in parking around
the Post Office to be erected on property located on the east side of
Merriman Road, approximately 647 feet north of Plymouth Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26. Sgt. Thorne, Livonia Police Department was
present.
Mr. Milligan questialMr. Firestone, Assistant City Attorney, if the Police Department
could petition the City Planning Commission.
4213
Mr. Firestone asked Mr. Milligan to allow him a few minutes to answer that question.
M . Milligan declared this item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is Petition M-319 by William
P. Lindhout, A.I.A. , for St. Matthew's Church of Livonia, requesting
approval to erect a church, fellowship hail and educational unit,
(previously approved for the Livonia Methodist Church in February, 1961),
on property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, approx. 1020 feet
east of Merriman Road, between Merriman and Stamwich, in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 11. Mr. Lindhout was present.
Mr. Lindhout stated that have approval from the Engineering Department and stated they
are 70 feet from the right-of-way.
Mr. Walker asked what would the educational unit consist of.
Mr. Lindhout stated the educational unit would be a Sunday School use. There would not
be a parochial school.
Mr. Milligan asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this
item, there being no one, Mr. Milligan declared this item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Milligan announced that: r. Firestoneisready to give us an opinion as to whether
the Police Department can petition the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Firestone stated that Section 20.01 is the section that deals with who may petition
the Planning Commission.
1. The City Council
2. The City Planning Commission
3. Owners of 509'. or more of the frontage.
In this case the Police Department wouldn't qualify, however, the City Planning
Commission could make a motion to hold a public hearing on this •.item..
Sgt. Thorne stated that the Post Office originally had 70 parking spaces however,
a high volume of traffic will be from Plymouth Road and they will be turning in from
the south edge of the property. I think this would make the parking area more useable.
Mr. Milligan stated that this is an amendment to the petition the Commission originally
approved. required 104 or 105 parking places. Mr. Jehowski went away with our approved
site and some six months later told the Commission that he had not submitted the site
to Chicago because in his opinion they would not approve the site plan and wanted an
amendment to 76 lots. The Commission granted from 104 to 72 parking places. You are
now in with a change that will reduce it to 70 parking spacesbut this will have another
driveway.
Sgt. Thorne stated that he had a sketch of the building and if the Commission will note,
the area in front is very small.
Mr. Milligan stated our minutes show that the Post Office stated that this will be the
last Post Office built in Livonia. This is a town of 85,000 people and the projected
growth is 172,000 people. I really wonder if we really want to go down on the parking.
However, the Commission will take another look at their building layout.
4
4214
4
II
4 _ Mr. Anderson asked Sgt. Thorne, as a Traffic Officer, don't you think it would be
better if deceleration lanes were put in?
Mr. Milligan asked Sgt. Thorne if he would be opposed to reworking these plans for
deceleration lanes?
Sgt. Thorne stated no sir, I am very much in favor of this.
M. Milligan stated the Commission can take this item up on the next Study Meeting
Agenda. (June 9, 1964) The Commission would have to rule on the attorney's opinion
that this is not a legal petition.
Mr. Walker asked Sgt. Thorne to submit a letter to the Commission to view the possibility
of a deceleration lane. This letter should be a matter of record of the Police
Department recognizing the fact that this would be a safety factor in this area.
Mr. Milligan stated this item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Milligan announced the next item on the agenda is Application TA-104 by Joseph
Sinacola, President of Joseph Sinacola & Neli Corporation requesting approval
to remove topsoil from property located on the east side of Purlingbrook,
approximately 360 feet south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 2. Mr. Sinacola was present.
IL Mr. Sinacola stated he could use the topsoil and the land is of a nature that is hard
to build on so rather than cover it up, he wants to remove it and fill in with clay.
Mr. Okerstrom question the depth. Mr. Sinacola stated he would dig about 5 or 6 feet.
Mr. Strasser, City Engineer stated that the water table in that neighborhood is about
4 to 5 feet deep.
Mr. Milligan stated that this area should be fenced in.
Mr. Milligan asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on this item.
Mr. Don DeBussey, representing Mr. Norman Priemai, 20403 Purlingbrook, stated that
the thing we are more concerned with is the removal of this topsoil will make industrial
more attractive in this section.
Mr. Milligan explained that Mr. Sinacola is planning on removing the topsoil and sand
and after he is through he will fill in 3 feet higher than the present level.
Mr. DeBussy asked if there was any way he could maintain the trees on this property.
Mr. Sinacola stated the trees will be stripped off.
Mr. Brady, 20472 Purlingbrook, stated that he had called Mr. Sinacola's Real Estate
I[
Representative and asked him if there was any change to purchase the lot next to me
s
of any piece Mr. Sinacola would like to sell, and I have never heard a word from him.
Mr. Sinacola stated that he gave the salesman 60 days to list the property and he
had not a one offer on the land as far as he knows.
4215
4
II
! , Mr. Milligan stated this item will be taken under advisement.
f
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-107-64 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the
Public Hearing held on Tuesday, June 2, 1964, at approximately 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Milligan, Chairman declared the motion is carried and the Public Hearing is
adjourned.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R. L. Angevine Secretary
ATTESTED:
---- e.d.e,Z)..„....„.4__ -- 1.2 k4 -
Edward
G. Milligan, Chairman
II:
d