Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1968-10-15 5437 MINUTES OF THE 198th REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING tO: COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 15, 1968, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 198th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:30 p.m. with approximately 125 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Charles U. Walker Raymond W. Tent Harry Wrightman Donald Heusted Marvin Moser Robert Colomina Members absent: None Messrs. John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner III; David Perry, Assistant City Attorney, Daniel R. Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator, were present. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-19 by Joseph Urman requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to fill in a portion of Parcel 14P1b2b which falls within the flood plain, located on the north side of Greenland, approximately 150 feet west of Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Walker stated there is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division recommending approval of this petition. Mr. Joseph Urman, 9415 Whitcomb, Detroit 28, petitioner, was present and stated that if he gives land to the City for a road without getting 60' in the rear the land will be useless. Mr. Tent questioned how long Mr. Urman has owned this property and when he pur- chased it, was the flood plain there. Mr. Urman stated he has owned the land for about a year and that he discussed it with the City at the time he bought it. He stated the prior owner had had difficulties with the City regarding the filling of the property. Mr. Urman stated he will fill in the land himself and he will allow the City to build the road and that the City Engineer said it would not interfere with the flood plain. Mr. Tent stated he is concerned about the flood plain land in the City and that sometimes it is filled in without the City's knowledge, and questioned if this would establish a precedent where somebody in the future could fill in flood plain as long as they only filled to a certain height. Mr. [.Irightman stated he believes every case has to be considered on its own merit and in this case the Engineer has drawn out definite lines for filling and is covered by Enginee:..ing requirements. He stated he believes every case should have to go through the same procedure. Mr. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director, stated that this man, by his site plan, will attemp to perform compensating grading so as not to diminish the overall capacity of the flood plain area, and that what he fills and what he takes out will be balanced. He stated the total capacity of the flood plain will remain the same. • 5438 Mr. Wrightman questioned the dedication of property to the City. LI Mr. Urman stated that if the City builds the road he will dedicate the 60' to them, and that he has discussed the dedication with Mr. Strasser. He stated he is in agreement to dedicate the land as soon as he gets the permit to fill in. Mr. Robert Bennett, 32210 Myrna, questioned the distance from the edge of the proposed right-of-way to the boundary of the existing flood plain and if he will have less than a suitable amount of land on which to erect a residence. Mr. Walker stated that if he dedicates the land to the City and without filling in he would not have enough land. Discussion was held regarding the size of the house and the setback required and Mr. Walker read a letter from the City Engineer regarding the Zoning Board of Appeals' denial of this request because a 50' setback is required in that zoning and relating to the filling of a portion of the flood plain creating no problems. Mr. Bennett questioned where the fill will take place. Mr. Nagy explained the location of the land proposed to be filled. Mr. Bennett stated he experienced a flood in the past June and he believes flood plain area should be guarded by the City. Mr. Bennett stated that if he removes as much dirt as he fills ht would not be opposed to this petition. A resident, 29215 Grove, stated he understood that dirt could be moved from one place to another on your property without a petition and unless this man is actually displacing some water, why does he need a permit. Mr. Nagy stated that Mr. Urman is going to do compensating grading for balance and the City now has an ordinance requiring the petition. A resident, questioned if the development to the west will add to the volume of water within the creek. Mr. Tent stated that the City now has an ordinance prohibiting indiscriminate fillin of flood plain but in this case the Engineer has stated there will be no problems. Mr. Kockh, a resident, stated he owns the adjacent parcel #Plela and that the flood plain on the man's property is lower than the rest of the flood plain and water stays in there a considerable amount of time. He stated it would be to a great advantage if it is filled in, at least to the same level of the rest of the flood plain. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-1-37 by Alexander Spiro requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, approximately 660 feet west of Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF and R-7 to P.S. 5439 Mr. Alexander Spiro, 28550 Five Mile Road, petitioner, was present and stated that he owns the adjoining P.S. property and has a nursing home on it which he wishes to expand. He said he has ample space now to increase but to put up the building he proposes he needs the additional property which will be about 25' of the adjoining parcel. He stated he hopes to have 180 beds and proposes a structure similar to Marycrest. Mr. Urightman questioned if Mr. Spiro has a layout of the proposed home. Mr. Spiro stated, yes, and submitted a plot plan to the Commission and discussion was held regarding it. Mr. Walker questioned if Mr. Spiro is in agreement regarding the right-of-way. Mr. Spiro stated he is in agreement for the 75' but not the rest. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-38 by Alexander Spiro requesting to rezone property located on the north- east corner of Morlock and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, from C-1 to P.S. Mr. Spiro, petitioner, stated there are thirteen lots here, all 20' x 74' , and since he owns a nursing home on Morlock Avenue he has been concerned about what might happen to this land with regard to shutting him off so, being concerned, he purchased the property. He stated he plans no buildings on it but he does have plans for a 40 bed addition to his present nursing home and the land could be included in the requirement. Mr. Wrightman questioned if Mr. Spiro is in the process of purchasing the land. Mr. Spiro stated he owns three-fourths of it now and there is a letter in the file from the person who owns it stating he has no objection. Mr. Spiro stated he bought the land to conserve it. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item, Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-8-2-20 by Chick-N-Joy Systems, Inc. , requesting to build a carry-out restaurant on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merri- man and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14. ML. R. Spoon, 19771 James Couzens, was present representing the petitioner, and stated the proposal is a 34' x 48' colonial-design building and is a carry-out system. He stated there will be no provisions for eating in cars, but there will be a small area of tables for eating inside. 5440 Mr. Tent stated he feels concern over the fact that it seems as though all the prime locations in the City are going for small restaurants and there are so many chicken places being built it looks as though they are in competition with i gas stations; we have one right after another on mile roads. Mr. Don Donahoo, 31039 Roycroft, stated he would not like to see this restaurant go up. He said there is a Burger Chef right behind him now and he has spent many sleepless nights because of it. Mr. Tent stated that it is because of conditions like this that the City now has this ordinance, but at one time if a couple of tables were put into a restaurant it was no longer a drive-in restaurant. He stated that the Commissioncasked for an ordinance requiring all restaurants catering food to come before the Board be- cause the City has so many of the. Mr. Tent said the concern of the Commission is how many can be supported in the City; that is the purpose of this hearing tonight and his feeling is that unless this type of business can be controlled we don't want it. Mr. Donahoo stated he is in agreement with that. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-3-9 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate that portion of Elsie Avenue between Berwick and Merriman and that portion of Barkley Avenue between Berwick and Merriman in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. Walker stated there is a letter in the file from Consumers Power regarding easement maintenance. Mr. Clemens, Engineer, Consumers Power Company, 11801 Farmington Road, stated they have no objection to this particular petition because there are no gas mains in- volved. Mr. Richard Cram, 15137 Arden, asked the meaning of vacating and who will maintain the roads after vacation, remove snow, etc. , so people can get in and out of their garages. Mr. Walker stated that vacation means the City would relinquish any right to the property and that the road would be divided right down the center line and would go to the abutting property owners; the City would remove any evidence of the existing street and would put the land back in its original form. Mr. Cram questioned if the people would have to maintain their own road. Mr. Colomina stated there would be no road. Mr. Tent stated that they would actually be getting antheycould putof penrope if and the owner would have to take over that property; up they wanted to or they could have a private drive along their property line. Mr. Cram stated that this would entail about a 120' driveway which he would have to put in. 5441 Mr. Wrightman stated this is true but some day the City may improve the road and pave it and the property owners would be assessed for one-half the road for the full length of their property. He stated the Engineering Division has stated that because of the many roads of this nature in the City the cost of maintaining them is too great unless there is a dire need for their service. We have been advised that these two roads could be eliminated, taxes saved, and there would not be any burden as far as traffic flow in the area is concerned: He stated that if they are not vacated, but improved in the future, the people adjacent to the streets would be assessed for the paving of that street. Mr. Wrightman suggested that an estimate be made as to which would cost the most; paving by the City or vacating it and improving it themselves. Mr. Bob Mains, 14678 Barkley, stated that he has a garage on the back of his property and believes it would cost him more to put in a driveway and fence than the cost of hard paving. He stated he is opposed to the City abandoning this property. Mrs. Mary Sutter, 14715 Melrose, stated they purchased their home on a corner because they wanted to be on a corner and if the street is vacated she would no longer be on the corner and she said they do not want this extra property. A resident, 14712 Auburndale, questioned if the property could be turned over to the property owners without tearing out the street. Mr. Wrightman stated there is no agreementwhere the street has to be removed, but the City felt that if the people wanted to include the property along with their present ownership, this would be the best thing to do. Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of the people who were in favor of the streets remaining as they are and facing, at a later date, the cost of improving it. There were 18. Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of the people who favored vacating the streets There were 12. Questions were raised concerning increase in taxes. A resident, 14678 Auburndale, questioned if a traffic count had been taken on these streets and is there a figure on how much it costs to maintain these streets. Mr. Walker stated that unfortunately the commission does not have the answers to all of these questions this evening, but the Engineering Division does since they have been studying the City in sections and these streets fall into a large sec- tion of the City which has been under study by the Engineer. Mr. Tent stated that the hearing tonight is being held for the purpose of getting opinions from the effected people and indications as to whether the vacation of these streets should be pursued by the Commission. Mr. Nagy indicated there would probably be a 10 - 20 percent increase in taxes. Mr; Perry stated that there was an increase of $400 in assessment the amount of increased tax would probably be a $30 a year maximum, 5442 Mr. Robert Bennett suggested that a report be obtained from the Engineering Division and the Tax Assessor covering these questions. Mr. John McDonald, 14677 Auburndale, questioned the possibility of relocating a telephone pole that is on his property. Mr. Bob Mains, 14673 Auburndale; Mr, R. Cram, 15137 Arden, and Mr. Robert, 14712 Auburndale, requested to be notified of further meetings regarding this vacation petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-3-10 by The City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate either Clarita Avenue between Stamford and Farmington or that portion of Pickford Avenue between Stamford and Farmington in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. Walker stated there are letters in the file from Detroit Edison and Consumers Power requesting to maintain easements for their utilities if these streets are vacated. Mr. Mike Sutter, 33590 Clarita, stated his objections to this petition and stated he mould like to keep the street open. Mr. Tent stated that the Commission decided that Clarita will not be touched at all; that that portion has been deleted from this petition. Mr. William Hanniagan, 18371 Irving, stated his objection to this petition be- cause if Pickford is cut off and Irving left and not being a through street, he will be closed off. Mr. Nagy stated that the Commission's desire now is to vacate Pickford only be- tween Myron and Filmore and that the balance of the street remain to provide access into Filmore. Discussion was held regarding the condition of the streets and the cost of the maintenance of them and the fact that both schools in the area use Pickford on their bus routes. Mrs. Freda Naples, 18510 Irving and Mr. Al Davidson, 18493 Farmington Road, requested to be notified of further meetings regarding this item. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 63-9-7-4 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to a request from the Industrial Development Coordinator to amend Part I of the Master Plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to provide a north/south street between the Industrial Road and Glendale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. 54L!-3 IL Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-6-9 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to City Council Resolution #747-68 to amend Section 11.03(h) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide for the waiving by the City Council of the 1,000 feet of distance required between Class "C" liquor licensed establishments. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-31 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Dover Avenue between Linville Avenue and Parent in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to R-1. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Brightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-33 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located south of Seven Mile Road, approximately 380 feet west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, from C-2 and R-3 to C-l. Mr. Walker stated that this involves a case that went to the Zoning Board of IL: Appeals. A resident on Stamford Avenue, stated she is happy to see that the City is doing something about extending the depth of the commercial zoning in this area.. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-32 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located between Greenland Road and Puritan Avenue, west of Henry Ruff Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to R-4. Mr. Robert Sverid, 30510 Puritan, stated that he has attempted to have one lot split to allow him to build home surroundingback areafwouldthe lnotpbevinvolvedmeets the R-4 requirement. He stated the Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Sverid is trying to sell the back half of his lot. Mr. Sverid stated, no, he wants to build ail-Lorne on it for himself. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Sverid was attracted by the half-acre lots in the Iiie area when he purchased the lot. Mr. Sverid stated he liked the area because of the frontage and trees. 5444 IL; Mr. Tent stated there is a lot of land on Six Mile which are depth lots where they could do the same thing; the frontage could be commercial and the inter- section residential. He stated the civic association there kept the lots at 80' and fought encroachment. He stated the idea of the area is to give the people large lots. Mr. Sverid stated that a precedent has been set inasmuch as homes are being built on lots where they have obtained permission from the Zoning Board of appeals. Mr. Tent stated they would have to prove a hardship before they could do that and by keeping the lots large we will bring in better homes. Mr. H. L. Koch, 12685 Monte Vista, Detroit, owner of lots Plclb and Plcla, stated that almost every person in Bell Creek Estates has been contacted and the majority of the property owners in this area do not wish their property to be split. A petition containing 106 signatures was submitted to the Commission. He stated further that if this is granted and goes into effect he believes it will be an injustice to the property owners. Mr. Sverid questioned if Mr. Koch had recently split lots in this area. Mr. Koch stated, yes, but they are all over one-half acre. Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Koch if he had deteriorated the lot size in any respect. Mr. Koch replied, no, he has not. Mr. Tent asked if he had conformed to the half-acre requirement. Mr. Koch stated he actually increased it. Mr. William Laakso, 30542 Puritan, questioned why, if this area is RUF, there are six lots which have been split and are existing under the half-acre restriction. Mr. Urightman suggested that perhaps they were split before the zoning; prior to 1950. Mr. Laakso stated he feels the precedent was set when these six lots were split and made under one-half acre. Mr. Tent stated the precedent is RUF and the more small lots you have, the more homes and the more children and the higher the taxes. He stated we are trying to keep the character of the neighborhood as it is. Mr. Sverid stated that Lot 56 was split after the ordinance. Mr. Tent stated that this must have been done through the Zoning Board of Appeals as a hardship. Mr. Walker stated that we have a master plan which specifies the use of land in the City regarding size of lots and it is the duty of the Commission to uphold that. He stated that the Commission made these designations and if they are wrong some- thing should be done about the map, not as individual cases but as what is good for the City as a whole. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. 5445 Mr. Walker stated the time will be taken under advisement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-120-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, October 15, 1968, at approx- imately 11: 20 p.m. ***************************** Mr. Walker, Chairman, called the 193th regular Meeting to order at approximately 11: 35 p.m. with approximately the same number of people present as were present for the public hearing. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-9 by Joseph Urman requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to fill in a portion of parcel 14P1b2b which falls within the flood plain, located on the north side of Greenland, approximately 150 feet west of Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14. On a motion duly made by Mr. tlrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-121-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-7-2-19 as submitted by Joseph Urman requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to fill in a portion of parcel 14P1b2b which falls within the flood plain, located on the north side of Greenland, approximately 150 feet west of Henry Ruff Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-2-19 be approved subject to adherence to Grading Plan # , for the following reason: (1) This grading and filling operation will not diminish the area and water-holding capacity of the flood plain, and will cause no problems. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was sent to proc.erty owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Tent stated that he is favor of this, but he thinks the stipulation should be made that a Quit Claim Deed be obtained and the petition not processed through the Council until the Deed is executed. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-1-37 by Alexander Spiro requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, approximately 660 feet west of Harrison Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF and R-7 to P.S. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will taken under advisement. 5446 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-1-38 by Alexander Spiro requesting to rezone property located on the north- east corner of Morlock and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, from C-1 to P.S. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement, Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-8-2-20 by Chick-N-Joy Systems, Inc. , requesting to build a car,y-out restaurant on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merri- man and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-122-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-8-2-20 as sumbitted by Chick-N- Joy Systems, Inc. , requesting to build a carry-out restaurant on property located on the north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-8-2-20 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The relationship of this facility to the existing and proposed commercial development could adversely effect it, (2) The proposed use would not be in harmony and appropriate with the orderly development of the surrounding area. (3) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use and accessory uses, the site layout and its relationship to streets giving access, shall be such that the traffic to and from the use and assembly of persons in conjunction with the use, will be hazardous and inconvenient to the area and could conflict with the heavy traffic volume of the area. (4) The location of the building and its accessories will be such that the proposed use could have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring property and the neighboring area in general. It may impair the value of the neighboring property and discourage the appropriate development and use of the adjacent land or building. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-3-9 by Ilie The City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate that portion of Elsie Avenue between Berwick and Merriman and that portion of Barkley Avenue between Berwick and Merriman in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 22. 5447 Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-3-10 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to vacate either Clarita Avenue between Stamford and Farmington or that portion of Pickford Avenue between Stamford and Farmington in the North- east 1/4 of Section 9. Mr. Walker stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-7-4 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to a request from the Industrial Development Coordinator to amend Part I of the Master Plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to provide a north/south street between the Industrial Road and Glendale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-123-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-9-7-4 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to a request from the Industrial Development Coordinator to amend Part of the Master Plan, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, so as to provide a north/south street between the Industrial Road and Glendale Avenue in the North- west 1/4 of Section 27 described as follows: 7 "The east 60 feet of the west 950 feet of the south 898 feet of the north 2,113 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, City of Livonia, Wayne County, ,Michigan (known as West- more Avenue)." And, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan, Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council , City Clerk and the City Planning Commission; and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Wayne County Register of Deeds for recording. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declardd the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. #10-124-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-9-6-9 as submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 747- 68 to amend Section 11.03(h) of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to provide for the waiving by the City Council of the 1,000 feet of distance required between Class "C" liquor licensed establishment, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-9-6-9 be denied for the follow- ing reason: 5448 (1) The calibre and quality of development will not be enhanced by an increase in Class "C" liquor licensed establishments within our City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of September 25, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-31 by the City Planning Commisson on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Dover Avenue between Linville Ave- nue and Parent in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to R-1. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-125-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-31 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Dover Avenue between Linville Avenue and Parent in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, from RUF to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-31 be approved for the following reasons: IL; (1) This is to rectify an error in the Zoning Map. (2) This will permit the use of lots that have been subdivided. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 25, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Consumers Power Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Servicd. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-33 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located south of Seven Mile Road, approximately 33O feet west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from C-2 and R-3 to C-1. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was 5449 #10-126-68 RESOLVED that, pursuaht to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-33 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located eouth of Seven Mile Road, approximately 380 feet west of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, from C-2 and R-3 to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-33 be approved for the following reasons: (1) There is a need to logically expand the depth of commercial development in this area to make it more usable. (2) It is virtually impossible to develop commercial property on the existing zoning in the area and conform to the Ordinance requirements. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 25, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detorit Edison Company, Consumers Power Company, Chesa- peake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-32 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located between Greenland Road and Puritan Avenue, west of Henry Ruff Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to R-4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-127-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-32 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located between Greenland Road and Puritan Avenue, west of Henry Ruff Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to R-4, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-32 be denied for the following reasons: (1) This zoning would not be compatible to the overall zoning pattern of the area. (2) The reduction of standards in this area would encourage the further division of land which would not be in har- mony with the overall land use pattern' of the area. ILW FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 25, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Consumers Power Company, 5450 Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolutLon is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-8-1-36 by Thomas E. George to rezone property located on Middlebelt between Broadmoor and Sunnydale in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2. Mr. Patrick Duggan, representing the petitioner, stated he would like to emphasize that Mr. George is a long time resident of Livonia do because of the widening of the road this property is not suitable for esidential use and also because there is existing commercial near it. He stated the value of residential property is increasing but this particular piece is no because of its location. Mr. Duggan stated that he could not frankly state tonight what they have in mind for this property, but they cannot find a prospective buyer when it is zoned residential and are asking for rezoning so the owner can use his property. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Urightman, it was #10-128-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on October 15, 1968 on Petition 68-8-1-36 as submitted by Thomas E. George to rezone property located on Middlebelt between Broadmoor and Sunnydale in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby ILO recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-8-1-36 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The encroachment of commercial zoning along mile roads interferes with their primary funcition of carrying large volumes of traffic and tends to cause a hazardous condition due to numerous points of vehicular ingress and egress. (2) This would constitute spot zoning because this proposed petition does not relate to any existing zoning or land use pattern in the area. (3) This proposed rezoning would constitute an encroachment into an existing residential neighborhood. (4) There are great quantities of vacant commercially zoned land within the City. (5) This proposed zoning is in conflict with the Planning Commission's Master Plan for commercial developc.ent. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of September 25, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Consumers Power Company, Chesapeake ILW & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 5451 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walker, Tent, Wrightman, Heusted, Colomina NAYS: Moser ABSENT: None Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Duggan knows the Commission's feeling regarding specu- lative type zoning. Mr. Tent stated he admires Mr. Duggan's honesty in stating he has nothing in mind for the use of the property and for that reason he recom- mended denial of this at this time, but at such a time as he comes with an establishment for a C-2 area he will be believed because this time he told the truth. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated 8/1/68 from Joseph Slatkin requesting a one-year extension for Country Homes Estates Subdivision #4 located in the Southeast 1/4 of Sec- tion 8. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-129-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated 8/1/68 from Joseph Slatkin requesting a one-year extension on the preliminary plat for Country Homes Estates Subdivision #4 located in the South- east 1/4 of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request subject to all the conditions previously im- posed on the development, for the following reasons: (1) The concept for development has not changed. (2) The preliminary plat is consistent with the plan previously approved by the Commission. Section 6.07 (2) Subdivision Rules and Regulations states "The tentative approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year only from the date of the approving resolution unless the subdivider applies for and obtains an extension of such period. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. t•lrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a request for a one-year extension of Judson Gardens Subdivision No. 4 located in the North- east 1/4 of Section 17. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Tent, and unanimously adopted, it was 5452 #10-130-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated 4/11/68 from L. R. Schrader requesting a one-year extension on the preliminary plat for Judson Gardens Subdivision No, 4 located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request subject to all the conditions previously imposed on the development, for the following reasons: (1) The development concept has not changed. (2) The plan conforms to all the Ordinance requirements of the City. Section 6.07 (2) Subdivision Rules and Regulations stated "The tentative approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year only from the date of the approving resolution unless the subdivision applies for and obtains an extension of such period." Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. t lrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-2-6-3 (portion covering Section 11.03) only by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 4.05, 4.06, 4.10, 11.03 and 18.06 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-131-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 19, 1968 on Petition 68-2-6-3 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Sections 4.05, 4.06, 4.10, 11.03 and 18.06 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance and amendments to Sections 4.10 and 18.06 having been approved on March 19, 1968 and amendments to Sections 4.05 and 4.06 having been approved on July 23, 1968, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final portion of Petition 68-2-6-3 be approved; specifically that Section 11.03 be amended to read as follows: Section 11.03 (a) Gasoline Service Stations: To add sentences (11) and (12). 11. No additional or new gas stations shall be constructed, installed or operated within a radius of one-thousand-three-hundred (1300) feet of any presently existing gas station or car wash facility dispensing gasoline. 12. Outdoor storage of rubbish and junked equipment or parts shall be prohibited unless such rubbish, etc. is stored behind the principle building in an obscure location that is enclosed with a masonary screen wall. When such screening is provided, such rubbish, etc. shall • never be stacked or heaped higher than the height of the screening 110 wall. Section 11.03 (k) Trampoline or tumbling rebound centers: Delete all of this paragraph. Section 11.03 (1) Amend title of paragraph to read: 1. Open-air sales, display and/or rental of utility trailers and travel (vacation type) trailers up to twenty (20) feet in length designed to be towed by an automobile (not including house trailers) provided that ... Section 11.03 (m) Amend to read: (m) Certain additional open-air business uses as herein specified: (1) Retail sales of plant materials not grown on site and sales of lawn furniture, playground equipment and other home garden supplies. Such business shall not be located within 200 feet of any intersection of two or more major thoroughfares as indicated on the Master Thorough- fare Plan. (2) Recreational space providing children's amusement park, shuffleboard miniature golf, and other similar recreation, when part of a planned development. All such recreation space shall be adequately fenced on all sides with a four (4) foot fence. Such uses shall not be located closer than three hundred (300) feet of any existing residence as measured from any existing residence to the closest point on the property to be so used; provided, however, that this restriction may be waived by the written consent of seventy-five (75) percent or more of the owners of such residences filed with the City Clerk. Such uses shall not be located within 200 feet of any intersection of two or more major thoroughfares as indicated on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. (3) Carnivals may be allowed for periods not normally to exceed two (2) weeks, however, they may request an optional time extension of up to two (2) weeks from the Bureau of Inspection_ Section 11.03 (o) New paragraph: (o) Diagnostic automobile repair such as motor and electrical tune-up, replacement of shock absorbers, brakes, mufflers, exhaust and tail- pipes, and other similar light repairs subject to the following: All repair work must be carried out within an enclosed building and no outdoor storage of scrap or junk cars, spare parts or dismantled cars shall be permitted. Diagnostic automobile repair shall not permit such heavy repairs as motor or drive train rebuilding, bumping, painting or spraying. Section 11.03 (p) New paragraph: (p) Ambulance services, local and suburban bus terminal and taxi cab terminals when exterior design, appearance, and location of any pro- posed building, structure or premises; and the location and design of any proposed parking facility or loading and unloading area to be used for above uses is consistent with the spirit, intent and purpose of this ordinance. for the following reasons: (1) There is a need for this type of legislation to control the quantity of gas stations with our City. (2) The City has a serious problem with an over-abundance of service stations becoming a liability to the City when they are vacated. (3) This is a necessary tool in the hands of the City to regulate its orderly growth and development and to help effectuate the Master Plan of the City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of February 28, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a request dated September 14, 1968 from Kenneth Morris requesting to amend Petition 68-4-1-16 from Kenneth Morris requesting to amend Petition 68-4-1-16 by deleting proposed R-8 and C-2 zonings from petition. Mr. Walker stated that a meeting had been held with the petitioner for purpose of determining what plans he has for this area and it was agreed that his petition be amended to delete the R-8 and C-2 zoning from it so that the petition be amended to delete the R-8 and C-2 zoning from it so that the petition before the Commission tonight would be only for uses that would apply to C-1 and P. S. zonings, the uses under the C-2 and R-8 now not being excluded. On a motion duly made by Mr. tlrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-132-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated 9/14/68 from Kenneth Morris requesting to amend Petition 68-4-1-16 by deleting proposed tip: R-8 and C-2 zonings from above stated Petition, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine that this request is granted and Petition 68-4-1-16 is hereby amended to request a change of zoning from RUF to C-1 and P.S. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-4-1-16, as amended, by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer requesting to rezone property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-1 and P.S. Mr. Jerome Papler, 9024 Laurel, stated that even with the dropping of C-2 and R-8 there are still problems and the arguments originally listed still stand. He stated these objections are related to traffic problems which will be created and that since the hardware store and food store are still planned the people of the area object because they don't feel there is a need for this type of development. They realize, he stated, that some type of commercial will have to go in on Wayne Road, but they would prefer a small business, not one the scope of this proposal. Mr. Walker stated there is commercial on the southeast corner and on the west side of Mayne Road and that the balance of the land is RUF. He questioned if the people would support development of that type -- residential development on one- tor half acre lots. Mr. Papler stated they would favor residential zoning, not necessarily half-acre lots, but residential zoning would not bring increased traffic where commercial would. 5454 Mr. Tent stated that if the zoning is granted the Commission would not have site plan approval. Mr. Nagy stated that the Commission would because they have it on anything over five acres. Mr. Tent stated if the P.S. is two acres and the commercial three acres, the Commission would not have site plan approval at all. Mr. Morris stated they are dedicating 60' of property to the City to cover the widening of these two streets to eliminate the problem of traffic and when it is developed the situation should be better than it is now. Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Morris as to whether or not he still owns the proposed R-8 property and what are his intentions for that property. Mr. Morris stated he sincerely does not know, but homes had been mentioned. He said that even if they had the zoning for apartments they wouldn't put apartments in right now. Mr. Tent stated he would like to see the complete area development plan showing what is proposed for commercial and residential. Mr. Morris stated he couldn't ask his client to amend his petition to include housing now, that they have been wating for four months and he requested that the petition be either approved or denied. Mr. Tent stated he would like to dispose of this tonight; that nothing would be gained by waiting and that he was under the impression that this property was under option. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by M. Colomina, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on June 1, 1968 on Petition 68-4-1-16 as submitted by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer, (said petition having been amended on October 15, 1968 to delete the proposed R-8 and C-2 zonings) re- questing to rezone property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-1 and P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 63-4-1-16, as amended, be denied for the following reasons: (1) There is an excessive quantity of commercial development in this sector of the City. (2) It will conflict with the stability of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. (3) It will substantially conflict with the traffic carrying capacity of Wayne Road. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of May 26, 1968, and notice of such heaeipg waa sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Consumers Power Company and City Depart- ments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Colomina, Tent NAYS: Heusted, Moser, Walker, Wrightman Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the foregoing resolution not adopted for lack of support. Mr. Tent stated his reasons for this action now is because of running into this in other parts of the City and if these people are sincere in developing this sector he would like to see the residential and commercial development plan together. Mr. Moser stated he would like to take the matter under advisement until the entire plan can be restudied and that the Commission has to have some satisfaction as to what they are going to put in if they don't have site plan approval, and it is questionable as to whether the Commission has this approval. Mr. Wrightman stated he would like to see some control gained by site plan approval and if the Commission does not have it he agrees with Mr. Tent regarding parcels of land left open for future development because you never know what is going into them. He stated he believed it should be voted on one way or another. Mr. Tent stated he could only see a problem later on because the other piece of property will come back as 2-8. He stated if the petitioner is sincere about developing commercial and residential than we have something, but the question is still "what happens to the rest of the property?" Mr. Moser stated there is nothing to commit him to plans for the balance of the property, only the part that is under petition tonight, and they are not ready to develop the other piece of property now. Discussion was held regarding whether or not the Commission will have site plan approval on this petition. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on 6/11/68 on Petition 68-4-1-16 as submitted by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer (said petition having been :mended requesting to rezone property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-1 and P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-4-1-16, as amended, be approved for the following reasons: (1) There is a need for this type of development in this sector of the City. (2) The service area for this sector of the City extends beyond the City boundaries and it is possible that a substantial quantity of bu^iness can be obtained from the residents of Westland. (3) It is consistent with the overall recommendations of the Master Commercial Plan for our City. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of 5/26/68, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Tlrightman is satisfied that the Commission has site plan approval. Mr. Wrightman stated he is satisfied that the Commission has site plan approval for nine-tenths of the property involved and that the P.S. is incidental. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Moser, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on 6/11/68 on Petition 68-4-1-16 as sumbitted by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer (said petition having been amended on October 15, 1968 to delete the proposed R-8 and C-2 zoning) requesting to re- zone property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-i and P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 68-4-1-16. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Moser, Colomina NAYS: Heusted, Wrightman, Walker ABSENT: None 1[r Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the foregoing resolution not adopted for lack of support, and declared the item under advisement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously ,adopted, it was #11-133-68 RESOLVED that, whereas, Myra L. Chandler has diligently served on the City Planning Commission for three years and has unselfishly given of her time and talents to help make Livonia a better City in which to live, work and play; and WHEREAS, in the course of such service she has offered constructive suggestions and ideas to implement the effectiveness of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, she has withstood public pressure to make unbiased judgements for the betterment of the entire City; and WHEREAS, her dedication and spirit of fairness will be an example for all public officials and public servants, Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City of Livonia Planning Commission and Planning Director take this means to express their sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks to Myra L. Chandler for a well done. M r.Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 540 1110 On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-134-68 RESOLVED that; whereas, Donald C. Pollock has diligently served on the City Planning Commission for four years and has unselfishly given of his time and talents to help make Livonia a better City in which to live, work and play; and Whereas, in the course of such service he has offered constructive suggestions and ideas to implement the effectiveness of the Plan- ning Commission; and Whereas, he has withstood public pressure to make unbiased judgments for the betterment of the entire City; and Whereas, his dedication and spirit of fairness will be an example for all public officials and public servants, Now, therfore, be it resolved that the City of Livonia Planning Commission and Planning Director take this means to express their sincere appreciation and heartfelt thanks to Donald C. Pollock for a job well done. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously 1: adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned its 199th Regular Meeting held on October 15, 1968 at approximately 12: 55 a.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION c (-t i-C 2-ttaf C) Harry Ur tman, cretary ATTEST: Charle W. Walker, Chairman