Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1968-12-03 5481 MINUTES OF THE 200th REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA • On Tuesday, December 3, 1968, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 200th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Raymond W. Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:30 p.m. with approximately 35 people in the audience. Members present: Raymond W. Tent Harry Wrightman Robert Colomina Donald Heusted Marvin Moser Frank Santo Joel LaBo Members absent: Charles U. Walker Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph Bakewell, Planner III; Daniel .Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator; and David Perry, Assistant City Attorney, were present. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-1-40 by Hyman Gold requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road, in Section 8 from R-4-B to C-2 and P.S. Mr. Tent stated that according to the letters in the file from the Engineering Department and Consumers Power Company, there appear to be no problems connected with this petition, and Mr. Gold has been contacted for additional right-of-way on Newburgh Road. He stated the Planning staff and Commission have prepared a study for the northwest sector of the City regarding future development and has worked together to get good development in this area. The study which vas r-- pared by the staff has received coverage in the newspaper and has been revi;;,.>d by civic groups and by the various departments of City government. He also stated that the Planning staff had been requested to review the four-corner intersection to see how these plans fit in with the study. Mr. Hull, Planning Director, stated that the greatest percentage of vacant land in Livonia lies in the northwest area of the City bound by Farmington on the east, Five Mile on the south and on the north and west by the boundaries of the City, and that in this proposed development the staff has tried to provide all the fac- ilities that the people moving into the area will need; schools, parks, shopping facilities, etc. Mr. Hull stated there have been two other basic considerations; (1) to hold the population density down to a reasonable degree and (2) to stabilize the tax base by providing a quantity of nonresidential tax base. He showed the audience the study which shows areas proposed for commercial, industrial, public and quasi-public development and said the intention is to pre-plan this sector of the City in a most advantageous manner to the City. He stated the areas up for consideration this evening are located at Six Mile and Haggerty and a basic pro- vision has been made for two concentrated areas of office and commercial develop- ment; the main focus of the entire development will be located at Six Mile and Newburgh and will probably be in the center of population for this area sad it is going to be an area that will have access to the freeway. He said traffic will have access to the freeway at Six Mile, Seven Mile and Eight Mile Roads 5482 and the next access point south of Six Mile will not take place until Levan Road; the access at Six Mile will develop a potential for high-class development so this area has been designated as the heart of the northwest sector of the City and is referred to as an interrelated community center area covering over one hundred acres of land. Mr. Hull showed another detailed plan for Section 8 and stated that over the past several years there has been a series of subdivisions which have been developed with 80 foot and 90 foot lots. The first subdivision was Gold Manor No. 1, then Gold Manor No. 2 and soon Gold Manor No. 3 will be developed and that the petitioner who develped these subdivisions owns the land at the northeast corner of Six Mile and Newburgh and is before the Commission this evening to explain his proposal to the audience and Commission. Mr. Tent stated that the Commission is very interested in development in this sector of the City and this is the same Planning Commission that worked with the Council to bring in the development at Sir Mile and Hubbard and the half- acre development at Six Mile and Merriman and that was opposed to the K-Mart at Six Mile and Farmington. He said that when the Commission came up with this master plan it was to bet the best possible plan and to get the best development. Mr. Malcolm Leventen, architect and developer, 20131 James Couzens, Detroit, was present and stated that when he became interested in this development he went to one of the finest architectural firms and has come up with one of the finest . development plans in the country. He stated the plans are to have a professional office area and medical center which has been recommended by the Planning Com- mission and contiguous to it they are planning a very fine shopping facility similar to Sommerset in Troy, then showed a picture of a development that is being built at Nine Mile and Greenfield. He showed a model of the proposed development tie which contained four buildings and explained how each is proposed to be used. He stated they have planned parking for over 700 cars some underground, and that the construction is proposed to appear to be floating and a feeling of lightness, dignity and beauty is conveyed. He stated combining these uses in one concept is something that has not been done in this area but this is what they are proposing and professional and medical uses are what the Planning Commission has recommended. Mr. Moser questioned who the occupants of the commercial area will be. Mr. Leventen stated they have them in mind but since they have nothing firm yet they would prefer not to mention their names. Mr. Moser referred to the other minor structures and questioned what they are proposed to be used for. Mr. Leventen stated they would not be used for anything commercial but rather for community services such as advertising community events or display areas for church groups, scouts, etc. Mr. Moser asked what the value of the complex is. Mr. Leventen stated, over five million dollars. Mr. Tent questioned if the plan is to build the entire eleven acres at one time or just certain buildings. Mr. Leventen stated that that is very difficult to answer now but he would like to do the whole thing at one time. 5483 Mr. Tent stated that he assumed this is the type of development, considering its quality and location, that would have immediate response and Mr. Leventen would want to develop all et once. He questioned if Mr. Leventen had reviewed this with his bank and if fiad any problems and if the bank is agreeable to advancing money for a project of this type. Mr. Leventen stated he doesn't go to banks but he has approached his insurance companies and they agree that this area has a great potential and if this is the first such development it would be foolish for adjacent developers to do other- wise. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Leventen sees anything in the future that would re- quire scaling it down; that it is too big for the area. Mr. Leventen stated he would like to build it twice the size but parking limits it. Mr. Moser questioned if Mr. Leventen anticipates a supermarket. Mr. Leventen replied, no. Mr. Wrightman stated he is convinced that if the City gets..started on a project like this on the north side it will generate the interest the Commission is look- ing for in future development and calibre development like this is needed to get the Commissions's development plan off the ground. Mr. Tent stated he is in hopes that the petitioner will live up to what he has presented tonight and that is what the Commission intends to see; no small-class "pie-in-the-sky" development. L Mr. John Barkley, a resident, questioned what the Commission can do if they grant this change and he does give us a "pie-in-the-sky" development. Mr. Hull stated that the Commission now has site plan approval and before any physical development can take place on a parcel of this size the petitioner must have site plan approval by the Commission and by the Council. Mr. Tent stated that through the help of the Council the Commission can make the petitioner conform to the plan as submitted and can prevent them from down- grading the development. He expressed to Mr. Gold that he will have to tell the people who buy homes that the outlot is potential commercial area and Mr. Gold wants to develop this and the residential simultaneously. Mr. JohlPierson, a resident;;. questioned how many of the real estate men realize what is going in. He stated he does not think the salesmen in the area are aware of what is going in and believes this is being pushed before houses are all sold. Mr. Leventen stated when he gives his word on something, it is solid and he would not be associated with:. this project if it was not the finest. He indicated the architect's rendering of the development at Nine Mile and Southfield and stated this building won an award as the finest building in the world in its marble con- cept. He stated he would not waste his time if this proposed development was cut-rate and that it will be an added inducement to people to buy a home near 4 one of the finest developments in the country. 5484 Mr. Stan Woodside, a resident, stated there are two schools north of the proposed development and something should be done about the traffic. Mr. Tent stated the traffic problem will be taken care of when reviewed by the Traffic Commission and the way the plan is laid out there will be no egress or ingress into the Subdivision. Mr. M. Buckingham, 36352 Joanne, questioned what is presently located at the northeast corner. Mr. Hull stated there are presently two parcels of land at the northeast corner of Six Mile and Newburgh; one is owned by Shell Oil Company and the Commission is doing everything to not allow a station at this corner but to relocate it. Mr. Buckingham asked what is planned for that corner. Mr. Hull stated to keep it completely open; with no development. Mr. J. Gibbons, 37664 Kingsbury, questioned the size and height of the structure and what portion will be office and what portion will be stores. Mr. Leventen stated the height is approximately 32 feet and stated he has plans which Mr. Gibbons can go over if he wishes. He said that to the best of his knowledge this is a hearing on land use and they are a long way from a building permit and they have to take things as they come. It was established that the proposed development will consist of approximately 50,000 square feet for office and approximately 100,900 square feet for commercial. s Mr. Tent stated that the change of zoning is being heard at this hearing tonight and the land use and the size of the buildings will come and the Commission will have another hearing on it if necessary. Mr. Hull stated that approximately 2/3 of the site is under petition for C-1 and 1/3 for P.S. Mr. LaBo stated the map in the file indicates the commercial and professional zoning. Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Gibbons is from the Federation of Civic Associations and perhaps a map could be given to him. He stated that at such time as the site plan is submitted to the Commission the Traffic Commission will make their recommendations regarding traffic, then it is presented to the Council and they make sure recommendations are adhered to. Mr. Anthony, a resident on Westbrook Drive, questioned if the southeast corner is zoned commercial. Mr. Tent replied, yes it is. Mr. Anthony asked the age of the Northwest Sector plan. Mr. Hull stated the plan was prepared approximately three years ago. Mr. Anthony questioned what changes or major plans have been made since then. Mr. Hull stated there has been very little change made. 5455 Mr. Anthony stated that in any community today the way things are happening with roads, etc. he believes changes are benrig made almost every hour. Mr. Tent stated the area has not developed to that extent. He said the pattern has been established with the Commission's plan and Mr. Gold developed his sub- division in line with the plan. Mr. Anthony stated he lives close to this area where there are several shopping centers and questioned if there is going to be a shopping center on every corner like there are gas stations. Mr. Urightman stated that the Planner has made a definite statement as to the amount of population expected in this area; that surveys have been taken and this Master Plan is being followed to the best of the Commission's ability. He stated this plan was worked out for the benefit of the thirty thousand people in the area and this type of commercial will be different than what exists there now or within a radius of two to three miles of the area. Mr. Santo questioned if Mr. Hull would consider this development commensurate with the type of plan he would like to see here. Mr. Hull stated he believes this typifies the type of development we have been trying to encourage in the City; that we have not always obtained the quality and calibre of development desired but he believes we now have sufficient controls to regulate it to a high degree at this time and it is the intent to do so. He stated he thinks the quantity of strip commercial in our City is deplorabe, and in this proposed development there is only two new commercial areas, one of them is located at Seven Mile and Farmington and the other is at Six Mile and Newburgh. He said the intention was to designate two areas that will have good high- quality development. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-2-23 by Rodney C. Kropf for James A. Thompson, Jr., requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct and operate a Lums Restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Milburn Avenue, in Section 35. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Kropf is aware of the fact that an additional right- of-way is required according to the Engineering Department. Mr. Kropf stated, yes. Mr. Tent questioned if anybody could answer the question about the legality of the liquor license. Mr. Kropf stated there might be a problem concerning the motel in the area and if there is a problem, their request will be reduced to a Tavern License; they they understand there may be a problem here. He stated his client is putting up a Lums in Royal Oak and Ann Arbor; that this particular size building, about 3,000 square feet, will have adequate parking to help alleviate the traffic situation. He stated the trademark of Lums Restaurant is "the home of the beer- soaked hot dog". ;M9 9^T It 5486 Mr. Thompson, petitioner, stated Lums started in about 1956 in Florida and there has never been one fail ; they are extremely well-run. He stated he estimates 1 this is a $200,000 development and will contribute to the City of Livonia. They will employ a maximum of about ten people on a shift. He said this is not IL a bar; it is not a drive-in; it is not a carry-out; it is strictly a sit-down restaurant at agreeable prices, and they have a triple A rating with Dun and Bradstreet. Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Thompson indicated this is a franchise business and referred to a concept of what the building will look like and questioned if the staff had checked the parking as to conformance to the ordinance. Mr. Hull stated there are no ordinance violations on the site plan. Mr. Tent stated it appears that the parking lot is just a plain blacktop, standard-type parking lot and referred to other establishments in the City that have added aesthetics and questioned if Mr. Thompson would be willing to do that. Mr. Thompson stated, that he worked with John Nagy on the landscaping for this establishment and there is extensive landscaping for this parking lot. Mr. Nagy stated there is a marked plan in the file. Mr. Kropf stated they will follow the plan prepared by the Planning Department. Mr. Tent questioned what assurance the Commission has that they will do this. Mr. Kropf stated they will sign a statement which is attached to building permit. Mr. Wrightman questioned why the land use does not go all the way to the rear. Mr. Thompson stated the owner does not have any definite plans for that right now. He stated he shows 60 parking spaces and he also has no plans to go any further. He said they will build a wall as is required by Ordinance. Mr. Moser questioned how minors are handled considering the beer. Mr. Thompson stated that a large part of their business is minors and they are allowed to have shildren accompanied by an adult. He stated that beer used in the preparation of food is legal. Mr. Colomina questioned if there would be any problems regarding egress and in- gess to the parking lot. Mr. Hull stated he did not see any problem regarding Plymouth Road which is the basic concern; there might be an inconvenience since the traffic might not flow as smoothly as it would if their site was larger. Mr. Robert Vollmer, 29286 Orangelawn, questioned how far back will this parking lot extend from the building. Mr. Thompson stated, about 240' . Mr. Vollmer further questioned the traffic problem. Mr. Hull stated he could see no means of alleviating the traffic except by developments that will be lowtraffic generators. He stated this is not a high traffic generator, but there were other uses that would be lower. 5487 Mr. E. Newman, 30418 Elmira, requested an explanation of waiver use in the C-2 zoning. I Mr. Tent explained the new ordinance requiring petitioners to come before the Commission and Council for restaurant approval. Mr. Newman stated that Mr. Thompson came around the neighborhood and had a good reception; that some of the residents have seen these restaurants and would like to see it located here, but they have only one exit out of the subdivision and would have difficulty getting into the traffic pattern. He stated that he would like to suggest that acceleration lanes be put in here as they have been in other areas of the country. Mr. R. Nettle, a resident on Hillcrest, questioned what the plans are for the rest of the land since this development covers only a portion of it. He stated he doesn't think Lums will generate much traffic but he thinks something should be done to alleviate the traffic situation in view of the new road that Taubman put in. Mr. Tent stated that that question came up earlier relative to the C-2, and regarding the distance between bars, asked if Mr. Perry has an opinion on the validity of this petition. Mr. Perry stated that there is a problem with the Holiday Inn but that is a Class B license and he understands the Council is considering an amendment to the ordinance that would reduce the requirement to 500' . Mr. Tent stated, then the way the ordinance reads today, the petition is valid. Mr. Perry stated the ordinance specifically states between Class C licenses, the Holiday Inn is a Class B; and the intent of that provision is to preclude a "skid row development' . Mr. Tent stated that if the Commission acted favorably on this petition there will be no problem in submitting it to the Council. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman stated the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-11-2-24 by Carl 17. Carlson requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct a retail bakery store with a counter for sale of coffee and donuts on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Cavell and Arcola in Section 36. Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file from the Law Department stating that the alley vacation should be resolved before this petition is approved. Mr. Nagy familiarized the Commission with the status of the pending vacating petition. Mr. Carl Carlson, petitioner, stated that there is presently a business established on Seven Mile and Middlebelt but that the architecture has been changed since its construction. He showed the Commissioners a plan of the new architecture. 5408 Mr. Tent questioned if every bakery will have this architectural plan. Mr. Carlson stated they will now; that the plans have been upgraded including sign appeal. He stated the signs are now integrated into the building. Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Carlson has a client in mind for this particular building. Mr. Carlson stated he is an architect and has no idea as to who might have this; it is specualtion. Mr. Tent questioned if the plan has been checked for conformance to the ordinance Mr. Hull stated there are no v?.ol-,tions on the site plan. Mr. t]rightman questioned how this location was picked. Mr. Carlson stated they normally look for a traffic count plus churches and single family residences in the immediate vicinity. He said they also have a wholesale arrangement included in the business for factories, church groups and things of that kind. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman stated the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-11-1-41 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located at the northwest corner of Cardwell and Joy Road in Section 36, from R-1 to C-2. Mr. Hull stated this rezoning will round out the commercial zoning in this sector of the City and the desire of the Department is to get the proper zoning so that three things can be done; (1) the existing commercial development could be upgraded and improved; (2) it is possible that the existing bump shop can be converted or changed to commercial rather than a non-commercial use, and (3) it would be our hope and desire to resolve the question of the requirement for the wall that was required on the commercial development immediately to the west which is occupied by a rental establishment. He stated it is his under- standing that this gentleman contemplates an addition to this existing store and to do this he would be required to construct a wall along the east because the land to the east is zoned residential. Mr. Hull stated that the letter from the Inspection Department further substantiates the feeling of himself and the Commission regarding this rezoning. Mr. Tent read the letter from Mr. Kerby. Mr. Hull stated that regarding the question of ownership„the land immediately adjacent to Cardwell is owned by Mr. Jones and the land thaLoccupied by the bump shop is owned by Mr. Zimmerman. Mr. Jones, property owner, stated he owns property on the corner and questioned if this rezoning would have any effect on changes to be made within the next few years; that he intends to tear everything down in the future. Mr. Tent stated Mr. Jones would not be forced to immediately improve the land but at such time as he is ready to improve it, he will have the zoning to do it. 5489 Mr. Hull stated that at the present time he would not be allowed to tear down tio the building and improve it but if the Commission acts favorably on this, that would fit favorably with his plan. Mr. LaBo stated he is happy to hear that because he was not in favor of this because the man could leave what is there for a long time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. X'7rightman stated the next item on the agenda is preliminary plat approval for Mar-Git Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. Tent questioned if there are any deficient lots in this proposal. Mr. Hull stated there are no deficient lots; the only question would be the dedication of open space which the Department recommends not be required in this case. Mr. Charles Biegum, representing the petitioner, was present. Mr. Tent referred to a letter in the file from the Engineering Department re- garding reditching and stated the Engineering Department is completely in agreement with this plat being processed. Mr. Inger, a resident asked for clarification for the waiver of open space. Mr. Hull stated this is a relatively new proposal that has been adopted by the City requiring open space and normally it would be implemented, but in this case the dedication would be so small that it would not be large enough to be of any use to the area and the Department has tried to coordinate it with other land so there can be a piece large enough to be an asset. Mr. Inger stated that he thinks the developer should take into consideration as a deficit the fact that the back yards of these homes border on a bowling alley, a parking lot and a motel. Mr. Tent stated he assumes the developers who invest in this will have to meet all codes and the zoning requirements of the City are such that they will not be allowed to put a home not in keeping with the existing homes in the area. Mr. Hull stated that in general these lots exceed the minimum requirement. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-150-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the public hearing held on Tuesday, December 3, 1968, at approxi- mately 10:10 p.m. ******************* 5490 • • Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 200th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:30 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the • audience as were present for the public hearing. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-1-40 by Hyman Gold requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road, in Section 8 from R-4-B to C-2 and P.S. • On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-151-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on December 3, 1968 on Petition 68-10-1-40 as submitted by • Hyman Gold requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Newburgh Road, in Section 8 from R-4-B to C-2 and P.S., the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-10-1-40 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the Master Plan for the North- west Sector of the City. (2) There is a need for this type of facility in this sector of the City. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of November 13, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Tent stated that there has been a public hearing and the Commission has viewed the plan and the thing of interest to him is that at the time Mr. Gold and Mr. Leventen were asked about the financial backing they stated that financial concerns had indicated to them that this area deserved attention, yet other developers with development proposals within this area have stated that it was not possible to get financial backing for this area because the City has no similar type development to warrant it. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Tent stated the petitioner will be back for site plan approval and at that time all the details such as park, etc., will be reviewed. He further stated that the Commission will hold them to what they have stated as their intention tonight. • Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-2-23 by Rodney C. Kropf for James A. Thompson, Jr., requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct and operate a Lums Restaurant on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Milburn Avenue, in Section 35. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman and seconded by Mr. Moser, it was 5491 #12-152-68 RESOLVED that; pursuant to a public hearing having been held on December 3, 1968 on Petition 68-10-2-23 as submitted by Rodney C. Kropf for James A. Thompson, Jr. , requesting to be granted a wiaver use permit to construct and operate a Lums Restaurant on property located nn the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Milburn Avenue, in Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-10-2-23 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The intended use will not adversely effect the adjacent residential neighborhood. (2) The proposed development will not adversely effect the adjacent commercial land use. (3) The proposal is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval. and subject to adherence to the approved Landscape Plan. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Deparf:ments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Heusted, Moser, Colomina, LaBo, Tent, Urightman NAYS: Santo ABSENT: 'Talker Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared 'the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 63-11-2-24 by Carl W. Carlson requesting to be granted a waiver use permi to construct and operate a retail bakery on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Cavell and Arcola in Section 36. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-153-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on December 3, 1968 on Petition 68-11-2-24 as submitted by Carl U. Carlson requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct a retail bakery store with a counter for sale of coffee and donuts on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Cavell and Arcola in Section 36, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-11-2-24 be denied for the following reasons: 5492 (1) There are other similar facilities in close proximity that will provide the same service. 16: (2) This intended use could adversely effect the stability of the adjacent commercial and residential development. (3) The intended use is a relatively high traffic generator and could conflict with the movement of transient traffic along Plymouth Road. (4) 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. (5) 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 of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listdd in the Proof of Service. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Carlson requested to know if he will have an opportunity to appeal this. Mr. Hull stated the petitioner must appeal within ten days and at that time the denying resolution will be transmitted to Council. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-11-1841 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located at the northwest corner of Cardwell and Joy Road in Sec- tion 36, from R-1 to C-2. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-154-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on December 3, 1968 on Petition 68-11-1-41 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located at the northwest corner of Cardwell and Joy Road in Section 31, from R-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-11-1-41 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This will round out the zoning pattern in this sector of the City. (2) It will be consistent with the land use in this sector of the City. 5493 (3) It will be a constructive step toward the upgrading of the area. (4) It will resolve the problem of the protective wall on adjacent properties. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of November 13, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Rail- way Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company. and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Colomina requested to know if the bump shop could be enlarged if this zoning is granted. Mr. Hull stated, no, but it could be converted to a more desirable use. He stated the bump shop is there now as a legal non-conforming use and requires an M-1 zoning. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is the preliminary plat approval for Mar-Git Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-155-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on December 3, 1968, theCity Planning Commission does hereby recom- mend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Mar-Git Subdivision No. 2, proposed to be located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is of sufficient design calibre to justify our approval. (2) It is consistent with the development of other subdivisions within the general area. (3) The Commission does hereby waiver the open space requirement. because the amount of open space required is too small to be of any practical use. with the following condition: (1) That the open ditch be connected to Drain No. 24. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superin- ' tendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. 5494 Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is final plat approval for Levan Heights Subdivision No. 2, located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, be given final approval for the following reasons: (1) It is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval. (2) The financial obligations of the City have been met. FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission under Resolution #2-19-68 adopted on February 20, 1968; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public T forks, Engineering Division, under date of May 13, 1968; and it further appearing that the financial assurances as required in Council Resolution #761-68 adopted on July 17, 1963, have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated November 27, 1968 from Addison W. Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Tent raised a question regarding the one lot that was deficient in depth. Mr. Hull stated there were more than that but only one could be changed because it was not surrounded by immovable physical boundaries and that lot was changed. Mr. Wrightman requested that an explanation of the immovable boundaries with regard to this subdivision be sent to Council along with resolution letter. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is final plat approval for Levan Heights Subdivision (formerly known as Steven Brian Subdivision) to be located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #12-156-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final plat for Levan Heights Sub- division (formerly known as Steven Brian Subdivision) located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 be given final approval for the following reasons: (1) It is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval. (2) The financial obligations of the City have been met. FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Com- mission under Resolution #2-20-65 adopted on February 2, 1965; and it 5495 further appearing that said proposed plat together with plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public Works; Engineering Division, under date of February 22, 1966; and it further appearing that the financial assurances as required in Council Resolution #312-66 adopted on March 16, 1066, have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated May 22, 1968 from Addison U. Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Depart- ment is hereby so notified. FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated February 1, 1968 from Dave Meinzinger requesting a change in the name of said sub- division from Steven Brian Subdivision to Levan Heights Subdivision, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve said request. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 67-11-8-10 by Frank Volk requesting site plan approval for multi-family development proposed to be located on the south side of Margarets Drive in Section 6. Mr. Tent gave a brief history on the background of this petition and stated that the Planning Commission voted favorable on the zoning change and the site and at that time their approval was based on the fact that the petitioner would adhere to his original proposal; there was complete agreement. Later on, he stated, the petitioner stated he could not build units of this magnitude and size in the area, his reason being difficulty of obtaining financial backing. Mr. Tent stated that the Commission's approval was based on the fact that they would have large units and in the same section of the City we have another proposal by Mr. Gold ,and the Commission has heard what Mr. Leventen had to say about financial backing in the area. At this time, Mr. Tent explained, Mr. Voll: is requesting that action be taken on his original plat which does not agree with the Planning Commission plan. Mr. Wrightman questioned Mr. Volk regarding a 10% reduction. Mr. Volk stated they have considered it and have submitted new plans to the same mortgage people and had no agreement on them. Mr. Urightman questioned if the fact is that Hr. Volk cannot accept the proposal of the Commission. Mr. Volkstated might be possible but not on the big plans at this time, but he requested the Commission to remember that he was putting in one big building in case there was a demand for that type of building and the door is not shut on that. He said he came in with plans of around 1,000 square feet which he originally planned to build and the Commission said these were not large enough. He stated he would build larger but he could not get the financial backing. Mr. Tent stated that is why he questioned Mr. Gold regarding his financial backing. 5496 Mr. Moser stated that he checked with the people from First Federal and their objection is that they are not quite sold as to our City being capable of hand- ling this type of development and they also did not like the access easement to the property as proposed on the plans. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina and seconded by Mr. Moser, it was #12-158-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 8.02 of Ordinance No 5433 the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, having reviewed Site Plan dated 12/2/58, presented in connection with zoning Petition #66-7-1-22 approved by the City Planning Commission Resolution #12-176-67 adopted on December 12, 1967 and by the City Council Resolution #455-68 adopted on May 8, 1968, does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 67-11-8-10 requesting site plan approval for multi-family development proposed to be located on the south side of Margareta Drive in Section 7, be denied for the following reasons: (1) The petitioner has not conformed to his previous commitments as to the size, calibre and quality of the multi-family units. (2) The ratioof two-bedroom units over one-bedroom units has been changed and is excessively high. (3) The orientation of some of the buildings is not desirable because the front portion of some buildings face the rear, It: or service portion, of other buildings. Mr. Colomina stated he has nothing against Mr. Volk personally but when the original agreement was made, to him this was a contract; that the Commission offered 1,300 square feet and has had no answer on that outside of 1,200 square feet and carports. He stated that to him the contract was broken, verbally or written, and he doesn't even think we have a site plan. Mr. Moser stated that the petitioner asked that it be acted on tonight; that is the reason for :.his support. Mr. Tent stated that the site plan does not comply; there has been an increase in two bedroom-units which is more than we agreed on. He said the Commission has been concerned about the ratio- of one and two bedroom units and when the proposal for zoning was approved over a year ago, there was controversy as to whether this land would lend itself to multi-family or not. He stated that a developer can tell you what he will do and not live up to it and the Commission is not playing games; it is trying to build up the northwest sector of the City, and the Commission wants to get someone to put up quality development and with Mr. Gold's development, they have a start. Mr. Volk questioned if there is anything in the ordinances that says he has to build units of that size. Mr. Tent stated no, that is according to the original agreement. 1E1 A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted in the following: 5497 AYES: Hausted, Moser, Tent, Wrightman, Colomina, Santo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: LaBo Mr. LaBo stated he has not been present for discussions. Mr. Santo stated he is not voting as to whether or not apartments will go here; only for a principle and if he were not to support the principle of making agree- ments the Planning Commission would only be a listening board, and on that basis he votes no. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-6-10 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.50; 18.50A; 18.50D; 18.50E and 18.50F of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tent read a letter dated December 3, 1968 from the Legal Department stating that a second public hearing on this petition is not necessary and questioned if the changes made by the Zoning Board of Appeals have been worked out, and if Mr. Bennett is in concurrence. Mr. Robert Menzies, Planner III, stated yes. Mr. Moser questioned if the whole Zoning Board of Appeals concurs. I Mr. Menzies stated he does not know regarding the free-standing pole regulations but Mr. Raymond was in concurrence a week ago. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Bennett has the pwoer to act for the Zoning Board of Appeals and if he was doing so. Mr. Bennett replied, yes. Mr. Tent stated that the Commission, by Mr. Bennett's absence from a prior study meeting took for granted that he is in complete concurrence with the proposal. Mr. Bennett stated, yes. He stated he believes the report is a compromise and that he doesn't think the Zoning Board agrees with everything in the ordinance but, in general, he thinks the Zoning Board would support the ordinance as pro- posed. Mr. Tent asked Mr. Bennett to convey the Commission's gratitude to the Zoning Board for working with them and if they have any further questions regarding planning the Commission will be happy to know about the. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, and seconded by Mr. Colomina, it was #12-159-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 12, 1968 on Petition 68-10-6-10 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.50; 1850A; 18.50C; 18.50D; 18.50E and 18.50F of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-10-6-10 be approved for the following reason: 5498 (1) This is a necessary tool to adequately regulate develop- ment within our City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of October 23, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Moser, Heusted, Colomina, Santo, Tent, Wrightman NAYS: None ABSENT: Walker ABSTAIN: LaBo Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman and seconded by Mr. Moser, it was #12-160-68 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meetings held by the City Planning Commission on August 27, 1968; September 17, 1968; October 1, 1968 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Heusted, Colomina, Moser, Tent, Wrightman NAYS: None ABSENT: (Talker ABSTAIN: LaBo, Santo On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, the City planning Commission adjourned its 200th Regular Meeting, held on December 3, 1968, at approximately 11: 30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION �/1�f-r7 Harry Wr',? tman, S?% etary ATTESTED: bits ..az/ Ray nd W. Tent, Chairman 3'