HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-02-04 5522
MINUTES OF THE 202nd REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, February 4, 1969, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 202nd Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall.
Mr. Raymond Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately
8: 30 p.m. with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Raymond W. Tent Robert Colomina Harry Urightman
Donald Heusted Nerving Moser Joel LaBo
Charles U. Walker
Members absent: Frank Santo
Messrs. Don Hull , Planning Director; John J, Nagy, Assistant Planning Director;
Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner III; Harry Tatigian, Assistant City Attorney, were
present.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-12-1-44 by
Chris Scourtes for Northwest Starlit Television Service Center,
Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Middlebelt, north of Joy Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
36, from RUF to C-1 .
Mr. Tent announced there is a letter on file from the residents in the neighborhood
dated January 28, 1969 stating the agreement to this rezoning but giving six
provisions they wish complied with_ Mr. Tent questioned if there is any deficiency
in parking.
Mr. Nagy stated yes, there is a deficiency in parking.
Mr. Chris Scourtes, 28915 Joy Road, Westland, petitioner, was present and stated
they desire this rezoning to build a retail store complex. He stated they present-
ly are located on Joy Road and believes the ne-: structure will add to the property.
Mr. Scourtes stated he was not aware of the deficiency in parking but he believes
arrangements can be made to provide more parking if that is necessary. He
questioned how much parking is reuired here by Ordinance.
Mr. Nagy stated the requirerent is one car for every 150 square feet of floor
space within the building, nd .computed the ,.Lrlber to be 80 parking spaces needed.
Mr. Tent stated this is som<,tning that can be worked out after the Commission
makes a decision on the petition, He stated that Mr. Scourtes has heard the
opinion of the property Dwners in the area and questioned if Mr. Scourtes has any
objection to that.
Mr. Urightman stated he Lad mad: a survey of the people in the area and they seem
to be in favor of the proposed petition and questioned Mr. Scourtes if he realizes
wall will be required not only bordering the rear of this property but also on
both sides of the lot. He stated that Mr..Scourtes should consider this very
La
5523
sincerely because the cost of these walls runs between $15.00 and $20.00 a foot
and he has quite a depth to his property. He stated he had an opportunity to
talk with Mr. Taubs and it seems to be his feeling that a wall must be built
along his side of the property.
Mr. Scourtes stated he was not aware the wall would be needed on the north side
but he will comply with the Ordinance if that is what is required.
Mr. Tent stated a letter in the file from the Engineering Department indicates
there is no storm sewer available.
Mr. Scourtes stated he is aware of that and will have to go 300' to tap in.
Mr. Wrightman questioned why property on Joy Road has not been considered in this
petition, and questioned what Mr. Scourtes' reason is for choosing Middlebelt.
He stated there is a definite traffic problem on Middlebelt and any more traffic
generated will compound the problem.
Mr. Scourtes stated they had considered Joy Road and as a matter of fact they are
located there right now but they like the area on Middlebelt and this type of
business does not generate traffic; a lot of their business is done in the customer's
home.
Mr. Wrightman questioned if all the businesses will be transferred to this site.
Mr. Scourtes stated no.
Mr. Wrightman questioned what other type of business will be encouraged to go in
Mr. Scourtes' establishment here and stated that his plan shows eight stores.
Mr. Scourtes stated that the architect does show eight but actually he intends to
put up four stores only.
Mr. Urightman stated the facilities are not then to accommodate eight stores.
Mr. Scourtes stated that this is not their intention at the present time but the
store is so designed so that if they wanted to change their intention in the future,
it could be divided.
Mr. Wrightman questioned if this would change the requirements according to the
Ordinance regarding these businesses.
Mr. Nagy stated, yes, very definitely; it will involve parking spaces because some
businesses require more than others and if he ever intends to retail, he will have
to meet greater requirements in parking.
Mr. Walker questioned if the Department's plan concerning recommendations for Joy
Road is available.
Mr. Nagy stated, yes.
Mr. Tent stated that rather than belabor this petition now, it will be brought
back on a regular meeting and action taken but as he sees this now there are many
questions that have to be answered. He stated the Commission does not have enough
information at this point to come up with a conclusion and it will be taken back
to a study.
Mr. Walker stated that the study might indicate that the petitioner may not have
5524
to build all that wall if the Commission goes along with the study.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
I:
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-12-1-45 by
Charest and Clancy for Harold Thomas requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile
:oad, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, from RUFA to C-2.
I;Ir. Charest, representing the petitioner was present.
Mr. Tent questioned if this is the same petition that the Hayes' had presented
to the Commission about a ;rear ago.
Mr. Chareststated it is the same petition, and that it had been denied because
the petitioner did not have a particular use for the property but now it is the
desire of Mr. and Mro. Thomas to use this parcel in conjunction with the exist-
ing nursery. He stated that the property abutting was rezoned a while ago and
they believe this regpresents good zoning inasmuch as this will eliminate the RUF
zoning pocket.
Mr. Tent stated that when the petition was approved for C-2 before, the Planning
Commission recommended denial and the Council approved the C-2 zoning.
Mr. Charest agreed that that is correct.
d
Mr. Urightman questioned if Mr. Charest knows what Mr. Thomas is going to use
this property for.
Mr. Charest stated in conjunction with his business and he doesn' t think he is
planning to build a building.
Mr. ?Irightman stated he believed Mr. Thomas can use this property now for that
use without changing the zoning.
Mr. Charest stated that is correct; he can use it for growing of shrubbery but
it seems more logical to change the zoning and eliminate the pocket.
Mr. Tent questioned if this wouldn't make the land too valuable to continue with
a nursery and more useful for something else.
Mr. Charest stated there is some suspicion that this large parcel has some type
of shopping center planned but Mr. Thomas has been engaged in the nursery business
for twenty years and he does not contemplate moving and does not intend to put in
a shopping center. HIe stated the property is also used for trucks and it is not
the intention of Mr. Hayes or Mr. Thomas to turn this into a large venture. He
stated he considers this as a valuable piece of property and they have been offered
a high dollar for it but they do not wish to put in a regional shopping center.
IFIMr. Tent stated that Mr. Thomas can continue his operation with the present zoning.
ite
Mr. Charest stated that the RUF cannot be used for other areas that you would
normally utilize property for in this business and they feel it would enhance his
total operation if it were changed.
5925
Mr. McDonald, 29610 Hoy, stated he was here the last time this was brought before
the Commission and Council and his contention is that the people in the area
bought property in the area, RUF, for a home and he does not think this change
of zoning is necessary because there is plenty of business area there now. He
stated Mr. Thomas and Mr. Hayes may have the best intentions in the world, but
if somebody makes them an offer there is no telling what they might do in the
future.
A resident, 29760 Hoy, stated he agrees with Mr. McDonald.
Mr. Charest stated he would like to ask a question: How is squaring this off
going to be a detriment at this time to the surrounding homeowners.
Mr. Tent stated that, as it is now, there is certain control over that piece of
property because any developer who would want to pick the land up for commercial
zoning would know there is a pocket of RUF zoning and that would be a problem so
we feel we have control over the land as long as the pocket of RUF is there.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-1-1-1 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located
between Osmus Avenue and Merriman Road on the south side of Eight
Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to R-3.
Mr. Nagy explained this petition and the reason for requesting the change in
zoning and also explained the nature of a report prepared by the Planning Depart-
ment titled "Merriman & Eight Mile Residential Pilot Project."
Mr. Tent stated this petition is in answer to a Council request directing the
Commission to prepare a plan for this parcel of land in the R-3 zoning category
and to prepare a study showing how this land could best be used for development
other than industrial which the Planning Commission feels would be ideal. He
stated there are four letters from property owners in the file which convey
objections to this rezoning, and a letter from the Rocwall Company, also objecting.
Mr. Tent requested a show of hands of the people in the audience who are in favor
of rezoning this land to the R-3 category.
There was one.
Mr. Tent requested a show of hands of the people in the audience who are opposed.
to this rezoning to R-3.
There were thirteen.
Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of the people who have land in the area.
There were ten.
Mr. Edward J. Mieduch, a resident, stated he has been asked to speak for the
ILW property owners in this area; Messrs. Diedrich, Sydor, Whalen, VanTassel, Spencer,
Clark and Kopiwoda, all of whom object to this rezoning petition. He stated
that in addition to these owners, the owners of lots 30a1, 29 and 29a2 also
Abject. He said he personally feels that the property on the corner could be
used for professional service.
5526
Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Mieduch if he is a member of the North Central Civic
ILAssociation.
Mr. Mieduch stated no, he is speaking just for himself and the seven property
owners he represents.
A citizen who stated he is with the Wayne Oakland Landscaping Company, said he
owns 1-1/2 acres and they intend to plant trees in conjunction with their busi-
ness and this residential zoning would serve as a hardship to them. He stated he
objects to this rezoning.
Mr. William Ponder, 32510 Plymouth Road, representing the Rocwall Company, con-
veyed his objections to the rezoning of this land stating that the Rocwall
Company is the largest land owner in the area and, regretfully, they disagree with
this rezoning. He stated the area is presently RUF and they would like to have
it remain such at the present time and they feel that in the future planning of
the City there will be a higher and more desirable use for the entire property.
Mr. Tent stated that in Mr. Ponder's letter dated 2/4/69 to the Commission which
is part of the record, he has recommended the continuation of the apartment
zoning or the industrial zoning as the highest and best use for this land in the
future.
Mrs. George Nikorak, 20315 Merriman, distributed a copy of a subdivision layout
which she prepared for :the::Commissioners and stated that she personally appreciates
what the Commission is trying to do in this area. She stated she would like to
I see this land rezoned to R-3 and outlined the subdivision layout she had submitted
to the Commission. Mrs. Nikorak stated she would not like to see commercial here,
but she would like to see homes here.
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 announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-1-7-1 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to amend Part III of
the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations.
Mr. Nagy explained the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations
stating that it will make them conform to the new State Plat Act, and to the
new Ordinance that the City has adopted in the interim.. .
There was no one 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. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-17-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the
Public Hearing held on February 4, 1969, at approximately 9:45 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5527
Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 202nd Regular Meeting to order at approximately
. 10:00 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the
audience as were present for the public hearing.
Mr. Urightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-12-1-44 by
41110Nr.
Scourtes for Northwest Starlit Television Service Center, Inc.
requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Middle-
belt, north of Joy Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36, from
RUF to C-1.
Mr. Tent stated there are things which had been brought out at the public
hearing which the Commission would like to discuss with the petitioner so this
item will be taken under advisement and referred to a study meeting.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-12-1-45 by
Charest and Clancy for Harold Thomas requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile
Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, from RUFA to C-2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Heusted, seconded by Mr. Urightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-18-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
February 4, 1969 on Petition 68-12-1-45 as submitted by Charest
and Clancy for Harold Thomas requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Five Mile
Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, from RUFA to C-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 68-12-1-45 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) There is an excessive amount of commercial zoning in this
sector of the City and it should not be encouraged.
(2) Encouragement of a large-scale commercial development in
this area could adversely effect the two existing regional
shopping centers located on Middlebelt Road.
(3) Large-scale commercial development in this specific area
could adversely effect the traffic-carrying capacity of
Middlebelt Road.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of January 15, 1969, and notice of such hearing was sent to
the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company,
Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
5528
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-1-1-1 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located
between Osmus Avenue and Merriman load on the south side of
1;410
Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to
R-3.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Ualker, seconded by Mr. Urightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-19-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
February 4, 1969 on Petition 69-1-1-1 as submitted by the City
Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located between
Osmus Avenue and Merriman Road on the south side of Eight Mile
Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFA to R-3, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 69-1-1-1 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) An increase in residential density in this sector of the
City could tax existing community facilities.
(2) This rezoning would be inconsistent with the Master Plan
of the area.
(3) The Commission does not believe this area has develop-
ment potential for this type of use.
(4) The adjacent land usage could adversely effect the calibre
and quality of development in the R-3 zoning category.
(5) The Economic and Ecologic Base Study indicates a need for
more industrial land in the City.
(6) The majority of the property owners in the area are opposed
to this rezoning.
Mr. Tent stated that a petition has been submitted by Mr. Ponder containing the
signatures of property owners who are opposed to this petition.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of January 15, 1969, 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. Tent, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-1-7-1 by
the City Planning Commission requesting to amend Part III of the
Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Subdivision Rules and
Regulations.
1L; On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unnnialous.ly
adopted, it was
5529
#2-20-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the
Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning
Commission of the City of Livonia having duly held a public
hearing on February 4, 1969 for the purpose of amending Part
III of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Subdivision
Rules and Regulations, as follows:
In the Preamble and in Section 2.01: Adding a reference
to Section 105 of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967
as an authority.
Section 3.11: Revising "Plat Act" to mean the Subdivision
Control Act of 1967.
Section 6.02: Including a subparagraph (6) "flood plain
as may be designated by the flood plain ordinance."
Section 6.05: "Certified Mail" for "Registered Mail."
Section 7.02 (a): Adding "all easements shall be dedicated
to the public and shall be indicated as 'public easements'
on the final plat. Adequate easements shall be provided for
full service of public utilities to every lot within the
subdivision. When determined necessary by the City Planning
Commission to comply with development objectives in the area,
certain easements may be limited to underground utilities
only."
Section 7.02 (c): Adding "Copies of any deed covenants re-
lating to use and maintenance of private areas designated on
the plat which may be set aside for common use or control of
owners within the subdivision."
for the following reason:
(1) These revisions are necessary to make the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations more workable and a more useful tool for the
Planning Commission to administer.
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 amendments as
part of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the City of Livonia,
which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been
adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with full
amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed
with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission;
and a copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the
County of Wayne with the following certification contained thereon:
"We certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a
meeting of the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 4,
1969 by the following vote;
AYES: Walker, Heusted, Moser, Colomina, LaBo, Tent, Urightman
NAYS: None
ABSENT: Santo"
AWN...MOZIMMV14
I
1 5530
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
it is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-11-1-43 by
Trinity Baptist Church requesting to rezone property located on
Middlebelt Road, near Jamison Avenue, in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 24, from RUF to R-7.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser and seconded by Mr. LaBo, it was
#2-21-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
January 14, 1969 on Petition 68-11-1-43 as submitted by Trinity
Baptist Church requesting to rezone property located on Middle-
. belt Road, near Jamison Avenue, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section •
24, from RUF to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-11-1-43 be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) The City has sufficient guarantee that this will be a
retirement housing project that will serve a useful
purpose for the City.
(2) This proposed development is relatively small and will
not adversely effect the adjacent residential neighbor-
hood or substantially contribute to the generation of
traffic along Middlebelt Road. .
(3) This is a logical adjunct to the facilities presently
IL located within this area (two churches and convalescent
home).
(4) This is a quasi-public venture sponsored by the Church
•
which has a utilitarian desire to provide a needed service
and will be largely occupied by residents of the City of •
Livonia or their relatives.
(5) Even though this is a'Church-sponsored use, it will be
taxable and generate City revenue.
(6) The amount of City services required to service this
project will be relatively low and there will be no school
age children.
• FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of December 26, 1969 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. Colomina stated that he is not against churches or senior citizens but it
seems to him that if this R-7 is allowed to go through with no legal zoning for
110;
senior citizens, a "pandora's box" may be opened. There are at least 20 churches
that have at least five acres or more that could be developed into the same type
of development. Ile questioned how this R-7 zoning can be correlated with the R-7
the City is getting, and stated he cannot vote for this until the City gets a
legal zoning in the ordinance where senior citizens is specified.
1
M.y"ro^^M.tWw.jMLbMS�Y!!Qw`34YRW'KY7M'M�4` Kr��P•MbWf'i ..•A^° MJ'(Lh '« 'MNjhR�.A�Mt'b4Jh r "
aw.yRFC�lRIP�'+MM:^r✓aHa.yyMR'n}ns q.. ...
'n':iwLa'Rf��t�11!.+»,1TYR4'�.!1.iF}!+,SYIIp.�.M�IASK.. "Nf.:.7-�P�� ^. :.. .. :. ^
5531
Mr. Moser stated that the Commission has had discussions with the petitioner
J regarding what he is going to do and he feels the Commission can hold these
people to their word.
Mr. Colomina stated that this petition will probably go senior citizens but he
believes the Commission is still working with a-7 and leaving itself open to
precedent.
Mr. Hull stated that Rev. Adams was previously asked to direct a letter to the
Commission stating his intent for the use of the property; two letters were
received and he has complied in every respect to the Commission's request. He
stated he would like to point out at this time that if the church cannot accom-
modate this type of zoning the church would have no objection to the Commission's
rezoning the land back to its original category, although according to our
Legal Department this would not hold up in court. Mr. Hull stated the integrity
of the person is involved and we hope he follows through.
Mr. Wrightman requested to know if the Commission has site plan control over
this project.
Mr. Hull replied, yes, and that he believed it reasonable to require an adequate
site plan, architectural details and architectural floor plans indicating the
type and calibre of the project.
Mr. Wrightman stated, then this would be a safeguard against anything not in
conformity.
Mr. Walker stated that the letter transmitted by the petitioner has been
notarized and sworn to and he feels the letter carries out every request by the
Commission and that the representatives of the church have submitted something
here that the Commission should honor. He stated he would not want this to get
away from the Commission but knows the Commission has an absolute guarantee with
the site plan coming back before them and that gives them control so he stated
he will go along with the petition as submitted right now.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walker, Heusted, Moser, LaBo, Wrightman
NAYS: Colomina, Tent
ABSENT: Santo
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter from Alexander
Spiro requesting withdrawal of Petition 68-9-1-37 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. Tent stated there is a letter dated January 21 , 1969 in the file asking the
Commission to allow the withdrawal of this petition, and questioned Mr. Hull
regarding the reasons.
t
5532
Mr. Hull stated that the petitioner originally optioned the property but did
not own it and his option has run out and cannot be renewed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#2-22-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated January 21, 1969 from
Alexander Spiro requesting withdrawal of Petition 63-9-1-37
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. , the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to allow withdrawal
of said petition.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of meetings held by the Planning Commission on November
12, 1968 and November 26, 1968.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
adopted it was
#2-23-68 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meetings held by the City
Planning Commission on November 12, 1968 and November 26, 1968
are hereby approved.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
adopted the City Planning Commission adjourned its 202nd Regular Meeting held
on February 4, 1969, at approximately 10: 20 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
dr
Harrry Wt.' tman, o retary
ATTEST:
t-V-
Raymo d W. Tent, Chair an