HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-10-14 5700
MINUTES OF THE 210th: REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 14, 1969, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia,
held its 210th 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
8:15 p.m. with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Raymond W. Tent Charles W. Walker Harry Wrightman
Marvin Moser Donald Heusted Joel LaBo
Robert Colomina Frank Santo H. Dow Tunis
Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director, John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director,
and Dan Andrew, Industrial Coordinator, were present.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-1-27
by Robert E. Greenstein, attorney for Dr. George and Mathilde
Rovin, requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road, north of Pickford Avenue in the northwest 1/4
of Section 12, from RUF 'to C-2.
Mr. Tent advised that a letter in the file from Consumers Power, dated October 13,
1969 showed no objection to the petition and that a letter dated September 30,
1969 from the Wayne County Road Commission advised the right-of-way was acquired
there was no problem. A letter from the City Engineer dated September 16,
1969 stated there were no storm sewers available nor sanitary sewers available.
Land
Mr. Tent further stated that no plans had been submitted to date and the
Commission had no idea what was to be brought in.
Mr. Robert Greenstein, attorney for the petitioners, investors in the property
stated that the intention of petitioners is to build a structure to carry on
sales of light fixtures on retail basis; adding that petitioners have an agree-
ment with a national concern to build this for them. He stated that there have
been no pl7ns drawn because there has been no zoning change; added that the wall
would be put in in accordance with zoning regulations. The only unusual service,
he added, other than retail would be some small service for minor repairs for
what is sold.
Mr. Greenstein stated this would not conflict with the Livonia Mall Study as it
is not included in the Mall Study. He went on to discuss the surrounding areas
and their zoning classifications.
A letter was presented to the Commission by Mr. Greenstein, signed by the owners
to the south, in the area of Pickford and Middlebelt, in favor of the petition.
Mr. Greenstein stated the property is large, 290 x 130, and feels it should be
commercial because of its location; that it would be consistent with the pronertie'
in the area and would not effect the homes or the properties to the east.
Mr. Tent asked if the electrical appliance store intended would utilize all the
property.
Mr. Greenstein replied, yes.
5701
Mr. Tent asked if a car wash is contemplated.
Mr. Greenstein replied, no.
(601 Mr. Tent asked if the petition is as the use of the property is intended.
Mr. Greenstein answered, yes.
Mr. Tent asked if C-1 zoning could not handle the use requested in the petition.
Mr. Hull replied that C-i will serve for this use.
Mr. Wrightman agreed with this thinking stating that C-1 has more restrictions
and suggested that Mr. Greenstein might be agreeable to reduce the zoning to
C-1 which could be used for the electrical appliance store.
Mr. Hull cited that page 36 of the ordinance specifically states that electrical
and household appliance stores are allowed in C-i classifications.
Mr. Tent advised that the question now was whether or not an electrical appliance
store should be located in this area.
Mr. Greenstein stated that the reason for the C-2 zoning might be that there is
a difference from just an appliance store as service and repair will also be
carried on.
Mr. Tent stated he could not see if the repair is of the appliances sold and not
heavy repair why it would need C-2 classification.
Mr. Walker asked if the business would be strictly retail and if so what the
volume of vehicles required for this use would be.
Mr. Greenstein stated there would be substantial parking and the store will be
a fair size which is why they are interested in such a large parcel; it is the
plan to be strictly a retail business - he added that he did not know if wholesale
business could or would be considered here.
Mr. Walker stated that is what might make the difference here; if this is not to
be merely retail but wholesale and retail, as well as wholesale service and
repair, then it might be questionable if C-1 is enough.
Mr. Greenstein stated he could not honestly say there will be no wholesale;
petitioners want to attract retail trade and stated they already have one store
on Plymouth Road.
Mr. Dan Wegienka, 29172 Pickford, Livonia, wondered what the retail establishment
is.
Mr. Greenstein stated the retail corporation has not been formed.
Mr. Tent stated the petition is for a chtinge of zoning and the commission did
not know until the meeting what the zoning change was to be for. There was a
short discussion. The Commission was asked if there would be a requirement for
a privacy fence along the back and Mr. Tent stated that where commercial zoning
abuts residential it is a requirement.
5702
Mr. Gus Davis, 18600 Middlebelt stated he would like to see it go C-1 and not C-2
adding that that would be beneficial to all along there.
Mr. LaBo asked Mr. Greenstein if he would be agreeable to C-1.
Mr. Tent also asked Mr. Greenstein if he would answer whether C-1 is agreeable.
Mr. Greenstein stated if they are able to complete the building and conduct the
services including the repair services in C-1 zoning it would not matter to the
petitioners, the only reason they are asking for C-2 is that when he checked
the zoning ordinance his requirements called for C-2.
be
Mr. Hull stated the question is whether it would/sales or if it included repairs.
Mr. Walker stated that Mr. Greenstein should determine, even if he must approach
his clients, what the exact intent is.
Mr. Greenstein stated that he knows it will be retail primarily and as a feature
it would include the sale of the service and repair of whatever they sell and
also other items as a courtesy - they are interested in a one-stop type of repair.
Mr. LaBo stated that the petitioners are then actually talking about one business
including sales and repair - it might be two separate stores to separate sales
from the repair, but it is one operation.
Mr. Greenstein stated the front of the establishment - is to be for retail and the
back end partially for storage of stock and one-half or three-quarters of the back
for the repair work.
Mr. Walker stated he would like the record to show it is Mr. Greenstein's
decision to amend his petition to the lesser classification provided, under the
terms he stated, if the department is able to determine that C-1 it will suit
his request.
Mr. Tent added this is a reasonable request, stating that even if this property
is out of the master study area the Commission is still interested in the
development of the City.
Mr. Hull stated that the petitioner's statement is not particularly correct -
that the property in question is a part of the Livonia Mall study - it is within
the area of the Livonia Mall where the Commission designates use. It is shown
in the study that commercial zoning should not extend this far south - the re-
commendation of the study is that this particular property remain residential.
Mr. Wrightman asked petitioner if he knew just how large an operation this
would be, how many employees, etc.
Mr. Greenstein stated he had no idea, he stated it would be set up by an operation
out of the State of Michigan - a national organization. He added he did not
know if they had other stores of this size.
Mr. Tent stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-28 by
r
Charest and Clancy, attorneys for Harold L. and Jean Thomas, re-
questing to rezone property located west of Middlebelt Road, south
of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, from RDFA to
C-2.
5703
Mr. Tent stated that this item is a repeat of a petition heard before which was
denied and went to the Council - at that time petitioner requested additional
land to be added and this is the reason for the new petition.
Mr. Charest, attorney for petitioners stated that the original request was 174'
in depth which did not swuare off the parcel - they are now asking 265' to square
the parcel and meet the property on the south. He requested a favorable re-
commendation of the Commission.
Mr. Tent stated that the letter in the file from Consumers Power showed no
objection. He asked if the right-of-way dedication had been resolved.
Mr. Hull stated that the Engineering Department requests the right-of-way and
it has not been resolved - they need it across the entire front of the property.
Mr. Tent advised that by requesting additional land the petitioner has made the
land adjacent a non-conforming lot size.
Mr. Charest agreed.
Mr. Wrightman stated Mr. Charest is now representing the Thomases, where it was
(Hayes) before.
Mr. Charest replied, yes.
Mr. Wrightman asked if Mr. Thomas has purchased or agreed to purchase if the
property is rezoned.
Mr. Charest, replied, yes.
Mr. Wrightman asked to what use the land would be put..
Mr. Charest stated this had been discussed before - the only use Mr. Thomas
wants is to plant shrubs, to continue the nursery operation which he has with
no intention to sell to a commercial venture. He added they need all the land
they can have. He informed the commission that if they wanted a large commercial
development the piece in question would meanvery little.
Mr. Wrightman asked if Mr. Thomas plans to build any structure on the land.
Mr. Charest replied, no.
Mr. Wrightman stated that Mr. Thomas can plant nursery shrubs as it is zoned
presently.
Mr. Charest stated that petitioner has an outdoor sales permit and this use on
the land in question is prohibited.
Mr. Bill McDonell, 29610 Hoy Avenue, spoke against the petition, stating that
the people in the surrounding area had bought their homes in good faith that the
land would remain residential; he added that they want a change now but the
feeling is that it could bring in a commercial complex and this would not be
fair to the home owners. He said that the petitioner says he is going to plant
shrubs for a length of time - that the petitioner is no fool but neither are
the residents.
e
• 5704
Mr. Tent stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-29
by the Taubman Company, Inc. requesting to rezone property located
on the north side of Plymouth Road, east of Sears Road, in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, from M-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent stated that a letter dated September 22, 1969 from Mr. Strasser,
City Engineer, disclosed no engineering problems, further that Sears Road is
not a dedicated street. A letter from Consumers Power showed no problem.
Mr. Jerry Dillon from the Taubman Company, Inc. , petitioner, passed out drawings
to the Commission of the proposed building. He stated that the property would
be utilized as a pilot model for a franchise operation of a pie shop. It would
be a sit down and a carry-out operation. The drawing was of more than one
structure, i.e. a commissary, a school to teach further franchise owners, etc.
Mr. Dillon stated that Mr. Blazo, who was also present, would run the operation.
He advised the commission that the drawing was a true document of their intent,
drawn to scale, the landscaping would be as shown.
Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Blazo had other operations such as this.
Mr. Dillon stated this would be the first of what was hoped would be many. Mr.
Blazo has an option to purchase the land if rezoned and the pie shop would be
put up immediately, the restaurant to follow and the commissary as quickly as
possible. He added that Mr. Blazo would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Santo asked if the drawing as shown is a picture to be used for the purpose
of advertising.
Mr. Blazo replied, yes. This would be shown to persons who are interested
in franchises.
Mr. Santo asked if this would be built depending upon how many persons want
to purchase franchises.
Mr. Blazo informed the commission that they are already passed the need of the
Commissary; they have five units now and employ 450 persons presently.
Mr. Tent asked if this will be similar to the operation in Dearborn.
Mr. Blazo replied it would be similar to the one in Grosse Pointe Woods.
Mr. Tent asked if it was a drive-in restaurant.
Mr. Blazo replied, no.
Mr. Wrightman asked if it is necessary to change the zoning or can this operation
be built as presently zoned.
Mr. Hull stated that no retail sales are permitted in an M-1 district. He also
stated that even with favorable action by the Commission, waiver use permit
would also be necessary.
Mr. Walker inquired as to whether the business could survive on coffee and pie
and whether it had been proved successful in other parts of the country.
0
5705
Mr. Blazo replied, yes.
Mr. Walker asked if it would be wholesale business as well.
Mr. Blazo replied, no; all retail.
Mr. Tent complimented the petitioner on the operation in Grosse Pointe and
stated it was a fine operation.
Mr. Blazo thanked him and stated they would like to make Livonia their home office.
Mr. Tent, Chairman advised this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-18 by
Curran Construction Company, Inc. requesting to be granted a
waiver use permit to build a McDonald's Restaurant on the east side
of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and St. Martins in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 1.
Mr. Tent stated that a letter in the file from the City Engineer dated
September 16, 1969 stated their were two problems; (1) no lead available from
the 18" seiaer on the west side of Middlebelt Road and (2) no proper storm drain-
age. He stated the waiver use permit would only be good for 1 year and the
storm sewer is 2 years away from actual reality - this could present a problem
to the petitioner. Mr. Tent stated that the site plan has been submitted which
has several zoning ordinance violations; parking is insufficient; requires a
protective wall; and all in all is in violation of the Master Plan and the
Livonia Mall Study.
1140 Mr. Clancy, attorney, was present in behalf of petitioner; also Mr. Kern of
McDonald's was present to answer questions. Mr. Clancy stated that the petitioner
wants to put in a family style restaurant - no car service; further that Mr.
Kern had been in touch with the Engineer and obtained a 12' easement to St.
Martins which takes care of the easement problem; also the plat plan has been
changed to amend the parking situation by using the land which had not been
considered for development at this time; they now have 84 parking spaces 10 x 22
where 80 are required; the seating in the restaurant was reduced to 136 with 12
employees. This is similar but larger than the operation on Eight Mile across
from Ethyl Corporation.
Mr. Tent asked if the arches would be used - which is their trademark,
Mr. Clancy stated they would be on the side of the building - two golden arches
in the wall.
Mr. Tent asked if it would be proposed to put in a large sign.
Mr. Clancy stated it would be as submitted - no large sign.
Mr. Tent asked Mr. Hull if he was aware that the engineering problem had been
straightened out; that they had been allowed to tap into the 18' drain.
Mr. Hull stated he had no knowledge of this.
Mr. Urightman had Mr. Clancy point out the land intended to be used for the
additional parking.
5706
Mr. Clancy advised him that there is no additional land - pointing it out to
Mr. Wrightman - that this is within the land in the petition.
Mr. Tent asked if the protective wall had been resolved.
Mr. Clancy replied, yes; they agreed to put in a wall as required.
Mr. Tent asked who is behind this operation - who are the owners.
Mr. Clancy stated it is a corporation.
Mr. Ken Ronemus, the district engineer, advised the Commission it is the same
McDonald Restaurant, with a new concept of family restaurant; there will be
arches - they would like to have a sign, but not a large one as in the past,
adding that they realize they must conform to the sign ordinance.
Mr. Tent asked what type of menu would be carried.
Mr. Ronemus advised it would be the same as in all present McDonalds; since they
are the pioneer of this menu they did not want to change this as yet - one step
at a time.
Mr. Santo asked with reference to the picture submitted if the surrounding
area is white concrete or asphalt.
Mr. Ronemus stated it is black asphalt.
Mr. Tent stated only architectural drawings had been submitted and was advised
that the Building Department has a set of plans.
11; Mr. Clancy stated he had a set of plans with him.
Mr. Ronemus stated that this new concept of McDonald's restaurants is what would
be built from this day on.
Mr. Wrightman asked if persons would be allowed to eat in their cars.
Mr. Ronemus replied, yes; they have spent 13 years allowing persons to eat in
their cars and they cannot now demand people to eat inside; however, they would
encourage people to eat inside.
Mr. Tent stated that the ordinance prohibits eating in cars within certain
zoning districts.
Mr. Ronemus repeated that they are not encouraging this.
Mr. Tent discussed the problems of paper and debris covering the abutting
properties.
Mr. Ronemus stated this is why they are agreeable to putting up a wall, adding
that they send men out to police adjacent neighborhoods, picking up papers.
Mr. Red Watson, 19738 Middlebelt, came here from down river to get away from
this type of thing; he stated he does not want McDonald's next to him.
5707
Mr. H. Letourneau, 29151 Bretton, stated this restaurant would require more
police, it is near a high school - stated that there are 8 restaurants within
one block north and south on Middlebelt and cannot see the need of this; he
passes a McDonald's everyday and there are three policemen on duty at night.
Mr. Michael Matkovich, 29154 St. Martins stated they would have to have a back
wall; there is now a flooding condition in the area and this would make it
worse; he also commented about the number of restaurants in the area, q1 within
walking distance.
Mr. Tent advised him that actually there are 26.
Mr. Watson's neighbor, of 29149 Bretton, stated she is a widow and not afraid
to stay along at the present time but should this be allowed she would be.
Mr. Tent stated he recognizes the problems and wanted the audience to know
this was made a part of the record. He asked how many persons in the audience
were present to object to this petition and there were approximately 12 hands
raised.
Mr. Letourneau asked if there wasn't an ordinance prohibiting so many restaurants
within a certain distance.
Mr. Tent replied, no. The Commission has a Master Plan for certain types of
restrictions and this petition is in violation of same. He stated the
Commission had not planned for a restaurant in this immediate area.
Mr. LaDouceur, 29120 St. Martins spoke with reference to the storm sewers and
storm drain; he stated they are at the beginning of the sewer which exists
there now; if they are going to put an 18' in, the existing sewer is already
that or similar.
Mr. Tent stated that the engineer had stated there was a lack of drainage and
it would take 2 years before this could be taken care of. The sewer he is
talking about is not there.
There was a short discussion with regard to an existing building on the property
where bums stay now and then; this is a fire hazard and a nuisance.
Mr. Hull stated he could consult the Law Department to see what .can be done
about this.
Mr. Walker stated the City has 3 classes of restaurants, carry-out, drive-in
and family type; when the Commission talks of family type in connection with
this petition it is off base and should be considered a drive-in type of
restaurant and this is how he will have to vote in his judgement; i.e. as to
whether it is a desirable spot for a drive-in restaurant.
Mr. Clancy stated it was not a car-hop operation.
Mr. Walker stated as represented at this meeting he would have to consider it a
drive-in and it would take too much policing.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement,
5708
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-19
by Denne Land Company for Livonia Elks Lodge requesting to be
IL granted a waiver use permit to use grounds located on the east
side of Denne between Plymouth Road and Dalhay in the Northwest
_ 1/4 of Section 35 for a picnic grove.
Mr. Tent advised the Engineer's letter stated there are no problems; however,
he stated that 27' dedication would be required for the ultimate development of
Plymouth Road.
The representative for the lodge stated they were prepared to give the 27 feet.
The property in question is an apple orchard and the lodge wants permission to
use it as a picnic area for the lodge.
Mr. Tent asked if the lodge owns the land and was advised it does not, they own
almost 50%, they being the members of the lodge. He was further advised that its
natural landscape would not be altered.
It is the intention of the lodge to use the area for their annual picnic and as
presently zoned, if they use it they are non-conforming. Therefore, they re-
quested a waiver use or the proper zoning necessary. The area is kept up, they
police the area and there have never been any complaints.
Mrs. Marx of 11167 Denne stated that they had traffic problems because of the
parking when they had their picnic; however, if it is only intended to be a
once-a-year picnic that is a different story.
She was assured it was and that these facilities would not be rented out; She
was further advised that there would be no lights as the area is used only until
approximately 8:30 p.m. or possibly 9 p.m.
Mrs. Marx stated if this is to be an annual thing why get this change.
The lodge representative stated they do not have a wall across the area and where
residential and C-2 abut there is a need for a wall which would cut their land
in two; if changed the wall could be erected on the southern boundary.
Mr. Walker questioned if the piles of dirt which are there are to be removed and
was advised that the members are doing this themselves and therefore, it is
taking time; he further mentioned the landscaping which was to have been taken
care of and was informed they know it should have been done this fall and it
would be landscaped in the spring.
Mr. Moser asked for what time period the waiver use permit would be.
Mr. Hull replied, now and forever unless conditioned.
Mr. Tent stated he understood it was only for 1 year.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-20
by Nu-Process Industries, Inc. , requesting to be granted a waiver
(ro: use permit to construct a coin-operated car wash on property
located on Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
5709
Mr. Tent stated that a letter dated October 1, 1969 from Simon Solomon, owner
of lot 210, objected to this petition. Mr. Tent stated that this petition was
acted on several years ago and the waiver use permit had run out; that the
. petitioner has changed the plans completely from that specified by the Planning
Li'
Commission therefore petitioner had to re-petition and present new plans.
Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Grabenhorst was present - he was not.
Mr. William Johns on 36835 Cherry Hill Road in Westland, Superintendent of
Nu-Process Industries, represented petitioner. He explained the difference
between their first petition and this; that this would not include the sale of
gasoline or automatic equipment for car wash; it would be the wand type unit.
After Mr. Johnson gave his explanation Mr. Tent advised him what he had said
was exactly what Mr. Grabenhorst had said in the past.
Mr. Johnson stated that a dealer had put up one of their previously proposed
units and it had proven inadequate and this is why that was thrown out of the
petition. There was a short discussion as to the previous structures, their
problems; Mr. Tent expressing his desire that Mr. Grabenhorst would have been
at this meeting in order that the Commission could have discussed this with him.
Mr. Tent asked if this is a new concept?
Mr. Johnson replied, no. It is similar to all coin operated car washes, only
here it is a brick constructed building, aluminimum roof, glazed tile inside,
etc. A short discussion was had with regard to the construction.
IL Mr. Tent asked Mr. Johnson if this, then is petitioner's plan and if so when
would same be constructed.
Mr. Johnson replied, as soon as they can go ahead.
Mr. Wrightman advised Mr. Johnson that he should appreciate the Commission's
concern - they thought that they had previously approved something of quality;
now it is upgraded but the Commission still has to consider other matters; the
previous petition was approved over one year ago; conditions on Plymouth Road
have changed; he added that his outlook on this petition has changed and he
would have to give this matter hard study to be satisfied that the Commission
is not being given a promise on a waiver use that might not be advantageous to
the area. He further stated this is a highly travelled area with a traffic
problem brought on by structures such as this.
Mr. Tent discussed a previous car wash petition next to the property in question,
we understand they are now selling auto parts, etc, there.
Mr. Colomina asked if petitioner is going to pump gas.
Mr. Johnson answered, no.
Mr. Donald Deremo, 18185 Farmington Road, representing Mr. Jordan, the former
petitioner of the adjacent parcel , stated it has not been sold and that to his
knowledge they had this day filed petition for a car wash.
O
iro:
There was a short discussion with Mr. Deremo regarding the status of the auto
parts business on lands to the west.
5710
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-21
by Angelo DiPonio requesting to be granted a waiver use permit
to use property located on the west side of Merriman Road between
Schoolcraft and the C & 0 Railway in Section 27 for heavy construction
equipment repair.
Mr. Tent stated that the site plan shows two existing structures; there is a
letter from the Engineer showing no problems and the Industrial Coordinator
is present on the matter.
Mr. Ron Seeley, an associate of Angelo DiPonio, was present and explained the
purpose of the petition being to move Merriman Company across the street to
the property in question; they own and operate tunnelling equipment which is
large equipment. He stated that Angelo DiPonio Equipment: Company needs their
space for maintenance of their equipment. There was a short discussion and he
agreed that landscaping would be done to the front of the property; the property
would be fenced. He referred to the care they took of the property across the
street and assured they would do likewise at this site.
There was a short discussion with regard to the two buildings now on the property.
Mr. Tent stated he understood they were to be occupied until December 31st of
this year and if granted they would like to use them for Mr. DiPonio's
superintendent. Mr. Seeley stated they would be vacated; they have no control
over the occupancy of the homes but immediately upon purchase they will request
their vacation. They want to give them time to relocate.
7 Mr. Wrightman asked if these buildings would not be used for offices.
Mr. Seeley stated they will be used only as they are now used and only by the
people now in them; as soon as they can be moved out they will be moved out.
Mr. Colomina stated it is his understanding that the only thing the petition is
putting on the property in question is tunnelling equipment and related items -
no trucks, etc.
Mr. Seeley said this is correct but it would include the equipment necessary to
move the tunnelling equipment - no trucks or heavy cranes.
Mr. Walker stated he hopes the Department will properly prepare a landscape
plan for the ingress and egress; he commented on the closeness of the property
to the expressway; the existing buildings being built so close there is very
little landscaping there to do; discussed the size of the heavy equipaent, a
study should be made for traffic - the driveway might have to be wider than
shown; all in all he hoped all these matters would be taken care of.
Mr. Hull stated they had prepared a revised landscape plan and discussed the
treatment of the land.
Mr. Seeley stated again that knowing A ngelo DiPonio, the Commission knows he is
going to make the property look its best.
Mr. Andrew stated that the resolution should indicate there will be a 30' right-
of-way dedication along the entire south side of the property for an industrial
road.
5711
Mr. Seeley stated that would be no problem and agreed.
l Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-140-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the public hearing held on Tuesday, October 14, 1969 at approxi-
mately 10: 10 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 210th Regular Meeting to order at approximately
10:30 p.m. with approximately 20 people in the audience.
Mr. Wrightman announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-1-27
by Robert E. Greenstein, attorney for Dr. George and Mathilde
Rovin, requesting to rezone property located on the east side of
Middlebelt Road, north of Pickford Avenue in the northwest 1/4
of Section 12, from RUF to C-2.
Mr. Walker stated that based on conversations with Councilmen regarding the
Master Plan of Seven Mile and Middlebelt, he would suggest that this matter be
taken under advisement because of the possibility of a meeting between the
Council and the Commission inasmuch as recently they have been faced with Council
reversing the Commission's decisions which fall in the Master Plan; he questions
if they are wrong to hold to the Master Plan; why are the decisions reversed;
° he would like this meeting, bringing in the recent changes in and around the area
to discuss with Council; he stated the two bodies should work together.
Mr. LaBo agreed with Mr. Talker. However, he felt that this petitioner should
not be involved in this discussion inasmuch as plans have been made to go into
business and to put them off would be costly to them. Every effort, he added,
should be made to help the citizen and the meeting should be held between the
two governing bodies; however, not at the expense of this petitioner.
Mr. LaBo made a motion that the petition be granted. Inasmuch as there was
no support the motion died.
Mr. Colomina in reply to Mr. LaBo stated he did not feel it was putting off the
petitioner if the matter is taken under advisement; stated that they are talking
about 50 or 60 acres of land, with residential land surrounding. A short
discussion followed between Mr. Colomina and Mr. LaBo with regard to the question
of the surrounding lands; Mr. LaBo feeling that Middlebelt Road is not a
residential street and should go PS or Commercial.
Mr. Tent stated that the petition as submitted is vague and it is the desire
of the Commission that it be taken under advisement in order that the petitioner
may present plans as to type of buildings, etc. If the Commission grants this
petition there are many questions to be answered as to parking, the repair
operation of the building, zoning category; or should petition be denied because
it conflicts with the Master Plan of Livonia. He felt there are three points
to consider - (1) to approve would be without all the facts, petitioner does
not know what he has to offer; (2) petitioner does not know what he wants, what
the operation will be; if it can be C-1 or C-2; (3) not consistent with the
5712
Livonia Mall Master Plan and, Mr. Tent added that personally he did not feel
it is the highest use for this property for the City's benefit and the matter
should be put under advisement to get all the answers and then act.
1:10
Mr. Walker stated he is concerned with the City - the land adjacent to the area -
not the individual, and suggested the matter be taken under advisement because
they might deny the petition and the Council in turn mi§ht approve - he would
like to have the meeting with the Council before a decision is made.
Mr. Greenstein asked to be heard.
Mr. Tent .mentioned the hearing had been concluded and a ;notion to take the matter
under advisement has been made. A roll call of this motion was made and unani-
mously passed.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the matter taken under advisement.
Mr. Tent asked Mr. Greenstein if he is in agreement with this action.
Mr. Wrightman suggested that petitioner be advised by Mr. Greenstein that
the matter is being studied; that he should come to the Commission with concrete
information that might be of benefit to the Commission as to the manner the
property will be used, the proposed buildings, what same will look like; future
prospects of the business; what portion of the building is for sales, office and
repair.
Mr. Tent stated he should come in with a plan of the building; its location
on the lot, etc.
Mr. Walker stated petitioner should check to be sure Mr. Hull gets all the facts
and the Commission can take action at the next regular meeting.
Mr. Greenstein stated he would submit the necessary information to the Commission.
The matter was taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-28
by Charest and Clancy, attorneys for Harold L. and Jean Thomas
requesting to rezone property located west of Middlebelt Road,
south of Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, from
RUFA to C-2.
On motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, it was
#10-141-69 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 14, 1969 on Petition 69-9-1-28 by Charest and Clancy,
attorneys for Harold L. and Jean Thomas, requesting to rezone
property located west 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;'
th-t Petition 69-9-4-28 be denied for the following reasons;
5713
(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;
(4) the rezoning of this land to the commercial category would
reduce the size of the lot area to the west so as to make
it non-conforming in the RUF District;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of September 24, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent
to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company,
Michigan Bell Telephone 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: Tent, Wrightmal Heusted, Moser, Colomina, Santo, LaBo,
Tunis
NAYS: Walker
Mr. Walker stated that he voted Nay because there are three reasons in the
prepared resolution he does not concur with and therefore regrets he had to
vote Nay.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
The audience asked that the foregoing resolution be read. Mr. Wrightman read
the reasons for the denial, stating that those are the reasons he based his vote
on.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-29 by
the Taubman Company, Inc. requesting to rezone property located
on the north side of Plymouth Road, east of Sears Road, in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, from M-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent stated this matter would be taken under advisement to give petitioner
the opportunity to come to the next study session - the Planning Department to
contact them for th t purpose.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-18
by Curran Construction Company, Inc. , requesting to be granted
a waiver use permit to build a McDonald's Restaurant on the
east side of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and St. Martins in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1.
On motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Tunis, and unanimously
carried, it was
5714
#10-142-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on Petition 69-9-2-18 by Curran Construction Company, Inc.
requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to build a
McDonald's Restaurant on the east side of Middlebelt Road
between Bretton and St. Martins in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Planning Commission that Petition 69-9-2-18 be
denied for the following reasons:
(1) a use of this type will generate a high volume of
traffic that could conflict with the traffic flow
along Middlebelt Road;
(2) the proposed use conflicts with the spirit of the
Master Plan for the Livonia Mall study area;
(3) a use of this type would have an adverse effect on the
adjacent development and detract from the stability of
the general use;
(4) the proposed use is not of such location, size and
character that it will be in harmony with the appropriate
and orderly development of the surrounding area;
(5) there are numerous similar existing facilities within the
general area that will provide a similar service to the
people of the City;
(6) f_t is the expressed intention of the petition to allow
eating in patrons' cars which is prohibited by Ordinance
N
No. 711 of the City of Livonia;
(7) there is a problem extending sanitary sewer to this site
which may make development impractical.
(8) there is no adequate solution for storm sewer at this
time and it will be at least two years before a solution
is available when Branch #6 or #7 of Livonia Drain #27
is completed. It does not seem reasonable to grant a
waiver use for this site that only runs for one year
when there will be no solution for the storm sewer problems
for at least two years.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was
sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and
City Departments, as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-19
by Denne Land Company for Livonia Elks Lodge requesting to be
granted a waiver use permit to use grounds located on the
east side of Denne between Plymouth Road and Dalhay in the
7 Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, for a picnic grove.
5715
On motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Heusted and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-143-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on October 14, 1969 on Petition 69-9-2-19 submitted by Denne
Land Company for Livonia Elks Lodge requesting to be granted
a waiver use permit to use grounds located on the east side
of Denne between Plymouth Road and Dalhay in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 35, for a picnic grove, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-9-2-19 be approved subject to the following
condition:
(1) that the 27' right-of-way for the ultimate development
of Plymouth Road be dedicated to the City;
(2) this is a logical adjunct to the existing use and will
not have an adverse effect on adjacent development.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was
sent to property owners within 500 feet; petitioner and
City Departments, as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-20
by Nu-Process Industries Inc., requesting to be granted a waiver
use permit to construct a coin-operated car wash on property
located on Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
On motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Moser, it was
#10-144-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on October 14, 1969 on Petition 69-9-2-20 submitted by Nu-
Process Industries, Inc. requesting to be granted a waiver
use permit to construct a coin-operated car wash on property
_located on Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark
Road on the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning
Department does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-9-2-20 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the development concept for this particular site
has changed and the Commission no longer believes
that the intended use can be compatible with the
adjacent development and have a stabilizing influence;
(2) conditions along Plymouth Road have changed within the
last year; traffic has increased and the calibre and
quality of development is increasing; a facility of
this type could have an adverse effect on both the
traffic-carrying capacity of Plymouth Road and on its
development potential;
1
5716
(3) the proposed use' is not of such location, size and
character that it will be in harmony with the orderly
development of the surrounding area;
(4) there are existing facilities within the general area
which provide a similar service to the people of our
City;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City
Departments, as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walker, Tent, Wrightman, Heusted, Moser, Colomina,
Santo, Tunis
NAYS: LaBo
Mr, Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-21 by
Angelo DiPonio requesting to be granted a waiver use permit
to use property located on the west side of Merriman Road
between Schoolcraft and the C & 0 Railway in Section 27 for
heavy construction equipment repair.
On motion by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously carried, it was;
#10-145-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on October 14, 1969 on Petition 69-9-2-21 by Angelo DiPonio
requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to use property
located on the west side of Merriman Road between Schoolcraft
and the C & 0 Railway in Section 27 for heavy construction
c< _ equipment repair, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-9-2-21 bg
approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the petitioner is hereby advised, and acknowledges,
that he has been made aware of the need for a future
30 foot right-of-way dedication along the entire southern
portion of the property covered by this petition for the
development of an Industrial Road which will traverse
the entire North 1/2 of Section 27;
(2) that the waiver be granted conditioned upon the repair
and storage of only tunnelling equipment and related
items;
(3) that the sanctioned landscape plan be adhered to and
that all plant material and site development indicated
be installed within one year after the zoning compliance
permit is issued;
(4) that the existing residences be removed from the site
within six months after the expiration date of the
present lease;
5717
(5) that the buildings will not be occupied by personnel
employed by the petitioner;
for the following reason:
v
(1) the proposed use will make use of an existing structure
and will not noticeably change the effect upon the
adjacent development;
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was
sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and
City Departments, as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is letter dated
September 26, 1969 from L. R.Schrader requesting a one-year
extension on preliminary plat for Livonia Freeway Industrial
Park Subdivision #1 located in the west 1/4 of Section 18.
On motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Santo and unanimously
carried it was
#10-146-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated September 26, 1969
from L. R. Schrader for a one year extension on preliminary
plat for Livonia Freeway Industrial Park Subdivision #1 located
in the west 1/2 of Section 18, the City Planning Commission
does hereby grant said request for the following reason:
(1) the development concept has not changed and is still valid.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated
September 19, 1969 from Jacob Menuck requesting a one-year
extension on preliminary plat for Country:Homes Estate #4
located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Tent asked if there were any changes.
Petitioner stated no changes - will start development next fall.
On motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-147-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated September 19, 1969
from Jacob Menuck for a one year extension on preliminary
plat for Country Homes Estates #4 located in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 8, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant
said request for the following reason:
(1) the development concept has not changed and is still valid.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
5718
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the Final Plat Approval
for Mar-Git Subdivision #2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 24.
I
Mr. Tent stated that in connection with this matter there is a problem of
immovable boundaries and a letter must accompany the resolution to Council.
On motion by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously carried,
it was
#10-148-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the final plat of Mar-Git Subdivision
#2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 be given final approval
for the following reasons:
(1) it substantially conforms to the previously approved
preliminary plat;
(2) all 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 #12-155-68 adopted on
December 3, 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 Works,
Engineering Division, under date of November 25, 1968 and it
further appearing that the financial assurances required in
CR #945-69 adopted on September 3, 1969 have been filed with
11110
the City Clerk, as confirmed by letter dated September 16, 1969
from Addison 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, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is letter dated
September 17, 1969 from Elliott Schubiner requesting modification
of site plan (Petition 68-1-8-1) for Merriman Park Apartments
located on the east side of Merriman Road, south of Eight Mile
Road; in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2.
On motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously carried,
it was
#10-149-69 RESOLVED that pursuant to a request dated September 17, 1969
from Elliott Schubiner requesting modification of site plan
(Petition 68-1-8-1) for Merriman Park Apartments located on
the east side of Merriman Road, south of Eight Mile Road, in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2 to allow building #8 and building
#9 to be changed from two bedroom units to one bedroom units, the
following reason:
5719
(1) this change does not substantially alter the original
development concept and the Commission believes it is
more desirable to have a higher ratio of one bedroom
t units than two bedroom units.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is letter dated
October 7, 1969 from J. J. Stone requesting that Tiffany
Park Subdivision #5 be divided into two subdivisions; Tiffany
Park Subdivision #5 and Tiffany Park Subdivision #6.
Mr. Hull stated that a quit claim deed for park lands necessary for dedication
for approval of the plat had been received from Mr. Stone only, no quit claim
deed with all signatures which are necessary has been received as yet (Mr.
Stone does not own the land free and clear) ; Mr. Hull suggested that this deed
be accepted and a proper document be brought in as soon as pobsible.
Mr. Wrightman read the letter dated October 7, 1969 from J.J.Stone.
Mr. Hull stated he is trying to effectuate a park plan in Section 19.
On motion duly made by Mr. Santo, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-150-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated October 7, 1969 from
J.J.Stone requesting that Tiffany Park Subdivision #5 located in
Section 19, be divided into two subdivisions, Tiffany Park Sub-
division #5 and Tiffany Park Subdivision #6, the City Planning
Commission does hereby grant said request, Tiffany Park Sub-
ddivision #5 to include lots #1 through #81 and Tiffany Park #6
to include lots #82 through #129, as indicated on the preliminary
plat received September 11, 1969 by the Planning Department, for
the following reason:
(1) the plat has been held up by conditions above and beyond
the petitioner's control due to the complexity of lands
effected by the 1-96 and 1-275 Interchange.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-5-2 by
Greenfield Construction Company requesting renewal of topsoil
removal permit (Petition 68-8-5-3) to remove topsoil from
property located at Six Mile and Newburgh Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 7 and Northeast 1/4 of Section 18.
On motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
5720
#10-151-69 RESOLVED that, in conformance with Section 18.13B of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant Petition 69-9-5-2 as submitted by Greenfield
Construction Company requesting renewal of topsoil renewal
permit (Petition 68-8-5-3) to remove topsoil from property
located at Six Mile and Newburgh Road in the southeast 1/4 of
Section 7 and Northeast 1/4 of Section 18, subject to the
following condition:
•
(1) that all the requirements of the Inspection Department,
Police Department and Engineering Department be adhered
to and that the grading plan dated July 31, 1968 indicating
the scope of work be adhered to;
SUBJECT to continuance of the bonds deposited with the City
Clerk a corporate surety bond in the amount of $27,500 and
a cash bond in the amount of $2,750; such bonds shall be
for an indefinite period until released and discharged by
resolution of the City Planning Commission; and
FURTHER resolved that, pursuant to Section 18.13B of Ordinance
#543, the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, the
extension is hereby authorized for a period of one year and
the applicant shall apply for and obtain the extension herein
authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this
resolution.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
11110 adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-2-16 by
the Cheyenne Building Company requesting to be granted a waiver
use permit to erect a restaurant on property located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge in
Section 14.
Mr. LaBo moved that the waiver use be granted conditioned on the site plan
submitted being adhered to and implemented in a two-year period.
Mr. Tent stated petitioner had agreed he will work with the Planning Department
on the site plan proposal.
Mr. Hull stated they still need a committnent from Mr. Spoon as the original
plan called for a 3-year period. He stated that they had worked on several
plans since the last meeting, at which time the Commission agreed to look into
Mr. Spoon's problems. A modified plan has since been made for the development
of trees in the parking area, certain amount of landscaping, screening of gas
station and existing Burger Chef, with redwood fences instead of masonry walls;
all in all they have come up with a figure of roughly $6500.00 which includes
everything; Mr. Spoon has agreed to that point.
Phase I deals with the beautification of the existing center and additions now
under construction ($5,000.00) and Phase II deals with the proposed additions
to take place in the future ($1500.00) .
Mr. Urightman asked if Phase II has no time limit?
5721
Mr. Hull stated it is a projection - to be done concurrently with the additions
to be constructed at the center.
Mr. Spoon stated he thought there would be three phases.
Mr. Wrightman stated that as planned, the existing center would be over a 2
year period and the other could go five years.
Mr. Hull stated that it is his recommendation that the whole thing be done in
2 years - Phase I in one year.
Mr. Spoon stated he could not do it in one year.
A short discussion followed and the Commission agreed that two years would be
satisfactory as to Phase I and as to Phase II it could be done at the same time
the buildings are constructed.
Mr. Santo asked when Petitioner would put up the redwood fence.
Mr. Nagy wanted Petitioner to realize that the $6,500.00 figure relates to today's
prices and if the construction is done two years from now it will be that much
more.
Mr. Spoon stated he understood the agreement and agreed.
Mr. LaBo changed the motion to that the Plan #2 dated October 13, 1969 prepared by
the Planning Department be adhered to with Phase I being done within two years
and Phase II concurrently with the remaining development.
Mr. Spoon agreed to this.
On the motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-152-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-6-2-16 as submitted by the
Cheyenne Building Company requesting to be granted a waiver
use permit to erect a restaurant on property located on the
north side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge
in Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recom-
mend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-2-16 be approved
for the following reason:
(1) The intended use is a logical adjunct to a commercial
development of this type;
and, with the following conditions of approval;
(1) That Phase I as specified on Plan #2, dated 10/13/69,
prepared by the Planning Department for site improvement,
be adhered to and implemented over a two-year period.
(2) That Phase II as specified on Plan #2, dated 10/13/69,
prepared by the Planning Department for site improvement,
be completed concurrently with the additional commercial
development.
5722
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was sent
to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Depart-
ments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is motion by the City
Planning Commission, on its own motion, to hold a public hearing
to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10, Definitions
of Miscellaneous Terms, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance,
by adding paragraph (19).
On motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-153-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission on its own motion
does hereby determine to hold a public hearing to teternine whether
or not to amend Section 2.10, Definitions of Miscellaneous
Terms, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, by adding paragraph (19).
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is motion by the City
Planning Commission, on its own motion, to hold a public hearing
to determine whether or not to amend Sections 4.03, 5.03, 9.03,
and 10.03, Waiver Uses, or ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, by adding a paragraph to each
section to provide for fraternal or religious organizations in
the R-1 through R-5 districts, and the RUF District.
On motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. LaBo, it was
#10-154-69 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby move
to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend
Section 4.03, 5.03, 9.03 and 10.03, Waiver Uses, of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,
by adding a paragraph to each section to provide for fraternal
or religious organizations in the R-1 through P.-5 Districts,
and the RUF District.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following;
AYES: [.talker, Tent, t•7rightman, Heusted, Colomina, LaBo and Tunis
NAYS: Moser and Santo
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City
Planning Commission, on its own motion pursuant to Livonia Housing
Commission Resolution #67-69, to hold a public hearing to determine
whether or not to rezone Parcel 02V2 located at Purlingbrook Avenue
and St. Martins Avenue in Section 2, from R-1 to R-9 to accommodate
a senior citizens' housing project.
5723
On a motion duly made by Mrs Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-15569 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine on its own motion, pursuant to Livonia Housing
Commission Resolution #67-69, to hold a public hearing
to determine whether or not to rezone Parcel 02V2, located
at Purlingbrook Avenue and St. Martins Avenue in Section 2,
from R-1 to R-9 to accommodate a senior citizens' housing
project.
Mrs tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
Ou1y adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is approval of the
minutes of the meeting held by the City Planning Commission,
as amended, on September 16, 1969.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Santo, it was
#10-156-69 RESOLVED that, the Planning Commission does hereby approve
the minutes of their regular meeting held September 16, 1969
as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walker, Wrightman, Heusted, Moser, Colomina, Santo
LaBo and Tunis
NAYS: None
11:0ABSTAIN: Tent
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
carried.
Mr. Dan Andrew requested a special meeting on the 28th of October, 1969 for
Car Corporation for occupancy of existing speculative industrial building for
concept design of prototype and engineering development and also occupy the land
area immediately north of the building, measuring 200 feet wide by 350 feet deep
for manufacturers new car storage. Car Corporation must be in by November 1st.
He stated the Council agreed to hold a meeting on November 1st or November 3rd -
they will wait two days if necessary.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Santo, seconded by Mr. Heusted and unanimously
carried, it was
#10-157-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission conduct a public
hearing on October 28, 1969 at the Livonia City Hall, 33001
Five Mile Road, Livonia as requested by Mr. Andrew for Car
Corporation, petitioner, for the purpose of occupying existing
speculative industrial building for concept design of prototype
and engineering development and also occupy a land area immediately
north of the building measuring 200 feet wide by 350 feet deep
for manufacturers new car storage.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
5724
Mr. Tent stated there was a meeting to be held relating to TALUS study at the
City County Building on October 15, 1959; that the Mayor, John Nagy and Mr-.
Hull would attend and felt the Commission should diso be represented,
Mr. Colomina stated that with ref erenbe to the petition for the McDonald's
restaurants he would like Reason #6 added to show the expressed intention of
the petitioner to allow eating in the bar which is prohibited by ordinance
of the City of Livonia; the Commission agreed to amend the resolution to add
this reason,
Oh a Motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
carried, the City Planning Commission adjourned its 210th Regular Meeting held
on October 14, 1969 at approximately 11:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
d • maw,
Harry '&7r' tman, retary
ATTEST:
Ray nd W. Tent, Chairman