HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-12-09 MINUTES OF THE 212th REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday,. December 9, 1969, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 212th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall.
Mr. Raymond W. Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately
8:10 p.m. with approximately 40 interested persons in the audience.
Members Present: Raymond Tent Robert Colomina Harry Wrightman
• Donald Heusted Marvin Moser Joel LaBo
Charles Walker Frank Santo H. Dow Tunis
Absent: None •
Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director;
John Dufour, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Department; Mr. Robert Feinberg,
Law Department, were also present.
Mr. Wrightman announced that the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-37
by W. L. Baron of Standard Oil Company requesting to rezone property
located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road and Levan Road in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file dated November 5, 1969 from Mr.
Strasser, City Engineer, stating there are no engineering problems; however, a
e 27' right-of-way dedication is required.
Mr. Tent stated this is the third proposal from Standard Oil to renovate existing
gas stations in the City and to do this C-1 classification would not permit it
and C-2 zoning is necessary.
Mr. Baron, representing Standard Oil, stated the petitioner wants to dress up
their gas stations; in this instance, however, they want to demolish the gas station
move it back 30 to 40 feet; will have two approaches from Five Mile Road and two
on Levan; he showed the sketch of the service station intended, ranch type, stated
' he would remove islands on Five Mile Road; will add the required landscaping; also .
2' of sod completely around the property.
Mr. Tent advised petitioner they would have to apply for a waiver use inasmuch
as additional land is required and to make it compatible waiver use permit will .
__ required. He also asked if petitioner 'is agreeable to 27' right-of-way dedication
- „'-. Strasser.
Mr. Baron stated that with regard to the right-of-way he would like to discuss
thiat at a later date, but he presumed there' would be no problem and would do what-
ever was necessary; he also stated petitioner is aware they will need a waiver use
permit.
Mr. Tent stated that petitioner could see no foreseeable problem. '
•
Mr. Baron agreed.
Mr. Tent stated the waiver use would be conditioned upon the 27' being granted.
Mr. Baron stated this is understood.
5759
Mr. Hull stated that Five Mile Road is going to be improved within the next year
or shortly thereafter - the City would be acquiring the right-of-way in about six
months. He stated the procedure outlined for this petition is workable but should
L
be consummated within six months prior to the time when the City would have to go
out for it.
Mr. Baron stated he did not know how soon the waiver use and zoning change could
be done.
Mr. Tent asked if building permits, etc. could be obtained within six months
would petitioner execute a quit claim deed to be executed when the petition is
transmitted to Council with the understanding that if petition is withdrawn the
deed would be returned.
Mr. Baron asked if a letter or statement from an officer of the company would
be sufficient, covering the proposed dedication, etc.
Mr. Tent stated a letter or statement such as suggested would be sufficient.
Mr. Wrightman advised the petitioner that first the land must be rezoned; the
rezoning is no good without the waiver use; at the time the waiver use is passed
petitioner would be ready to dedicate the property on Five Mile Road and added
this should be dedicated before the County comes in for the dedication.
Mr. Walker stated he felt the Commission would act on this matter tonight, further
discussed the procedure and added that nothing should hold up the Road Commission
If petitioner is interested in putting in the station they will be back sooner
than six months and asked that petitioner prepare and bring back the quit claim
deed prior to the hearing on the waiver use.
4
Mr. Baron stated they are ready to go on the station.
Mr. Walker stated that the deed should then be brought back when they have the
hearing on the waiver.
Mr. Baron agreed to this.
Mr. Tent advised petitioner that if the petition is withdrawn the deed would be
returned as null and void.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-1-39 by
Prescott Homes, Inc. , requesting to rezone property located north
of Joy Road, east of Newburgh Road, in Section 32 from RUF to R-2.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file from Consumers Power dated November
25, 1969 showing no problem on this petition; the letter from the City Engineer,
dated November 13, 1969 stated the area cannot be developed until the completion
of Livonia Drain #29, scheduled for the summer of 1970; adding there is a 60'
right-of-way requirement on Joy Road.
Mr. Vern Schrader, representing petitioner, explained the proposed subdivision
the surrounding properties; that adjacent properties are 60' lots and -.by making
70' lots they would be upgrading the area instead of downgrading it. Petitioner
is the same builder who developed Kenwood Park. He added that with respect to the
60' right-of-way on Joy Road, petitioner does not cwn anything on Joy Road so they
cannot go along with the request.
5760
Mr. Tent stated that this property was previously brought up for this purpose
and advised that the Commission advised the interested party at :that time they
IL: would prefer R-3 zoning - 80' lots - inasmuch as they want to reduce the density
that to accept R-2 zoning would be back-tracking.
Mr. Schrader again stated he felt that 70' lots are better than the 60' lots in
the area and the building proposed for the area would increase the value of the
land in the area.
Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner owns the property or has an option to buy.
Mr. Schrader replied, he assumes they have an option to buy.
Mr. Wrightman stated that because of the present density in the area they feel
they must try to alleviate this by trying to get R-3 zoning. He added that be-
cause of the cost of things today it would take a large house to sell it and
80' lots are his recommendation for this purpose.
Mr. Walker asked how many lots there would be lost between the R-2 and R-3.
Mr. Hull stated approximately 10 lots.
There was a short discussion with regard to the division of this remaining RUF
land to small lots; the fact that the Commission encourages large size lots;
the fact that there are large lots available. Mr. Talker stated that in the
northeast area of the City they encouraged large lots and the City is better for
it today.
Mr. Schrader stated that they would have to put up $40,000 to $45,000 homes on
large lots.
Mr. Tent stated that Knottingham Woods is an example of a petitioner asking first
for 60' lots - petitioner there built after 2 years homes worth as much as
$67,000.00. He discussed the possibility of this petitioner absorbing the extra
lots hexwould lose to upgrade the area, etc. but petitioner's representative
could not go along with the suggestion.
Mr. Wrightman brought up the question of Park dedication for recreation purposes.
He stated that this is a petition for zoning change only; if granted the zoning
change the preliminary plat would have to dedicate land for recreational purposes.
He suggested that if petitioner would go R-3 the commission could waive the
contribution of the footage.
Mr. Tent asked what the problem is with regard to the right-of-way.
Mr. Hull stated there is a need for a point of access from Joy Road to the
subdivision and the petitioner should acquire a portion along Joy Road to provide
this so the traffic is not all carried through the existing residential sub-
division.
Mr. Tent asked who is the owner.
Mr. Hull stated there is one vacant parcel - the middle one - and that could
be used for this purpose.
Mr. Al Cekel, 36650 Joy Road, stated he owns the property just west of the vacant
land and has no objection to the petition.
5761
Mr. Wrightman stated that Mr. Cekel must have heard that the Engineers require
an easement along Joy Road and asked if he will dedicate part.
Mr. Cekel replied, no - he would not dedicate anything. He stated when he built
there he inquired about water and was told there would be none for 20 Years and
he had to put in a well costing $1,000.00.
Mr. Tent stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-1-40
by L. R. Schrader requesting to rezone property located on the
northeast corner of Melvin Avenue and Clarita in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 11, from R-1-A to P.S.
Mr. Tent stated the letter in the file from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, dated
November 18, 1969 showed no objections to the petition; and Consumers Power
also had no objection. He added a letter from Mrs. Thomas F. O'Connor, of
30145 W. Seven Mile Road, is in the file objecting to the petition.
Mr. Hull stated there are no right-of-way requirements on this site.
Mr. Schrader, petitioner, stated this petition was for a building complex of
which two buildings would first be constructed as an engineering office and
other buildings to be built in accordance with the City ordinances as tenants
are obtained; all tenants would be of a professional type. He stated thatihis
development would not downgrade the area. It would consist of two story buildings
of colonial type structure, with green areas around them, greenbelt in back and
along Melvin.
There was a short discussion about the surrounding parcels of land.
Mr. Tent asked petitioner if he intended to go ahead with the building if
petition is granted.
Mr. Schrader stated he would build one building now, on the northern part of the
parcel.
Mr. Tent stated he understood they would build two buildings to start.
Mr. Schrader stated he would only build one at this time.
Mr. Tent asked if the design of the building structures would be compatible.
Mr. Schrader stated the fronts might change a little but otherwise would be very
much the same.
Mr. Walker asked if the Master Plan showed this property for P.S.
Mr. Hull explained that the P.S. is shown for a buffer use to protect the adjacent
residential area to the south.
Mr. Walker asked how far south.
Mr. Hull replied, to Clarita.
"5762
Mr. Carl Duning stated this type of development is detrimental to any residential
area; he erected a new house on his property and was told the land would be
residential.
Mr. Tent advised him that this land falls in the realm of the Master Plan;
the Commission established guide lines for the zoning classifications, their
goal being high calibre development. This petition being considered is for
P. S. which conforms with the Master Plan.
Mr. Duning asked if anyone on the Commission would build directly south of the
area with this development on it, adding that the land to the north is for sale
and can be zoned P. S.
Mr. LaBo asked how long the Master Plan has been a matter of record.
Mr. Hull replied, September, 1965.
Mr. LaBo advised those are the guide lines used by the Commission and asked
Mr. Duning when he purchased his land.
Mr. Duping answered, last year, adding, however, that the Commission just
recently rezoned the parcel of land in question to residential.
Mr. Tent informed him that the residents were told in 1965 of the Livonia
Master Plan - it became a matter of record and was discussed with the residents
who lived in the area. Now the petitioner is asking for the Classification
set forth in the Master Plan.
1!: There was a short discussion; Mr. Duning stated there was nothing to tell him of
this, he was just advised the zoning of his land was residential as was the
parcel in question; and Mr. Tent informed him that the Zoning Map of the City
would show residential - it being the present map - but the Master Plan is a
map of the Future and does not actually change the property. Mr. Tent added
that this is the only control the Commission has to effectuate the plan.
Mr. Philip Hildebrande, 22986 Pickford, stated there is an overflow of hamburger
stands, etc. in their area.
Mr. Tent advised him that the Commission had approved none of the hamburger stands,
etc. in the area; the Commission has had over 15 petitions for Kentucky Fried
Chicken, Arby's etc. which they have denied.
Mr. Hildebrande stated their area suffers from traffic to and from the Mall,
adding that the streets involved are unpaved streets which the City does not
maintain; they cannot get out on Seven Mile Road because of the traffic going
to the Mall; the drainage in the area is very poor and with a large parking
area there it will be worse.
Mr. Tent referred to the Engineers' report adding that if there is a drainage
problem it will be checked out as well as all other problems brought up at this
meeting. He stated the Commission approved commercial in the area and asked
what can be put in the area to generate parking and traffic to a lesser degree -
P.S. is what most residential areas want instead of all commercial.
Mr. Hildebrande stated if the property remains residential there will be no
problem.
5763
Mr. LaBo discussed the problem stating that the property on Seven Mile Road
would go commercial and no one wants to have residences backing up to the
commercial zoning - the best thing is P,S, to eliminate this buffer would destroy
everything. He addressed Mrd Duning stating that it is a shame that he having
1[5: moved into the city in the past two years had not been told the land would be
changed.
Judith Bushing, 18965 Melving, stated she is the property owner most effected
by this because she lives directly across the street. She gave various reasons
for objecting to this complex, i.e. did not want to live across from office
buildings; suggested that if the office complex is so beautiful it be put on
a main street instead of a side street; traffic and congestion would increase.
She commended the Commission for voting the apartments down before and hoped
they would do the same on this petition.
Mr. LaBo stated that the Commission and the Mayor are opposed to the apartments
but the Council passes inspi le of their recommendations. He stated that the
same goes for the hamburger stands, etc. - they reject them only to have them
approved by the Council.
Mr. Colomina agreed with Mr. LaBo, as did Mr. Tent who added that the Commission
had just turned down McDonald's in this area and the petition would be going
before Council, suggesting that they appear there.
Mr. Walker discussed the Commission's work around the City, bringing in high-
rise buildings, etc. He stated that the Commission is not talking in terms of
individual lots - they talk in Sections of the City, this is only a small part
which goes into the Master Plan; P.S. was approved by the people of the City
as the best use between Commercial and residential which is why it is in this
location on the Master Plan. He discussed the office complex suggested here,
the landscaping, the structures to be built; he added that the Commission is
aware that they are substandard streets and know that before anyone can come
in to build in the area they have to be improved. He stated it would easily
be that the gentleman in the audience did not know it was on the Master Plan;
as an example he stated there is much land slated for park land, etc. however,
until the City is able to purchase it the zoning will not change; he discussed
the proposed purchases by the City for Fire Stations, etc. He stated the
Commission is certainly interested in the people and their welfare and protection
of the property but if you will look at Eight Mile Road you will understand what
happens when you live in an area without a Master Plan - there is no control
there - the same could happen in the area in question if the Commission does not
stay with their plan.
Mr. Charles H. Daniels of 18903 Melvin objected to the petition stating that
Melvin is a race track as people use it to by-pass the light on Seven Mile Road;
not just cars but big trucks. He asked what would happen with the traffic with
another large complex in there; he stated the drain there has only been cleaned
out once in 23 years.
Mrs. Nancy King, 18947 stated that petitioner is a Civil Engineer, has three
pick-up trucks, will probably start at 7 a.m. , the trucks would probably be
parked in the area as well, downgrading the adjacent property.
1[; Mr. Tent stated in P.S. zoning parking of trucks is not allowed, they would
have to be parked somewhere else.
5764
Mr. Schrader stated the people take the trucks home overnight - a fringe benefit
they won't be parked in the area.
Mr. Peter Henry Foss, 18826 Melvin stated he is opposed to the rezoning and
stated his reasons, i.e. not enough greenbelt; too much parking; traffic would
be dad; he added he would not be opposed to one story buildings and more lands
scaping.
Mr. Tent stated that even gas stations have to be adequately landscaped; that
Mr. Schrader has done other buildings in the City and done beautiful work on
the landscaping, assuring the audience this would be no problem. He added that
the Commission had taken in all the comments and is interested in all of them.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-1-38
by Van Dyke Homes requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Merriman Road, in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 to R-2.
Mr. Tent stated that a letter on file dated November 25,. 1969 from Consumers
Power had no problems or objections to the petition; a letter dated November 18,
1969 from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, stated the southerly 350' of the property
is designated flood plain and cannot be built on and also question whether the
sanitary sewer on the adjacent street would be adequate. Also, right-of-way
for Seven Mile Road of 60' and Bainbridge of 27' would be required.
Mr. Vern Schrader was present to represent the petitioner in this matter. They
are asking for 70' lots but will build on 75' lots with the exception of three
lots on Seven Mile Road; the surrounding area has 40 and 45' lots and 75' lots
would upgrade the area as far as quality and density; he added the southerly 3
acres could be dedicated to the City for park purposes.
Mr. Tent stated they started with R-7 zoning and would like R-3 80' lots.
He stated the builder would lose 3 or 4 lots and the density would be decreased.
He asked if petitioner had considered this.
Mr. Schrader stated they would lose 4 lots and after considering this it becomes
a matter of economics; there are building sites of 40' and the Commission is
asking for 80' lots - he asked if the Commissioners would buy such an expensive
house across the street from 40' lots.
Mr. Colomina stated that petitioner is discussing the houses across the street -
there are two houses there.
Mr. Schrader stated Mr. Colomina is right, he was referring to one street over.
They had a short discussion about the building of homes on present vacant areas
in the 45' lot areas and the fact that the builders would have to have two lots
to build.
Mr. Wrightman stated that Mr. Schrader stresses the economics with regard to R-5,
R-3, etc. On Melvin there is R-5 - he asked what classification of home he
would say would have to be built on there to be feasible for the developer.
Mr. Schrader stated on 100' lots $60,000.00 homes.
5765
Mr. Wrightman stated the R-3 is justified because you need large lots and builders
cannot build a cheap house anymore.
Mr. Dembs, the owner of the property, stated that it is so expensive to build a
house, if you add the additional cost of a larger lot you are pricing it out of
the market. He proceeded to discuss home prices two years .ago as compared to
today's market. He stated these are cul-de-sac lots which are' more expensive and
if they must go 80' they will have to be cut out. '
Mr. Tent stated they need the 80' lots if they are to reduce density; if the
Commission downgrades they defeat 'their own purpose in planning the City.
Mr. Dembs stated the Commission has not kept up with the times - he advised them
that the selling price of a home on a 60' lot now is the .same price as on an 80'
lot three years ago.
---Mr. Santo 'advised him that the Commission cannot work for the individual but
for what is best for the City.
Mr. Dembs stated he has been building for ten years and is also interested in
the City.
Mr. Tent. advised him that the original parcel was for R-7 and they 'have come
down to R-3. • '
•
Mr. Walker stated that this piece has come beforethe' Cotnmission on several
occasions - a convalescent home,. apartments, etc. and they have seen three or.
four different plans on the cul-de-sac type of developments and believes in all
/11
fairness when you look at the map of the .City, where Mr. Dembs himself owns a lot
of land, he must understand that they will be effected by what the Commission does
with this; adding that it is not reasonable to turn down anything other than.
R-3.
•
Mr. Bushing asked if there would be any way out on Merriman and was advised there
would not. He discussed the time it takes to get out on Seven Mile Road, the
traffic problem and the fact that they are landlocked with only the exit on
Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Wrightman suggested that this is a traffic problem and should be taken up with
the Traffic Commission to send a recommendation to this Commission so that they
will have something to go by - the name having suggested a road-to Merriman.
Mr. Tent suggested to the audience that on problems of traffic nature they should
contact Bill Hodges and Lt. Thorne. One resident suggested the property by zoned
P.S. as the school problem is so bad - his children having only 1/2 day sessions.
Mrs. Bushing asked how they can petition to widen Seven Mile Road and 'was advised
to take it first to the Traffic Commission if it is a traffic problem.
Mr. LaBo stated that the Planning Commission did recommend in their five year
improvement program the widening of Seven Mile Road.
Mr. Wrightman stated that with regard to improvement of roads the Commission has
worked with these programs and Five Mile 'and Newburgh are being widened; and
discussed the Farmington Road viaduct, etc.
5766
Mr. Tent, Chaircan, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mara Wri�hLti'an announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-22 by
Edward J. 3ulf_nski for Mid-S:_x Marathon Service Station requesting
to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental and storage
of trucks on property located on the southwest corner of Six Mile
and Middlebelt Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14.
Mf. Teat stated that thin matter was acted upon a few months ago and at that
time it :,.a<: denied; and was not appealed to the City Council and because of that
they nee:: to return to re--petition again.
Mr, Robert Trer:p, representing petitioner on items 5 and 6 on the agenda stated
that theae are not trailers, they are trucks; there will be no servicing of
trucks and teera will be no more than six on the property - they would be
Econol.ir-e Vans. He added that this is the area least offensive and is something
the citizens need and therefore should be allowed.
Mr, Tent stated that they have tried to discourage this activity on gas station
„_ea tr eilcrs always seem to block the corners, etc. and is their feeling
that this service is not connected with service stations.
Mr. Nagy showed slides of the various local gas stations with trailers and trucks
as s .Jc line - how they blocked the vision of drivers, they are parked up to
the^sidewalk and, on the whole, downgrade the gas station.
ir. Tent ,.ed how Mr. 'Temp happen to be representing both locations appearing
en ,.he agenda, and was advised that both petitioners had contacted him.
Ur, 11 _ hts_an stated he cannot understand why people apply for gas stations
IL stating they will only sell gas and then they come in stating they need extra
rovenu.,.
Mr, Tremp stated the issue is not revenue but the need of the community. Many
persons -..se this type cf truck to make a move within the City.
Th,.-es t,;,, a ,_':cession about the similar oeerations in the area; the fact that
tae-_e is adequate truck rental.
Hr. Santo asked if Mr. Treap was representing each of the petitioners or the
cen72 :, and was advised that he _ s associated with Mr. Cummins and they are on a
retainer fee, r ,id directly by Marathon Oil,
Ur Tran-_:,, steed that these petitions are for vans - not more than 6.
Mr. Tne noted that petitioners always begin this way and they end up with 15.
T- -- Y,--:P,' With the Commission that while persons rented the vehicles
their r.aeld net he permitted to parr: their own cars there; the slides showed that
this; i; ; dame on eaee of the nurround_ g stations, as well as trucks and
vans ca;dcc'd j_a, the ria" e-hi_c1 were higher than the protective walls.
Mr. Ton Richardson of Garden City, representative of a National Car Rental
1: A _a , ac present tO answer a,ueations.
Mr. Teat stated that this petitioner requires a waiver use and that is the reason
,r teni; t_tc aeoeerance - the Coamicsi_on has not approved any of these petitions
5767
to date and from the pictures shown by Mr. Nagy the problems are clear.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
I
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-23
by Gordon V. Rumohr requesting to be granted a waiver use permit
to allow the rental and storage of trucks on property located
on the southeast corner of Merriman Road and Five Mile Road,
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
Mr. Tent stated that this petition has the same background and category as the
previous petition discussed. He stated that the file has a letter from John
Manning indicating that he uses these trailers and requested that the Commission
approve the petition; a letter dated December 3 from Mr. DiMascio asked that
the Commission deny same - one letter for and one against.
Mr. Tremp stated that this property does not abut residential, nor does the
previous petition.
Mr. Wrightman asked if there was a representative of the Shell Oil Company
or Marathon present - there was none.
Mr. Baron of the Standard Oil Company stated that his company does not want
any of these vehicles in their service stations.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-2-25
by Donald C. Deremo, attorney for Rafic A. Hordan requesting to
be granted a waiver use permit to construct an auto wash on
property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file from the City Engineer which says
there is no problem on this petition; a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Solomon,
owners of Lot 210, opposing the petition.
Mr. Tent stated that a waiver use was granted several years ago for a car wash -
it ran out and the petition died; the petition is here again with the same
request.
Mr. Deremo stated that Mr. Tent had covered the background of the petition;
he added that petitioner had heard that one of the adjacent owners had lost
their permit and thought it might be the right time to try again; he stated
that Barney's Upholstery has been demolished and would have to be a new building.
He stated they would have one station with a second bay as soon as possible;
it would be automatic - not a do-it-yourself; as proposed before.
Mr. Tent stated that Nu-Process has appealed to the Council - asked what would
happen if the Commission approved this petition and the Council also acted
favorably on the other.
Mr. Deremo suggested he would like action so this petition might reach the
Council as the same time as the other.
Mr. Walker stated that Mr. Deremo must know that it would not be proper for the
Planning Commission to put two car washes side by side.
5768
Mr. Deremo stated that he knows if the Council passes the other petition
his will fail.
1400
Mr. Hull stated the other petition will come before Council on the 17th.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Deremo if he thinks petitioner would withdraw if the
Council approves the other car wash - one would have to step down.
Mr. Wrightman stated that since approving this petition the first time, traffic
has changed and a car wash would be almost prohibitive.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-3-9
by Carl Schey requesting the vacating of a triangular gore
encroaching upon a 6' easement for public utilities located north
of Roycroft Avenue between Knowlson Avenue and Hix Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, in his letter of November 18, 1969 recommended
a 2' vacating to allow a 4' easement.
Mr. Tent asked if the structure is on the property now.,
Mr. Nagy replied, yes; the builder placed the home improperly - on the easement.
The owner of 38804 Roycroft, neighbor of the petitioner, asked if this petition
would also work for their land. If the petitioner gets 2' , she asked, why can't
they. Mr. Hull stated she would have to petition.
Mr. Wrightman asked if she was on the easement - she was not.
Mr. Tent stated that because of the location of the easement on the property
they could not sell the property - there would not be clear title.
Mr. Hull stated that on any petition, an easement is not vacated without a good
reason.
Mr. Tent advised the owner of 38804 Roycroft that they are not included in
this petition; they would have to file a petition for themselves.
Mr. Walker stated that if the Commission vacates an entire easement they divide
it between two abutting property owners. Suggested that they go to the utility
companies to see if they would approve the relocation or vacation of the
easement; if not, it would not be feasible to come before the Commission.
Commission was asked if the house should be 10' off the side yard and Mr. Hull
stated one side could be 10' and the other 8' .
Mr. Tent stated this would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals as this
Commission cannot deviate on any zoning requirements.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement._
5769
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-7-10
by the City Planning Commission pursuant to request from Parks
and Recreation Commission, to amend Part V of the Master Plan,
the Master School and Park Plan, to incorporate property located
on the south side of Sunnydale, east of Middlebelt in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 13.
Mr. Nagy described the proposed park site and the surrounding areas.
Mr. Dufour of the Parks and Recreation Department, stated this park site is in
Section 13 is the only piece of property in that section, there is no other park-
site in that entire section; to the south of the proposed park is a playground
area of a school; 4 1/2 acres of land are involved in this petition for an
athletic area.
Mr. Colomina remarked on the width of the property regarding lot 70.
Mr. Dufour stated it is wide enough and has access to the park from Sunnydale
from the north. He added that if this is approved they will apply for federal
funds or a State bond issue to obtain the property.
Mr. Tent asked if there was anyone else to be heard on this matter.
Mrs. Dorothy Bruce, of the Madison Civic Association stated they had originally
asked for 5 1/4 acres for this and presented 200 signatures to the builder at
the time. She commented on the lot Mr. Colomina inquired about and stated this
is the prettiest of all the land.
Mr. Wrightman stated she mentioned a list of 200 signatures and asked if they
immediately abutted the property.
Mrs. Bruce stated she believed all the property owners abutting the property
had signed.
Mr. Tent asked if they could receive a copy of the petition.
Mrs. Bruce stated Mr. Duf our has one.
Mr_. Tent, Chairman, declared the item would be taken under advisement.
On motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously carried,
it was
#12-175-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the public hearing held on December 9, 1969 at approximately
10:40 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• 5770
Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 212th Regular Meeting to order at approximately
11:00 p.m. with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-37
by W. L. Baron of Standard Oil Company requesting to rezone
property located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road and
Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent stated that with regard to the right of way dedication, petitioner has
agreed to give a letter signed by an officer of the company in agreement.
Mr. Baron agreed to this.
On motion duly made by Mr. Santo, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
carried, it was
#12-176-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-10-1-37 as submitted by
W. L. Baron for Standard Oil Company requesting to rezone
property located on the southeast corner of Five Mile Road
and Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 from C-1 to
C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 69-10-1-37 be approved for the
following reasons:
(1) this rezoning will make the service station conform
to the zoning ordinance rather than remain as a non-
conforming use; rezoning the station to make it conform
110 is the only way the City can be assured that the station
will be improved; American Oil Company will renovate this
station when the zoning district is changed to permit
this use;
(2) there is no particular advantage to the City in keeping
this station as a legal non-conforming use;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer
under date of November 19, 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, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-1-39
by Prescott Homes Inc. requesting to rezone property located
north of Joy Road east of Newburgh Road in Section 32 from
RUF 'f0 R-2.
Mr. Heusted asked if the petitioner is present and if he would care to change
the classification request to R-3.
1EMr. Schrader stated the answer to both is no.
• 5771
On motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
0)12-177-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-11-1-39 as submitted by Prescott
Homes, Inc. requesting to rezone property located north of Joy
Road east of Newburgh Road in Section 32 from RUF to R-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 69-11-1-39 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the R-2 zoning district does not represent a logical
transition in density between the RUF residential
development to the south and the R-1 residential
development to the north;
(2) the proposed zoning change represents a substantial
increase in intensity of use which could adversely
effect the large lot residential development to the
south; and effect the utilities and community facilities;
(3) more favorable density control and open space planning
can be achieved at a higher zoning classification;
(4) it is in the best interest of the City to control density
and insure higher quality development;
FURTHER RESOLVED that,notice of the above public hearing was
public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the
Livonia Observer under date of November 19, 1969 and notice
of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company Chesa-
peake & Ohio Railway Company; Michigan Bell Telephone 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
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-1-40
by L. R. Schrader requesting to rezone property located on the
northeast corner of Melvin Avenue and Clarita in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 11 from R-1-A to P.S.
On motion by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Moser and unanimously carried, it was
#12-178-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-11-1-40 as submitted by L. R.
Schrader requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner
of Melvin Avenue and Clarita in the Northeast corner of Melvin
Avenue and Clarita in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-1-A
to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 69-11-1-40 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) the proposed zoning classification is in conformance
with the proposed future zoning as indicated in the
Livonia Mall Master Plan;
5772
(2) the professional service district will act as a
transitional use between the residential lands located
south and west from the projected non-residential lands
north and east. It is a low traffic generator and is
the most compatible non-residential use.
(3) the architectural and site layout proposed will maintain
a residential character compatible with the adjacent
residential neighborhood;
(4) there is a need for this type of development in proximity
to Livonia Mall Shopping Center;
(5) the proposed development will enable the Livonia-based
firm to construct an office complex of their own and
expand their business opportunity;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official ne- spaper, the Livonia Observer,
under date of November 19, 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, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted..
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-11-1-38
by Van Dyke Homes requesting to rezone property located on
the south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Merriman Road, in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 to R-2.
Mr. Heusted asked if the petitioner would be willing to accept the R-3
classification.
Mr. Schrader, for petitioner, replied, No.
On motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. W*i.ghtman and unanimously
carried it was
#12-179-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-11-1-38 as submitted by
Van Dyke Homes requesting to rezone property located on the
southside of Seven Mile Road, east of Merriman Road, in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 11 from R-5 to R-2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-11-1-38 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the proposed zoning change represents a use that is
more intense than the surrounding land development
and could adversely effect it; and effect the utilities
and community facilities;
(2) the proposed zoning is not compatible with the zoning
1[1:0 districts to the north and west;
5773
(3) more favorable density control and oepn space planning
can be achieved at a higher zoning classification;
(4) it is in the best interest of the City to control density
and insure a higher quality development;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer,
under date of November 19, 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, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
unanimously adopted,,
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-22
by Edward J. Bulinski for Mid-Six Marathon Service Station
requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental
and storage of trucks on property located on the southwest corner
of Six Mile and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
14.
(Mr. Tent asked Mr. Hull and Mr. Nagy to repeat their fine presentation, slides
and all, to the Council at the time this petition goes before their public
hearing).
ILOn motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#12-180-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-9-2-22 by Edward J. Bulinski
for Mid-Six Marathon Service Station requesting to be granted
a waiver use permit to allow the rental and storage of trucks
on property located on the southwest corner of Six Mile and
Middlebelt Road, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 69-9-2-22 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the proposed use would not be in harmony and appropriate
with the orderly development of the surrounding area;
(2) 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 neighborhood and will
unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood;
(3) the location of the building and its accessories will be
such that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect
upon the neighboring property and the neighboring area in
area; it may impair the value of the neighboring property
IL and discourage the appropriate development and use of the
adjacent land or building;
•
5774
(4) the location, size and intensity, site layout and periods
of operation of the proposed use can cause a nuisance
which may, be noxious to the occupant of any other nearby
permitted use by reason of dust, noise, fumes and lights;
I
(5) no provision has been made for parking of the patrons
using the rental service;
(6) the limitations of the site prevent the addition of truck
storage and patron parking on the site;
(7) the intensity of the use on so small a site will seriously
conflict with the movement of traffic and circulation on
the site and may seriously impair the value of the lands
abutting it;
(8) the intense use of a limited site intended for gas service
station purposes with the addition of another use for the
rental and storage of trailers and small panel trucks cannot
be considered as a valid accessory use;
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.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
duly adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-2-23
by Gordon V. Rumohr requesting to be granted a waiver use permit
to allow the rental and storage of trucks on property located
on the southeast corner of Merriman Road and Five Mile Road,
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23.
On motion by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously carried, it
was
#12-181-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-9-2-23 as submitted by
Gordon V. Rumohr requesting to be granted a waiver use permit
to allow the rental and storage of trucks on property located
on the southeast corner of Merriman Road and Five Mile Road,
in the northwest 1/4 of Section 23, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-9-2-23
be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the proposed use would not be in harmony and appropriate
with the orderly development of the surrounding area;
(2) 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 neighborhood and will unduly conflict
with the normal traffic of the neighborhood;
5775
(3) the location of the building and its accessories will be
such that the proposed use will have 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;
(4) the location, size and intensity, site layout and periods
of operation of the proposed use can cause a nuisance which
may be noxious to the occupant of any other nearby permitted
use by reason of dust, noise, fumes and lights;
(5) no provision has been made for parking of the patrons using
the rental services;
(6) the limitations of the site prevent the addition of truck
storage and patron parking on the site;
(7) the intensity of the use on so small a site will seriously
conflict with the movement of traffic and circulation on
the site and may seriously impair the value of the lands
abutting it;
(8) the intense use of a limited site intended for gas service
station purposes with the addition of another-use for the
rental and storage of trailers and small panel trucks cannot
be..considered as a valid accessory use;
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.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-2-25
by Donald C. Deremo, attorney for Rafic A. Jordan, requesting
to be granted a waiver use permit to construct an auto wash on
property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Moser suggested that this matter be taken under advisement until Council
acts on petition before them.
Mr. LaBo felt with a drive-through car wash immediately across the street from
the property involved, it doesn't seem acceptable to pass on this, it would
compound the problem with a 75c coin operated car wash - would like the petition
denied.
Mr. Walker stated it would not be unreasonable to hold it back and come back on
this petition - he personally is opposed to it but feels it is reasonable to see
what the Council does on the other petition.
Mr. Hull expressed concern because the Commission turned down NuProcess car wash
petition. This petitioner should not be asked to go to more expense to prepare
more elaborate or detailed plans only to be denied at a later date.
5776
Mr. Walker stated they would not ask him to come before them with any further
plans or encourage him in any way - ohly ask him to wait out one meeting.
tit Mr. Tent agreed with Mr. Walker - would be interested in hearing the results
on the other petition - he is not in favor of this petition either.
Mr. LaBo stated the Council in turn can say the same about waiting to see what
this Commission action is on this petition - he felt that waiting was not
justified.
Mr. LaBo made a motion, seconded by Mr. Heusted that the petition be denied.
There was no support and the motion died.
Mr. Walker made a motion that this petition be tabled, this to supersede - any
prior motion, until the first meeting of discussion by the Council; after that
the petition will be brought before this Commission for action. Mr. Moser
seconded the motion.
Mr. Hull stated he felt it will be sometime around the end of January before
Council takes action.
A roll call vote on the foregoing motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Walker, Tent, Moser, Colomina, Santo, Tunis
NAYS: Wrightman, Heusted, LaBo
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the petition tabled per the motion.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-3-9 by
Carl Schey requesting the vacating of a triangular gore encroaching
upon a 6' easement for public utilities located north of Roycroft
Avenue between Knowison Avenue and Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 18.
On motion by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Tunis, and unanimously carried, it
was
#12-182-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
December 9, 1969 on Petition 69-10-3-9 by Carl Schey requesting
the vacating of a triangular gore encroaching upon a 6' easement
for public utilities located north of Roycroft Avenue between
Knowison Avenue and Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 18,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the westerly 2' of the 6' easement in Lot 93 of Blue
Grass Farms Subdivision be vacated, the portion on which the house
lies, for the following reasons:
(1) the City Engineering Department has indicated that they
are in favor of the 2' easement being vacated;
(2) there are no existing utilities within the easement;
(3) an effective easement will still be maintained should
11::
a future need arise for the placement of utilities;
•
5777
(4) a problem with regard to a building encroachment
within an easement will be avoided;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer,
under date of November 19, 1969, and notice of such hearing
was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, the Chesapeake & Ohio
Railway Company, City Departments and Petitioner 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 69-11-7-10
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to request from
Parks and Recreation Commission, to amend Part V of the Master
Plan, the Master School and Park Plan, to incorporate property
located on the south side of Sunnydale, east of Middlebelt in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
On motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#12-183-69 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 December 9, 1969 for the purpose of amending Part V
of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled "Master
School and Park Plan", the same is hereby amended so as to
incorporate property located on the south side of Sunnydale,
east of Middlebelt in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, as a
park site (4 acres) for the following reasons:
(1) there is a present shortage of existing City-owned
park lands within the area;
(2) there is very little vacant land still available in
the area for park and recreation purposes;
(3) the four lots involved are suitable for recreational
development;
(4) it is in close proximity to the attendant service area;
(5) Parks and Recreation Commission has indicated it is
desirable to place this land on the Master School and
Park Plan;
AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by
Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, the
City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as
part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia,
which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been
adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with all
amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be
filed with the City Council, City Clerk, and the City Planning
Commission; and a certifed copy shall also be forwarded to the
Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording.
5778
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-20
by Greenfield Construction Company, Inc. requesting to rezone
property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, north of
Six Mile Road in Section 7, from R-5-C to P.O., C-4 and R-E;
and south of Six Mile Road in Section 18 from R-3-B to P.S. and
C-2.
Mr. Tent stated this had been a long, drawn-out petition with hours of review,
planning, etc. and at the Study Session they had gone into detail, with the model,
etc. He stated that deed restrictions have been brought into being.
Mr. Feinberg, of the Law Department stated the deed restrictions speak for them-
selves; when this is put on record by the owner of the property it runs with the
land so if it is sold, either all or a portion thereof, the purchasers would be
bound by anything set forth in this document.
It was pointed out that multi-family was not to go in - strictly residential
(p. 6).
A short discussion followed and Mr. Tent suggested that a committee be formed
by the Planning Commission to review all problems.
The question of whether petitioner would have to come before the Commission
if he wants to raise the commercial portion of 145,000 square feet was brought
up.
Mr. 'lrightman noted that the petition gives one boundary and the deed restrictions
covers all of the land beyond the petition.
Mr. Colomina asked if there is anything in the deed restrictions if petitioner
wants to increase the commercial.
Mr. Feinberg stated Paragraph 11, page 6 covers this.
Mr. Tent discussed the exchange of property with Shell Oil and asked if this
was satisfactory; also asked if provisions will be made to try to accommodate
a bank - also the library.
Mr. Nagy stated a statement was received from Mr. Meinzinger re Shell Oil that
if he has the zoning he will negotiate in good faith to try to relocate them.
In answer to the other two questions, when the developer is ready to develop
that portion of the land, Mr. Meinzinger stated then the question of the
library comes into being. The question of the bank we are still trying to
resolve it.
Mr. Hull stated that they have been working on site plans too; it is necessary
to determine if the bank is willing to relocate based on the modified plans and
if suitable arrangements can be made between the bank and DiPonio - right now
it seems both are agreeable to be cooperative to try to effectuate a change.
A short discussion followed about the bank relocation.
Mr. Hull asked if petitioner is satisfied with the recommendation and proposal
on the library site.
5779
Mr. Nagy stated that the library is proposed on land not subject to a change
of zoning. We need to know how much land is to be set aside and if it would
be an outright grant.
Mr. Meinzinger stated that when the City Council agrees to make the zoning
changes he will negotiate the library problem. The area being petitioned as
of now does not bring in the proposed library site.
Mr. Tunis stated that there has been considerable discussion on the location;
the Library Commission wants the branch in the area.
a
Mr. Hull stated the Library Commission is very interested in locating/branch
of the library in this section of the City and asked what the course of action is
to be.
Mr. Meinzinger stated they are asking for something but do not know what they
want - 3 acres - 10 acres or what; he stated there will be no problem negotiating
on this.
Mr. [•talker stated petitioner felt that the time to negotiate would be at the
time of the zoning change; if this does not come around for ten years what then.
Mr. Meinzinger stated this is no problem - they'll do it tomorrow - just pick the
site.
Mr. Tent said to Mr. Tunis that the Commission should take some type of steps
to negotiate or make plans as to whether they want to locate, etc.
Mr. Tunis stated the Library Commission would meet the next Monday.
Mr. Tent asked that Mr. Hull or Mr. Tunis contact the Library Commission.
Mr. Hull stated that he has already had negotiations with the Director of the
Library and he is aware of what is going on.
Mr. Walker suggested that Mr. Hull and Mr. Tunis work on this together.
On motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously
carried, it was
#12-184-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-1-20 as submitted by Green-
field Construction Company, Inc. requesting to rezone property
located on the west side of Newburgh Road, north of Six Mile Road
in Section 7, from R-5-C to P.O'?'C-4 and R-E; and south of Six
Mile Road in Section 18 from R-3-B to P.S. and C-4 and R-E; and
south of Six Mile Road in Section 18 from R-3-B to P.S. and C-4,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 69-6-1-20 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) the proposed zoning changes are consistent with the
previously approved plan for the Northwest sector of
the City of Livonia;
(2) there is a need for these facilities within this sector
of the City;
5780
(3) the proposed zoning changes substantially increase
the City's assessed valuation but does not intensify
the use beyond a reasonable degree;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer
under date of June 25, 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, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-32 by
James J. Sica, President of Wraght Iron, requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of
Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-1-A to
C-2.
Mr. Tent stated there was a modification on this petition, made at the Study
Session.
Mr. Nagy explained the modified plan to the Commission.
On motion by Mr. Tunis to approve the petition as modified, seconded by Mr. Moser,
it was
#12-185-69 RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-9-1-32 as submitted by James J.
Sica, President of Wrought Iron, requesting to rezone property
located on the north side of Six Mile Road, west of Middlebelt
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-1-A to C-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 69-9-1-32, as amended by sketch Plan A, be approved
for the following reasons:
"The N. 168' of the S. 528' of the W. 178' of the E. 508' of
the S.E. 1/4 of Section 11, T. 1 S., R. 9 E. , City of Livonia,
Wayne County, Michigan."
(1) it is a logical extension of an existing zoning district;
(2) the extension of the C-2 zoning will more nearly round out
the commercial zoning within the area;
(3) the extension is of a minor nature and will not adversely
effect the surrounding residential area;
(4) the proposed zoning change is in keeping with the Commission's
study for the future land use within the general area;
5781
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer
under date of October 29, 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, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
amended.
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, on the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 26, from M-1 to 0,2.
Mr. Tent stated a letter is in the file from Mr. Blazo with commitments made
as far as the pie shop and commissary which are binding.
Mr. Hull stated that this letter is much stronger than the first letter received
by the Department.
Mr. Tent stated that they are going for the zoning change and will have to come
before them for a waiver use in connection with the pie shop and commissary.
Mr. Wrightman made a motion that this petition be approved.
Mr. Colomina stated that the only thing that bothers him is not the development
but the fact that they will give up M-1 land on which petitioner will put a
commissary, pie shop and restaurants. Basically it is a high-class Dunkin Donut
and another restaurant - he went on to discuss the number of restaurants in the
vicinity and the fact that the land as presently zoned has a higher tax base;
there would be a traffic problem and would probably be a 24 hour operation where
industry would probably be 8 to 5 - he wondered whether it is a wise move.
Mr. Wrightman disagreed with Mr. Colomina stated it is a high quality complex
here with a good tax base.
Mr. Tent stated he felt the letter from Mr. Blazo be transmitted to the Council
and the proposed development patterh (pie shop, commissary, restaurant). With
this agreement as the basis of the entire proposal, it is proof that the Commis=
sion action is based on planned development for the area.
Mr. Moser seconded Mr. Urightman's motion and it was
#12-186-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 14, 1969 on 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, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-9-1-29 be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) the proposed C-2 zoning will be compatible with the
surrounding land uses;
5782
(2) the development proposal with related manufacturing use
S
is compatible with the manufacturing zone to the north;
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 & 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 motion resulted as follows:
ANES: Wrightman, Heusted, Moser, LaBo and Tunis
NAYS: Walker, Tent, Colomina, Santo
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-31 by
Sachs Associates requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Vassar Avenue approximately 340 feet east of
Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.O.
Mr. Labo made a motion that this petition be approved subject to conditions.
Mr. Hull stated that Mr. Sachs had a modified plan drawn basically what the
Commission requested, and wished to be heard.
Mr. Tent stated the motion by Mr. LaBo would be rescinded so petitioner might
be heard.
Mr. Hull discussed the modifications in the revised plan - ingress and egress to
Parkville eliminated. Instead of just a masonry wall a 5' greenbelt as well
between the public right-of-way or edge of proposed future sidewalk and masonry
wall.
Mr. Nagy explained the parking modificationrthat by the reduction of the 20'
greenbelt to 5' with wall the petitioner picked up the 13 cars originally lost
plus another 13 cars and can still achieve the ingress and egress loop from
Vassar Avenue.
Mr. Tent asked if there are any residential properties abutting the property in-
volved.
Mr. Nagy stated there is one residential lot on the corner.
Mr. Tent asked if they would have to pay for the paving.
Mr. Nagy replied, he did not believe so as Vassar Avenue is proposed to be
vacated where it abutts this residential property.
Mr. Hull stated they should follow through on a vacating petition.
Mr. Colomina stated there is no storm drain - would have to drain to Parkville
and asked if this is what the plan calls for now.
5783
Mr. Tent stated the storm drainage problem was brought up at the Study Session
and asked if that problem has been rectified.
Mr. Sachs stated it has not been taken up with the Engineer as yet; he added
that a previous letter stated that plans were being started for future storm
drainage and that the second letter stated there were no plans.
Mr. Nagy stated there is a drain due in two years which will handle all the
storm water needs for the area.
Mr. Tent asked if petitioner is willing to go ahead with the building after the
formalities are dealt with.
Mr. Sachs stated there are many things to do before breaking ground.
Mr. Tent asked if the drain doesn't mature in three years can petitioner still
put the building up.
Mr. Urightman suggested that they would have to tap into the sewer in the next
street and pay for it,
Mr. Walker stated this should be resolved before this matter goes to Council.
Possibly a letter to Council should be forwarded stating that this is to be
cleared through Council and the Engineering Department.
Mr. Sachs stated they are aware of all of the problems.
Mr. Tent stated that the Wayne County Road Commission is aware there is a storm
drain problem in the area.
On motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously
adopted, it was:
#12-187-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-9-1-31 as submitted by Sachs
Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Vassar Avenue approximately 340 feet east of Middlebelt
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1, from RUF to P.O., the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 69-9-1-31 be approved for the following reasons:
(l) this type of development will establish a character for
the Livonia Mall area that will stimulate high-type office
development;
(2) multi-storied office development is one of the most advantageous
types of development for the City because of its high ratio
of tax base, low needfor services and its general compatibility;
(3) this development proposal basically is consistent with the
previously approved Master Plan for the Livonia Mall area;
(4) there is a need for this type of development in proximity to
the Livonia Mall shopping center;
(5) there is a need for this type of development within our City
to provide the type of facilities our professional clientele
desires;
' 5784
RESOLVED FURTHER that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
1!: date of October 29, 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 declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 65-9-2-4a
by Sachs Associates requesting approval of revised site plan
for Newburgh Lake Apartments located at Ann Arbor Trail and
Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Tent asked if these were the same plans discussed by the Commission at the
Study Session.
Mr. Hull replied, yes, and said the right of way had been taken care of.
Mr. Tent stated that the landscape plan be made a condition for approval.
On motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously
approved, it was
#12-188-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 8.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, as
amended, having reviewed Site Plan #1318, as revised, presented
in connection with Petition 65-9-2-4a approved by City Planning
Commission Resolution #9-174-65 adopted on September 21, 1965 does
hereby approve Petition 65-9-2-4a requesting site plan approval
for Newburgh Lake Apartments located at Ann Arbor Trail and Ann
Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) that a detailed landscape plan be approved by the Commission
within six months after site plan approval is granted;
(2) that the landscaping be installed as indicated on the
approved plan within one and one half years after commence-
ment of construction of the buildings;
for the following reasons:
(1) it is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval;
(2) it conforms to all Ordinance requirements of the City
of Livonia;
(3) the revisions represent a substantial improvement
to the overall project in terms of site amenities,
carports, unit sizes and site orientation to the
parkway.
IL Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
duly adopted.
5785
y •
1
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the
minutes of the meetings held by the Planning Commission on
October 14, 1969 and October 28, 1969.
. On motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
carried, it was
#12-189-69 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the regular meetings held by
the Planning Commission on October 14 and October 28, 1969
be approved (as amended).
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously
carried, the City Planning Commission adjourned its 212th Regular Meeting held
on December 9, 1969 at approximately 12:20 a.m.
CITY- PLANNING COMMISSION
tom'
4_/fir I f !
harry Wring man, Secr4e y
ATTEST:
T
'
•
_est
R ymon' nf hair n
•
i