Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-02-16 2752 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 112th REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 16, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 112th Regular Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Angevine, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:10 p.m. Members present: H.Paul Harsha, Wilford Okerstrom, Leonard Kane, Dennis Anderson, Robert L. An gevine, William Robinson and Charles Walker Members absent: Robert L. Greene**, Robert L. Peacock Mr. Charles J. Pinto, Assistant City Attorney and Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner were present along with approximately 150 interested persons. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition M-187 by Dr. Warren M. Strong who is requesting permission to operate a veterinary hospital on the South side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road, known as 33539 Ply- mouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. There is no correspondence. Dr. Warren M. Strong was present. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Gerald W. Glass, 33597 Plymouth Road: I wish to object to the proposed use. We live within 150 ft. from the back door of the building to be used. Mr. John Pasanen, 33593 Plymouth Road: Why didn't Dr. Strong ask if the property owners within 100 ft. from the proposed building objected to this use? I feel it will be disturbing to us and there isn't sufficient room for the animals. There will be an oar also which will be objectionable. Mrs. Elsie Moon, 33599 Plymouth Road: We are located at the back door of the proposed veterinary hospital and we object to the use. Mr. Charles Cannon, 25846 Haas, Dearborn: I am representing the Big Boy Restaurant which will be next door to the veterinary hospital and we strongly object to the proposed use. It will be noisy and there will be an odor. Mr. Angevine: Are there any further questions from the Commission? Mr. Kane: Do you expect to have dogs outside? Cr. Strong: No, there will be a reception room, an ex-ray room, two examina- tion rooms, a laboratory and in the back portion, 10 cages and four inside cement runs, fenced in and supplied with exhaust fans. The runs are completely contained and nothing on the IL: outside. At the present place I am working at, there are residences within thirty feet and in the five years I've been there, no complaints have been received and there is no odor of any kind. Some veterinary hospitals are not kept up. With the present day exhaust fans I do not see why there wou ld be any odor. 2753 Mr. Pasanen: There is no air-conditioning. What happens in the summer? Dr. Strong: This building is stt up for air-conditioning. **Mr. Greene arrived at approximately 8:10 p.m. Mr. Angevine: Are you planning on air-conditioning? Dr. Strong: Yes, but not at the present time. Mr. Robinson: I would like to suggest that Mr. McCullough meet with Dr. Strong and that they investigate one of present day veterinarys. Mrs. J. Lucas, 18658 Beech Daly Rd., Redford: I have worked with Dr. Strong for two years and in that time we have received no complaints about noise or odor from the dogs. This area in Livonia needs a good veterinary. There are very few in Livonia. Mr. Anderson: Dr. Strong stated there would be exhaust fans blowing out. I feel there would have to be a deordorizing system. It is the exhaust fans that the people are objecting to. Dr. Strong: Yes, the exhaust fans would be blowing outside but there also will be a means of deordoizing. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement until Mr. McCullough and Dr. Strong can investigate other veterinarys. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-184 by the Clarence- ville Methodist Church requesting permission to hold tent meetings during the month of July from 7/1/60 to 7/31/60 located on the Southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Morlock in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1. Mr. Clifton Miracle, 21724 Roosevelt, Farmington was pres nt for the petitioner, Elsie A. Johns, Minister for the Clarenceville Methodist Church. Mr. Walker: Is this the same area you had your tent meetings before? Mr. Miracle: No. We have not had any tent meetings here before. You are probably referring to the Baptist Church who had tent meetings on Middlebelt and Jamison. Mr. Albert J.Sikora, 29281 Morlock: I object to the tent meetings being located in that area all summer. Why are they holding the meetings here? Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Okerstrom: Is this for one month or all summer? Mr. Miracle: It is for only the month of July Mr. Anderson: Will there be night time gatherings? 1[4m Mr. Miracle: I could not say for myself. Perhaps Rev. Johns could answer that question. Mr. Angevine: Where is the church located? Mr. Miracle: On Grand River and Collingham in Farmington. 2754 1E: Mr. Anderson: I would like to know if there will be night meetings and *bather or not there will be lights, etc. Rev. Elsie Johns: The meetings will be in the evenings, on week nights, except on Saturday and Sunday. It is a large piece of property. I am not sure just where the tent will be located but I do not see why it would have to be right behind someone's property when we have so much area. Mr. Greene: The question was asked why the tent meetings should be held in this area. Mr. Miracle: Our reason is to reach the people in this community. Mr. Greene: You will not be holding meetings in your other church? Mr. Miracle: Yes, on Sundays. Mr. Anderson: Is this a revival? Mr. Miracle: Yes, evangelistic revivals. Mr. Okerstrom: Could the tent be located less harmful to the surrounding property owners who objected? Mr. Miracle explained to the commissioners where the tent is to be located as shown on the area plan submitted with the petition. I: Mr. Kane: I would like to know how late these services will be held. Mr. Miracle: Approximately between 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Harsha: Is there any guarantee that there would not be too much noise so as to bother the neighbors? And if they can control the volume of noise, I do not see any personal objection. Mr. Robinson: Is there any definite answer on the question of a loudspeaker? Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #2-17-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, February 16, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-184 by the Clarenceville MethodistChurch requesting permission to hold tent meetings during the month of July from 7/1/60 to 7/31/60 located on the Southeast corner of Middlebelt Road and Morlock in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. IL Mr. Robinson: I would like to know definitely if there is going to be a loud- speaker or not. Rev. Johns: There will be no loudspeaker outside. There will be a sounding board above the speaker inside. There will also be singing, an organ and a piano. We sincerely hope it will be a source of benefit and not objectionable to anyone. 2755 If: A roll call vote on Resolution #2-17-60 resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: Petition M-185 by John E. Veltman requesting permission to construct an automobile sales lot on the South side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Harrison, known as 28125 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36. Mr. Vincent Veltman, petitioner and Mr. Keith B. Trace, Jr., attorney were present. Mr. Angevine: This will be a used car salesrccm Mr. Trace: Yes. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. R. D. Merrill, 28170 N. Clements Drive: I am not in complete objection to this, however I would like to find something out. Is this car lot to be between the Redwood Bar and the Beef House? Mr. Angevine: Yes. I: Mr. Merrill: I would like to know how close the building would be to the back fence? Mr. Trace: It is planned to keep it 100 ft. from the back of the lot. Mr. Merrill: Do you plan to store used parts behind this building? Mr. Trace: No. Mr. MerrUl: I would like to find out if there will be plumbing facilities. Mr. Trace: Yes, complete plumbing facilities because there will be five offices in the building. Mr. Merrill: Would there be a greenbelt between this property and our lot? It is in our contract that there should be but many of the commercial businesses have not abided by it. Mr. Trace: We will follow with what has been done. Mr. Angevine: I have been given a petition from Mr. Trace which contains 14 signatures of property owners who do not object to the proposed use of this lot. l[mi Mr. Okerstrom: Is this petitioner aware of the masonry wall which will be required at the rear of the lot? Mr. Veltman: No, we are not aware of it. Mr. Trace: As stated in the petition we want to comply with every ordinance of the City. 2756 1[40 Mr. Okerstrom: What about the lights? How high and where will they shine? Mr. Veltman: Lights will be 14 ft. high and reflected away from the houses. Mr.Walker: I presume that the wall will be erected since it is mandatory and that the building will be built as shown on plan. I would like to make a motion. Mr. Okerstrom: Will there be a bond posted for the protective wall? Sometimes these walls are held up from spring to spring. I suggest a cash bond that the wall will be erected. Mr. McCullough: Will the parking area be surfaced with bituminous asphalt? Mr. Trace: Ultimately, yes. Mr. Hugh Wood, Jr. 10020 Seltzer: I believe the easement at the back is owned by the prcperty owners of the residential area. Mr. Pinto: The ordinance is written for the easement line and not the property line. Mr. Robinson: Mr. Pinto, will it be necessary to establish a bond for the protective wall? 1:! Mr. Pinto: The only purpose of the bond is to guarantee the construction of the wall in the event that it is not erected at the time the business is started. If they operate their business and promise to erect it later, then that would be the purpose of the bond. I would suggest a cash bond. Mr. Trace: If the wall is erected at the same time then the ordinance doesn't provide for a bond? Mr. Pinto: There would be no purpose for a bond if you erect it at the same time. Mr. Robinson: Will they be able to operate without the protective wall being completed? Mr. Pinto: If they do, it would be up to the Bureau of Inspection to inform the City Clerk that they have not complied with the ordinance, and therefore, no license can be issued. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker: #2- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, February 16, 1960 the City Planning Copmission does hereby grant Petition M-185 of John E. Veltman requesting per- IL mission to construct an automobile sales lot on the South side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Harrison, known as 28125 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, subject, however, to the following: (1) That a cash bond be established in the event that the pro- tective wall has not been erected at the time the building per- mit is issued, 2757 IL: (2) That the applicant erect his proposed building as near to the rear of the lot as the zoning ordinance permits; (3) That in order to insure sufficient off-street parking the applicant agrees that none of his used cars will be parked nearer than 100 feet from the center line of Plymouth Road Mr. Trace: The value of this lot would be the display of the cars. The last condition would be a handicap for the business. There will be adequate parking facilities for customers. At the present time there are "No Parking" signs on Plymouth in front of our lot. Mr. Harsha: The Redwood Bar is set back quite a distance and I don't think Mr. Walker is asking too much requesting the 100 ft. Mr. Robinson: However, if they have off-street parking elsewhere on the lot, I do not see why they should be jeopardized in this way. Mr. Harsha: The ordinance states that no building can be set closer than 40 ft. from the property line and while this does apply to the building, I believe the intent was that it applies to the business more than the building proper. Mr. Pinto: I have to point out that there is another ordinance which specifically deals with the regulating and licensing of used car lots (Ordinance #213), and to the best of my knowledge I believe that ordinance provides that used car lots can park their cars within 4 feet of the lot line. Mr. Anderson: I think we could work out the maximum number of cars allowed on that lot and get the off-street parking from that angle. Mr. McCullough: There is a tendency to have pa allel parking on Plymouth and I think it is primarily because there is no room. Mr. Pinto: In respect to used car lots, the City Planning Commission should review the regulatory ordinance and recommend that certain changes be made and this would apply to all used car lots. Mr. Walker: I am confused, we denied another used car lot because there wasn't sufficient set back. I feel we should be consistent. If we agree on a 40 ft. set back, this should apply to all petitions. Mr. Angevine: The ordinance provides for that. Mr. Harsha: It would make no difference, if we decide on a set-back it should be like that. They only get their permit when it is approved by us. Mr. Pinto, right? Mr. Pinto: The law is this. If the Planning Commission adopts a resolution 1[10 to approve and attaches conditions on the resolution, and sub- sequently one of the conditions is violated you cannot take them to court for violating the condition. You can only take them to court for violating a law. If the Planning Commission feels there should be other regulatory measures in the present ordinance, they should recommend these to the City Council and have them incorporated into the used 2758 car lot regulatory ordinance. IL: Mr. Anderson: I think we should take this item under advisement. Mr. Walker: I agree, we should take this under advisement until we can establish a uniform agreement with this commission what we are going to do. I do not want this to be a snap judgment. I withdraw my motion to approve. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson and supported by Mr. Kane, it was 42- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, February 16, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-185 by John E. Veltman requesting permission to construct an automobile sales lot on the South side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Harrison, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, subject, however, to the following: (1) That the lighting be reflected away from the residences ; (2) That the petitioner must provide off-street parking for ten (10) automobiles; Mr. Harsha: We are doing what the attorney has warned us against. Mr. Pinto: You are creating, in my opinion, a difficult problem. How will you find out if the conditions are being carried out? Mr. Robinson: I realize this. Mr. Greene: I would like to know how thane (in resolution) provisions compare with the ones in the existing ordinance. Mr. Pinto: If you will permit me, I will go and get my copy of the ordinance. I do not have it with rle. Mr. Pinto was excused at this time to obtain the ordinance. Mr. Pinto on his return read the regulatory ordinance on used car lots. Mr. Pinto: The only provision for lights is in the Misdemeanor ordinance. Mr. Walker: I would like to make an amendment to the resolution made by Mr. Robinson. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, the following amendment was made: (1) That in order to insure sufficient off-street parking the applicant agrees that roue of his used cars will be parked nearer than 100 feet from the center line of Plymouth; and (2) that a cash bond be established in the event that the protective wall has not been erected at the time the building permit is issued. Mr. Greene: Will this conflict with the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Pinto: The language of the resolution is clear and the language of 2759 If: the ordinance is clear. If the Commission has any general regulatory requirments that should be in the used car ordinance they should be put into it. I would object to this resolution. Mr. Walker: Since the petitioner has agreed to these conditions tonight, is it a threat to the existing ordinances Since they have agreed to these conditions, I feel that it is legal. A roll call vote on the amendment to the resolution made by Mr. Robinson resulted in the following: AYES: Walker, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, and Kane NAYS: Greene, Robinson and Angevine Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the amendment is adopted. Mr. Angevine asked for a roll call on the resolution made by Mr. Robinson, sup- ported by Mr. Kane and which was amended by a motion made byMr. Walker and supported by Mr. OKerstrom, said resolution reading as follows: #2-18-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, February 16, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-185 by John E. Veltman requesting permission to construct an automobile sales lot on the South side of Plymouth Road between Deering and Harrison, known as 28125 Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36, subject, however, to the following: (1) That the lighting be reflected away from the residences; (2) That the petitioner must provide off-street parking for ten (10) automobiles; (3) That in order to insure sufficient off-street parking the applicant agrees that none of his used cars will be parked nearer than 100 ft. from the center line of Plymouth Road; and (4) That a cash bond be established in the event that the pro- tective wall has not been erected at the time the building permit is issued, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above 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, Robinson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: Greene, Harsha and Anderson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried, therefore the foregoing resolution is adopted. I[: Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-186 by Walter Hall requesting permission to erect a neon sign (15' x 16') located on the South side of Plymouth Road between Hubbell and Middlebelt, known as 30805 Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Walter Hall and Mr. Sam Elias were present. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? 2760 IC: Mr. McCullough: The question has been raised as to whether or not this matter should be before the City Planning Commission. Mr. Pinto: This same question has come up in the past and our department has ruled in writing that where the lot exceeds four thousand square feet in area, the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction, unless the ordinance has been amended. Mr. Angevine: I believe the letter was forwarded from the Mayor's office. Mr. Pinto: I have discussed this with the City Attorney and we are in agreement that this ordinance as written that approval is needed by the City Planning Commission only for commercial lots which are 4,000 sq. ft. or less in area. If this area in question is C-2 and the lot is more than 4,000 sq. ft. in area I do not think you have jurisdiction. Mr. Robinson: If we have no jurisdiction and the Inspection Bureau refuses to give a permit to the petitioner, where does this petitioner go? Mr. Pinto: In front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walker: As I understand it, this petition should never have come before this commission. L Mr. Robinson: Perhaps the Planning Commission should forward a letter to the Bureau of Inspection informing them that we have no jurisdiction on signs on an area more than 4,000 sq. ft. Mr. Pinto: I thought that they were aware of this. Mr. Greene: In your opinion then, if the area is over 4,000 sq. ft. there is no limitation as to the size of the sign? Mr. Pinto: Yes, that is the way I would interpret the ordinance unless you have amended the ordinance. Mr. McCullough: There was an amendment to the ordinance but the City Council did not approve it. What do you suggest we do with this petition? Mr. Pinto: I would' suggest you remove it from the ajenda. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was #2-19-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby remove Petition M-186 by Walter Hall requesting permission to erect 1[40 a neon sign (15 ' x 16') located on the South side of Plymouth Road between Hubbell and Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, from the agenda for the reason that the Planning Commission does not have any jurisdiction to act on said petition due to area involved containing more than 4000 sq. ft. Mr. Harsha: There is one other matter, the height of the sign is limited to 35 ft. 61 Mr. Hall: Am I to understand, I go back to the Bureau27of Inspection? IL: Mr. Pint..: If they do not change their minds, I suggest you go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: Harsha and Anderson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried, therefore the foregoing resolution is adopted. fir. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-433 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not the zoning classification of property presently zoned R1B in the Northeast and Northwest 1/4 of Section 31 should be rezoned to R 1 A. Mr. G. Wilson of the Greenwich Pointe Civic Association, 38556 Orangelawn, was present in relation to this petition. Mr. McCullough: We received a letter from Mr. Wilson and Mr. R. E. Camron, Presi- dent of the civic association requesting this change. The advertising stated the Northwest and Northeast 1/4 of Section 31. But only the area which contains Ann Arbor Trail Subdivision #2 and Gawron Subdivision is being considered tonight. Mr. Gawron, developer of the Gawron Subdivision, has stated no objection to the petition since all his homes have 1100 sq. ft. or more in them. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Harsha: Mr. Pinto, do we have a legal right to do this? Mr. Pinto: Yes. You are changing the classification from a "B" to an "A", As I understand it. You can always approve a smaller portion than what was advertised. Mr. Wilson, 38556 Orangelawn: We have requested this because of the vacant lots not owned by the subdivider. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously adopted, it was #2-20-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-433 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion for a change of zoning in the Northeast and North- west 1/4 of Section 31 from R 1 B to R 1 A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-433 be granted in relation to the Ann Arbor Trail Subdivision #2 1[0 in the Northwes t 1/4 of Section 31 and the Gawron Subdivision in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 only,from R 1 B to R 1 A for the following reason: (1) All existing houses are at least 1,000 sq. ft. or more in area, and 2762 IIFURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the 1 official newspaper, the Livonian, under date of January 27, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co., City Departments and as listed on the Proof of Service. kr. Kane: I am still concerned why only these two subdivisions? Mr. McCullough: I Have not checked the other areas as yet. This can be brought up later if necessary. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried, therefore the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a petition by the City Planning Commissio8 on its own motion to determine whether or not Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, that is, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, should be amended so as to relocate Harrison Avenue in the South 1/2 of Section 24. Mr. McCullough: The Gordon-Begin Park Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 was given preliminary approval subject to amending the Master Thoroughfare Plan to relocate Harrison Avenue. This is reason for the public hearing. A plot plan showing the proposed relocation and the present location of Harrison ILAvenue was submitted to the commission members for investigation. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. McCullough: I would like to suggest that this item be taken under advise- ment in order to study it further at a study meeting. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Ckerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #2-21-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing at approximately 9:25 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 1960. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Marsha, Okerstrom, Anderson, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Angevine called the 112th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 9:26 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time the public hearing was I: adjourned. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-183 by Wm. J. Krause on behalf of Redford Livonia Dad's Club, Inc., requesting permission to operate a private park on the west side of Inkster Road and East of Cardwell, approximately 400' north of Joy Road on Lots M-53 through 64 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36. Public Hearing 1/19/60, item taken under advisement; study meeting 2/2/60. Mr. Peacock, who is hospitalized has forwarded a letter to the commission in- 2763 dicating that he feels this petition should be denied because it conflicts with sub-section (j), Section 5.06, Article 5.00. j Mr. McCullough: Since the last meeting was held, the petitioner has filed a petition signed by approximately 600 persons who do not object to the private park. Mr. Walker: Have you established the location of the people who signed the petition you mention? Mr. McCullough: No. Mr. Anderson: Do the property owners who orignally objected to petition still object or are some of them included in the 600 signatures? It was determined the property owners who objected at the public hearing are still objecting to the proposed use of property in petition. Mr. Walker: I would like to know bow many people in the audience object to the private park. There were approximately 75 persons in the audience who objected to the proposed use of this property. Mr. Angevine: Are thPra any more questions, commissioners? Mr. Greene: While I am in complete sympathy with the recreational needs of the city I feel that it should come under the Parks & Recreation Department of the City of Liaoaia and not under a private party. IL: Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Greene, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was #2-22-60 RESOLVED that, after due consideration of Petition M-183 dated January 4, 1960, filed by William 3. Krause, 9920 Garvett for permission to operate a private park on parcels described as the West 500 feet of Parcels M-53 through 64, inclusive, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, and a public hearing having been called and held on January 19, 1960 after proper notice in regard to such petition, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the said Petition M-183 and the request contained therein for the following reasons: (1) That investigation, careful con sideration of the comments made at the aforementioned public hearing and a study of the location and scope of the proposed use in relation to adjoining properties and uses has indicated it is more than likely that the proposed would cause great annoyance and discomfort and interfere with the peaceful use and enjoyment of surrounding and abutting residences; (2) That the proposed ise would be inconsistent with, detrimental and injurious to the surrounding neighborhood and would block the natural and planned development of the immediate area; (3)That, as stated in the report of the Department of Public Works dated February 2, 1960, the proposed use would aggravate an already existing storm water drainage problem, and (4) That the petitioner has not indicated what, if an, provisions have been made for safeguards and supervision in connection with the operation of the proposed use to insure the safety of the • 2764 many children that would visit and use the proposed facilities. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above 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 foregdn g resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Hersha, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None NOT VOTING: Anderson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried, therefore, the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Angevine called a recess at approximately 9:35 p.m. Mr. Angevine called the regular meeting back to order at approximately 9:45 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted: #2-23-60 RESOLVED that, puzsuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 20, 1959 on Petition Z-420 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not Section 4.45 of Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia should be amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-420 be approved for the reason that it is the language originally recommended to the City Council dealing with materials from which protective walls are to be constructed, and FURTHER RESOLVED, nbtice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of October 1, 1959 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, The Consumers Power Co., City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried, therefore, the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCilloigh: The next item on the agenda is a petition by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, should be amended to re- locate Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28. Public hearing 12/15/59, item taken under advisement; study meeting 2/2/60. Mr. McCullough: We have had meetings with the Wayne County Department and the Civic Association and we have been informed that the State can not vary the road south of Plymouth due to the fact that they have already purchased property south of Plymouth. • 2765 Mr. l ngevine: Is it mechanically feasiable to change it from we have proposed Mr. McCillosgh: No, it cannot be altered. Mr. Robinson: It should be understood that it may take ten or twelve years before this road is constructed. Mr. Walker: We have gone as far as we can and we are satisfying approximately 957., of the people in the area. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously adopted, it was #2-24-60 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 Tuesday, December 15, 1959 for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled, "Master Thoroughfare Plan", the dame is hereby amended so that the relocation of Wayne Road in Section 28, City of Livonia, should designate the center line thereof to read as follows: The centerline of a proposed right-of-way (120' wide) existing in the S. W. 1/4 of Section 28, City of Livonia, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E., Wayne County, Michigan, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of Plymouth Road distant E. 1326' and North 86' from the W. 1/4 corner of Section 28, City of Livonia, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , Wayne County, Michigan and proceeding on a curve concave to the left (radius,-1000' , tangent=385.70' and delta=42°11 ') 736.22 feet; thence on a curve concave to the right (radius=1000', tangent=385.70' and delta=42°11 ') 736.22 feet to the W. line of Parcel Klb (intersection point at E. 808' and N. 1343' from the W. 1/4 corner of Section 28) located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28, City of Livonia, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E., Wayne County, Michigan; thence N. along the W. line of said parcel to the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, and having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 825 of 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission under date of April, 1951, with all amendments thereto; and further that this amendment shall be recorded on said map by the identifying signatures of the chairman and secretary of the commission and an attested copy shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission; and a copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the 11[: County of Wayne with the following certification contained thereon; "We certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission held on Tuesday, February 16, 1960 by the following vote: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine • 2766 NAYS: None I; Mr. Angevine: The motion is carted and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Walker, it was #2-25-60 RESOLVED that, after due consideration of Petition ISS-182 dated December 18, 1959 submitted by Al Oil, Inc. , 17852 Van Dyke, Detroit, requesting permission to erect and operate a gasoline station on the North side of Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road, the Planning Commission does hereby deny said request for the following reasons: (1) that the close proximity of the proposed use to existing residences on immediately adjoining property will more than likely interfere with the peaceful use, enjoyment and safety of said adjoining uses, (2)that the proposed use will diminish the marketable value of adjacent lands and buildings; and (3) that the location of the proposed station will increase traffic, confusion, noise and congestion to an extent that will adversely affect the purpose and objectives of the Master Plan and the present use and planned use of ajoining properties, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property 1[110 owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The question was raised if the property involved is zoned for a gasoline station. Mr. McCullough: Yes, it is. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom and Kane NAYS: Angevine Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on theagenda is Denmar Estates Subdivison submitted by Sterling Homes, Inc. , located on the North side of Six Mile Road approximately 1300 ft. West of Wayne Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8. Public hearing 12/15/59, item taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: Mr. Dembs, developer, has agreed to provide the cost of paving the East half of Levan Road. The road as shown on the Master Thorough- fare Plan is not located on his property but on a strip, 61 ft. wide. immediately west of his proposed plat. He does not own this property. This plat had been taken under advisement due to this 61 ft. strip which lies between the proposed subdivision and Levan Road. IL There was a general discussion on whether or not it would be advisable to relocate Levan Road or redo the complete plat. Mr. Harsha: Can we accept his committment to pave one-half of Levan Road which will have to be relocated? • 2767 Mr. Pinto: You can give preliminary approval if the layout is satisfactory, and the bond is acceptable. Mr. Anderson: This bond you are posting, is this also for the price of the land? Mr. Dembs: No, only for the paving of one-half of Levan Road. Mr. Pinto: I do not feel you can require the bond as a condition of pre- liminary approval, but if he offers the bond, you can accept it. Mr. Harsha: As I understand it, he has offered the money without any pressure on our part, and that we also take cognizance of the fact that he has made this offer of his own free will and that a condition of the preliminary approval be that the bond be posted. Mr. Pinto: You can legally accept the bond but you cannot legally require it. If you accept it, it should be held in trust by the City until such time Levan Road is paved. Mr. Greene: This all relies on the 61 ft. strip. How will it be possible for the owner of this strip to ever use this small area. He will have to purchase more property or sell it to a subdivider so that the 61 ft. strip can be used. Don't you feel that this proposed plat should be held up until a decision is made? Mr. Walker: This is a situation which I feel eventually the City Planning Commission will have tc do something about. This could be a situation that could be magnified elsewhere. I feel we should 11[: have time to find a useful use of this 61 ft . strip. A plot plan could be provided which will emcompass the use of the strip into the plat. Mr. Greene: I agree with Mr. Walker. Mr. McCullough: Why not take it under advisement and I will discuss this with Mr. Hiltz and see where the drain should be relocated if it is found necessary. Mr. Walker: I suggest that a letter be written to the owner of the 61 ft. strip and inform him of this. It would then give us a right to act. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement until Mr. McCullough has discussed this further with Mr. Hiltz and the owner of the 61ft. strip of property. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #44-60, dated January 28, 1960, to determine whether or not Section 4.05 of Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 should be amended so as to include Section 21 amongst those sections of theCity in which lots may be platted with an area of 7200 sq. ft. , minimum width of 60 ft. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #2-26-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #44-60 and to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60, as amended, the City Planning Commission at this time on its own motion does hereby provide for a Public • 2768 Hearing to be held to determine whether or not Section 4.05 of Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No.60 should be amended so as to include Section 21 amongst those sections of the City in which lots may be platted with an area of 7200 square feet and a minimum width of 60 ft. , and that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #2-27-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60 as amended, the City Planning Commission at this time on its own motion does hereby provide for a Public Hearing to be held to determine whether or not Section 4.32 of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No. 60 should be amended by adding thereto the following: NOTWITHSTANDING the above, all single family dwellings erected within the City of Livonia shall have at least eighty percent (8070 of the area of the average of all the single family dwellings in existence within three hundred (300) feet of the house sought to be erected, and within the same type of zoning district; and provided further that in no case shall any house be smaller than one thousand (1000) equare feet in "A" areas or eight hundred (800) square feet in "B" areas. The applicant for a building permit shall provide a plot plan showing the size of all existing dwellings within the required distance. Any misrepresentation as to these matters shall be sufficient reason to deny a certificate of occupancy. and that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Walker, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. ; Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not Article 11.50 should be added thereto the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia, (C-3 District Regulations) . 2769 There was a brief discussion as to what uses should be included in the new ordinance. 1 It was determined that this would be taken under (further advisement until the 1 ordinance is forwarded by the Department of Law. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request from the Klopp Engineering Company for advise on possible rezoning of their land on the South side of Schoolcraft approximately 1900 ft. East of Levan in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29. A representative of the Klopp Engineering Company was present asking for advice on whether or not it was advisable for him to file a petition to rezone their land from RUFB to M-1. It appears that several years ago they filed a petition and was denied for a similar request. The company has need for enlarging their plant and they feel that unless they can enlarge the present plant, they may have to move elsewhere outside of the City. The Planning Commission suggested that Mr. Klopp initiate a petition in conjunction with adjacent property owners to rezone this area from RUFB to M-1 and assured him that their petition would be given due consideration. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously adopted, it was #2-28-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve statements in the amount of $17.85 and $11.05 from The Livonian, Inc. , and forwards same to the proper department for payment. ILMr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #2-29-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes for meetings held on January 12, 1960 and February 2, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #2-30-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, January 19, 1960 on Petition V-54 as submitted by Carey Homes, Inc., for the vacating of the west two (2) feet of the East six (6) feet of Lot #7, Bretton Gardens Colony Sub = division in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition V-54 be granted, the petitioner having forwarded evidence that the two feet vacated has already been added to the easement of the adjoining property owner of Lot #6, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian under da to of December 30, 1959 and notice of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Co., Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments, petitioner and abutting property owners as listed in the Proof of Service. 2770 1191 Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. J 1 Mr. Harsha was excused at approximately 10:40 p.m. for the balance of the meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item cn the agenda is the sub-section in the ordinance pertaining to the size of signs in commercial areas. It was determined that this item would be taken under advisement for study at the next study meeting. Mr. McCullough: Mr. Koloff who has purchased the South half of the Merucci Bros. Subdivision has asked that the Planning Commission determine whether or not it will be necessary for him to ask for another public hearing on this portion- of the former Merucci Bros. Subdivision. The original Merucci Bros. Subdivision was given preliminary approval in October, 1958. According to the Subdivision Rules and Regulations this plat has become null and void because no extension was granted prior to the expiration date, October, 1959. It was determined that another public hearing is necessary and Mr. Koloff was informed that this would be held on Tuesday, March 1st, 1960. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, the 112th Regular Meeting was duly adjourned at approximately 10:50 p.m. on Tuesday, February 16, 1960. ril CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4e:6"--1141 Gt"a,Q onard K. Kane, Secretary ATTESTED: / R. L. Ang vine, Chdrman