HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-12-20 r
3050
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING
AND THE 122NL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
...ECOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, December 20, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held a public hearing and the 122nd Regular Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001
Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman called the
Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:05 p.m.
Members present: Leonard K. Kane, W. E. Okerstrom, Charles W. Walker, Robert
M. Peacock, Robert L. Angevine, James Cameron, Robert L.
Greene, William R. Robinson and James Watson, Jr.
Members absent : Dennis Anderson
Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Charles J. Pinto, Assistant City
Attorney were present along with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition M-216 by Peru
Construction Company requesting permission to construct
a gasoline service station on property located on the Southwest corner of Newburgh
and Five Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19.
Mr. Peter Ventura was present representing petitioner. He stated their reasons
for requesting approval of the gas station.
II:
It was determined after a brief discussion that there would be two driveways on
each mile road, Five Mile and Newburgh Roads. The membership was advised that this
was part of the land under petition for rezoning coming up later on the agenda.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was
#12-253-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
on Tuesday, December 20, 1960 the City Planning Commission
does hereby grant Petition M-216 by Peru Construction Company
requesting permission to construct a gasoline service station
on property located on the Southwest corner of Newburgh and
Five Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Depart-
ments as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Kane,
Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. James Watson, Jr. did not cast a vote because he had not taken the Oath of
Acceptance as yet. Mr. Robinson's resignation is not effective until such time.
Mr. -alker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
' Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-485 by Claude C.
Alexander requesting a rezoning from R-lA to R-2 or PS
3051
for property located in she Northeast 1/4 of Section 31.
IL: Dr. Alexander is not present as yet. I suggest that we
go on to the next item until he can be present.
The next item on the ager-de is Petition Z-481 by D. R.
McCullough, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #634-60
asking that the zoning classification on property located on the South and North sides
of Five Mile Road between Yale and Eckles Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 19,
Southeast 1/4 of Section 18, Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, Southeast 1/4 of Section
17 and the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 be rezoned from C-1, C-2 and PS to R-1A.
A number of owners have submitted letters of protest to
our office. I will pass them to you now.
Mr. Walker: We have letters from James Bonadeo, Robert E. Butcher,
Goldman and Grabow for Paris Home Builders, Joseph Kaufman,
Bruce Polozker and Harry Slatkin Builders, Inc. They
protest to the petition for rezoning their property.
Mr. McCullough submitted maps of the area to the commission for their examination,
and stated that this petition was submitted pursuant to a request from the City
Council.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Angevine, will you please take over the Chair. I would
like to speak on this item.
li:
Mr. Angevine assumed the Chair.
Mr. Walker gave a brief history of the area in tie petition stating that in the
area between Schoolcraft and Five Mile Roads, West of Farmington, approx-
imately thirteen different subdivisions have come before the Planning
Commission for approval. To maintain the proper ratio ineccncmic base, for every
home built, the industrial area should be increased. He also stated that commercial
r .as within the boundaries of the city are necessary for the people to be able to
spend their money in, in order to make the city a healthy economic city. His
reason for calling attention to this data is due to some of the members being new
on the commission. This information was gathered and included in studies that were
made at the time the Master Plan of the City was started six years ago. The pro-
jected economic growth was made along with the population growth of the city so as
to determine how much a commercial area is needed, and also how much industrial area
is needed for a proper tax base. Mr. Walker continued by stating that these are
the points that should be kept in Hind when the decision is made on this petition.
It is a very vital important decision. The future growth and development of the
city could be destroyed by making the wrong decision. He concluded by stating that
these figures are on record for the benefit of the new members.
Mr. Walker assumed the Chair at this time.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. David Goldman: On behalf of Paris Home Builders, Inc. , who are the owners
1770 First National of a plot of ground 40 acres in size on the Northwest corner
Building, Detroit of Five Mile and Newburgh Roads. I have submitted to the
Planning Board a brief statement which states the Paris
Home Builders objection to the proposed action. When we
purchased the property in 1956 there was a corner parcel
300' x 300 zoned C-1. The remainder was zoned AG. By
appropriate action the portion zoned AG was rezoned to
3052
residential but the commercial at the corner was left
commercial. Thereafter my client sold a parcel 167' square
on the corner to the Ohio Oil Company for the purpose of
a gas station and by the action of this board and council
that action was approved. Now you leave us with a situation
that we have a difference between 167' and 300' around the
gas station that we hope to sell for commercial. We
believe that we would be deprived of a valuable piece of
property and we have therefore requested that the proposal
be denied.
Mr. Harold Kaufman: We have the property at the northeast corner of Five Mile
16180 Meyers Road and Levan Roads. We purchased this property two years ago.
Detroit At the time it was zoned C-2, in fact, last April we were
in here and at the request of Texaco Company, we were also
given approval for a gas station. Since that time a Standard
gas station has bean erected on the Southeast corner of Five
and Levan, across the street from ours. We have committed
ourselves for a small neighborhood shopping center. Levan
Road is a section line which undoubtedly be extended to
Six Mile Road. We will have a busy intersection at this
point. It seems to me that the pattern of development has
already been set and therefore I can not see how two or
three homes can be built upon that parcel.
Mr. Hermanoff: We sent a communication to your Honorable Body. We own the
Slatkin Builders, Inc. 106 acre parcel of lane at the Northeast of Five Mile and
3 20811 W. Eight Mile Newburgh. Back in 1958 we filed a petition requesting that
Detroit 19 the area existing under C-2, property which was 360 ft.
square, be increased by an additional 3.849 acres so that
we would have a total of 6.824 of land which was to be used
for a localized shopping center to serve some 355 homes we
were to build on the adjoining 100 acres which is contiguous
to this property. In 1958 we filed this petition, a public
hearing was held by the City Planning, ft was approved by
the City Planning and by the City Council. We then proceeded
to go ahead with the development plans of Country Homes
Nos. 1 and 2. We feel as we have stated in our letter that
including our property in the rezoning of 9 or 10 pieces of
property isn't: fair to us. We do not have a common concern
of what mappens to the others. If this property is to be
rezoned it would cause us untold hardship because of our
development plans which cost a great deal of money. Newburgh
Road is a major thoroughfare running north and we feel that
the 6.824 acres of land as a shopping center is not super-
fluous in the light of 355 homes we intend to build there.
Mr. Walker: We have heard everyone in the audience. Any comments from
the Commission?
I[: Mr. Greene: Since this was started by the City Council, I feel we should
meet with them and see what their views are on this and then
try to solve it.
Mr. Walker: I agree with you. This item will be taken under advisement.
3053
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-485 by Claude
C. Alexander who is asking that the zoning cla4sificatinn
1[40
on property located on the North side of Ann Arbor Trail approximately 200 ft. East
of Hix Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 be rezoned from R-1A to R-2 or PS.
Dr. Claude Alexander was present, and presented a plan of the proposed convalescent
home, explaining how many beds would be in the home and how many cars would be able
to park in• the parking area.
Mr. Walker: What type of convalescent home is this to be? What type
of patients?
Dr. Alexander: They would not be mentally deranged patients. They would
be for the most part people who can not take care of them-
selves. There are people in the 70 to 80 years of age
range who want to have a place to live and have everything
taken care of for them. Because of their age, they would
be very quiet. In the back we will have a patio where you
might see a few of them during the summer.
Mr. Walker: How many beds?
Dr. Alexander: There would be 52 beds and there will be 17 employees.
Mr. Cameron: Did you say the parking facilities would be on the right
hand side?
Dr. Alexander: Yes, this area would hold thirty cars.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Glenn Wilson, 38556 Orangelawn, President of the Greenwich Pointe Civic Association
stated their reasons for objecting to the proposed rezoning. that the re-
zoning would lower the value of their homes.
Mr. Walker was excused at 8:40 p.m. and Mr. Angevine assumed the Chair.
Mr. Charles Wheeler, 38360 Ann Arbor. Trail stated he felt the convalescent home
would be degrading to his home which is situated next door. He wanted his objection
on record.
Mr. Walker returned at 8:42 p.m.
Mr. Robinson: I'd like to see a show of hands of those who object.
There appeared to be six people in the audience who objected to the rezoning.
Mr. Watson: Mr. Wilson, what do you feel you would rather have on this
property than homes?
Mr. Wilson: We object to any kind of rezoning that would siert with one
1[5m kind of hospital and lead to another kind.
Mr. Peacock: I feel this should be taken under advisement.
Mr. Angevine: Dr. Alexander, what would your set back be?
Dr. Alexander: Approximately 160 or 170 feet. I have talked with the
3054
Civic Association. Some of them have the idea of delivery
trucks and ambulances. There will be hardly any of that
if any at all. The building will cost around $150,000. It
will not be a cheap degrading structure.
Mr. Walker: Are the figures of the dimensions exact on the submitted
map? I am asking this because of the required side yard
requirements.
Dr. Alexander: No, t'iey are not - they are only approximate. The style
of the home can be changed so that we meet the side yard
requirements. They can be altered if necessary.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-484 by D. R.
McCullough asking that the zoning classification on certain
properties located *" the South side of Five Mile Road between Brookfield and
Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 be rezoned from CC and C-2 to
PS.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Frank O'Neil was present as owner of property included in the petition. His
property had been up for rezoning just recently from CC to C-2 which was denied by
the Council. It had been thought that if tris property were to be rezoned to PS it
E would be n.&e. advantageous. Mr. O'Neil has been trying to sell his property but
because of the CC zoning, he has not been able to do so.
Mr. Norman Stockmeyer, 38042 Glenwood, Wayne was present representing the owners of
the parcel of land located east of the Civic Center containing approximately 9
acres. Mr. Stockmeyer stated their reasons for objecting to the proposed rezoning.
They felt that so much PS zoning was not needed especially with the two new pro-
fessional buildings just recently built in the vicinity. At the present time they
are trying to get a Post Office building next to the City Hall. It is to be a
branch of the Federal Building. Because of this they protest the rezoning to PS.
They will also consider any reasonable offer with reasonable terms if the City
wants to purchase this property. Also if the City feels that they need a portion
of this prop-erty, I know that the owners would sett at a very reasonable price and
reasonable terms.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. F. B. Smith representing B. E. Taylors Subdivision on the north side of Five
Mile Road, stated they favored the C-2 zoning.
Mr. Walker: Any comments from the commission?
1 I
Mr. Peacock: Here again we have something from the City Council and I
feel that this item along with the other item previously
heard should be discussed with the City Council before
any action is taken. I suggest • that this item be also
1[: taken under advisement.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until such time
we can meet with the City Council and discuss these two
items. It will be on the agenda of a regular meeting at
a later date.
3055
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-58 by Servin
1[10 Flach u% . is asking that the alley located at the rear of
Lots 103 through 143, inclusive and 186 through 205, inclusive of the Garden Grove
Subdivision in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, be vacated.
Mr. Servin Flach was present.
Mr. McCullough: Letters have been received from the Detroit Edison Company
dated December 14, 1960; from Michigan Bell Telephone Co. ,
December 6, 1960 and from the Department of Public Works
dated December 1, 1960. They all recommend approval sub-
ject to an easement being created for the full width.
The petitioner has submitted a list of at least 75% of
the abutting land owners who approve of the vacating.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Pinto, does the petitioner need the signatures of all
the abutting land owners?
Mr. Pinto: If he has signatures of 50% of the owners, this is sufficient.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Bernard Wockenfuss: My property abuts on this alley. I don't have any ob-
18618 Farmington) jection but there is a sewer located in the middle of the
alley. This sewer has a history of being serviced by the
City because of it backing up. If this alley becomes
vacated and permanent fences erected in the easement, would
the City still service it if necessary?
Mr. Walker: No permanent struct;. es can be built upon this easement.
Fences can be built. An easement is created when an alley
is vacated so that the city and utility companies can go
in to service their equipment.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr, Okerscrom, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was
#12-254-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, December 20, 1960 on Petition V-58 as submitted by
Servin Flack for the vacating of the alley located at the rear
of Lots 103 through 143, inclusive and 186 through 205, inclusive
of the Garden Grove Subdivision in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
10, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition V-58 be granted subject to an easement
being created for the full width of the alley, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November
30, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit
IL Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell
Telephone Company, The Consumer Power Company, City Departments,
petitioner and abutting property owners as listed in the Proof
of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
3056
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Kane,
IE: Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Loraine Sigg
Subdivision located on the East side of Wayne Road,
approximately 747 ft. South of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9.
Submitted by Joseph B. Pfister.
Letters have been received from the Department of Public
Safety dated December 14, 1960 and from the Department
Of Public Works, Department of Parks & Recreation and
the Fire Department, dated December 16, 1960.
Mr. Adolf Sigg was present for the subdivision.
There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not an access drive should be re-
quired for this subdivision. The submitted plat shows a turn around driveway.
Mr. Robinson: I do not think it is feasible to ask the petitioner to put
in a service drive because there are no improvements. How-
ever, I think in cases like this we should ask for dedica-
tion of the property in case the area is developed, there
11
? will be pro,.erty for service drives.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mrs. Ann Esson: We live on the west side of Wayne Road. Would we have to
18925 Wayne Road) share the cost of this?
Mr. Walker: No, there is no obligation on your part at all. The only
question is whet.l.er or not the turn around driveway is
sufficient or whether an access drive will be required.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Pinto, are there any legal obstacles if we ask the
builder to grant an easement at the front of his property
for a t• ture access drive? Can we require this?
Mr. Pinto: Yes, within the boundaries of his plat. If you feel that
a dedication is necessary for future use, you can require
it in your approval.
Mr. Robinson: I would like to ask the petitioner, would he be willing to
dedicate 34 ft. for an ancess drive, not the paving, but
the dedication so that in case the city would want an
access drive in the future the property would be there.
IL: Mr. Sigg: This would take about 20% of the lot. I thought I covered
any objection with a circular drive. It is only 7
lots in this one large parcel. The remainder of the parcel
has not been dedicated.
Mr. Robinson: We have reasons to request this. If you sell the lots
and the buyers don't like the circular drives, they could
3057
remove them. If they all got together they could agree
to do this unless it is in the deed restrictions. They
can still use it for their own use, it is only (' •r'.icated
so that if it is necessary the property will be there.
Mr. Angevine: Would the City put in the paving of these access drives?
Mr. Walker: No.
Mr. Robinson: That is right but it is an incentive for the people
adjoin ;, to put in a service drive.
Mr. Walker: The motive behind it is good and I think it would be
advantageous if we could do this but we are dealing with
an area that we do not know how it will be developed and
dealing with only a small portion of it at this time.
Mr. Peacock: Is it the petitioner's intent to pave or gravel?
Mr. McCullough: It will be in the deed restrictions that the buyer will
pave the circular drive. A disadvantage of deed restrictions
is that the City cannot enforce them. Therefore, these should be plat conditions.
Mr. Kane: I think we should take it under advisement and study it
further and determine if we want a service drive along
Wayne Road.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-482 by Clarence
R. Charest who is asking that the zoning classification on
property located on the West side of Maplewood Avenue approximately 120 ft. North
of Clarita in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 be rezoned from RUFB to R-1A. Mr.
Charest, r( titioner, is present.
Mr. Peacock: Is it your intention to build a home on this lot?
Mr. Charest: This was purchased as a single lot. We were told it
was already split and could be built upon and the tax
bills indicated that the lot was split and we thought there
was no question of using it. But later we found that
we could not do this so this is the reason we are asking
for a rezoning.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously
adopted, it was
#12-255-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-482 by Clarence Charest for a change of zoning in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUFB to R-1A, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
Z-482 be granted for the following reasons:
(1) This 60 x 298 tract cannot be used under the existing RUF
classification because the width is lass than one fourth the
depth which prohibition does not exist in an R-1 classification,
3058
(2) it is not inconsistent with what already exists since houses Lave
been erected on several lots along the east side of Maplewood which
are 50 x 300 ft. ,
•
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the
official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November 30, 1960 and
notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake
& Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumer Power
Company, City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of
Service.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-483 by D. R.
McCullough to determine whether or not Section 4.45 of Article
4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 60 should be amended by adding thereto an addendum
to Section 4.45.
Mr. McCullough read the proposed amendment to the commission.
Mr. Peacock: Suppose the petitioner applies for an occupancy permit in
the winter when it is not advisable to build the protective
wall?
At present
Mr. McCullough: This is the purpose of the new ordinance/ because the
weather is not suitable to build the protective wall when
the occupancy permit is issued, the wall is never built.
It was suggested that where it states where it is inconvenient for the applicant
for a building permit, etc", that the wording be changed to read "where it is imposs-
ible for the applicant for a building permit, etc." AND that instead of this being
an addendum to Section 4.45, that it be known as sub-section (b) of Section 4.45 of
Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Walker: What if the Engineering Department does not feel a wall
should be erected in a certain area?
Mr. McCullough: Then this can be construed as a hardship and the applicant
could go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mrs. Lucille Garrett, 15020 Lenor, Redford objected to the proposed amendment.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, it was
#12-256-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-483 by D. R. McCullough te.determine whether or not
to amend Section 4.45 of Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance
No. 60 by adding thereto .r rddcnerm , the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
Z-483 be granted subject, however, to the following:
(1) that this amendment be known as sub-section (b) to Section
4.45 of Article 4.00 instead of as an Addendum, and
(2) that the word "inconvenient" in the sentence beginning with
3059
1[4; "In cases where it is" be changed to read "impossible", and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published
in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of
November 30, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to
The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan
Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments
and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. v' lker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously
adopted, it was
#12-257-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning C<mmission does hereby adjourn
the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, December 20, 1960 at
approximately 9:50 p.m.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9:52 p.m.
The Chairman called the 122 Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:02 p.m.
with all those members present that were present at the time recess was called
with the exception of Mr. Robert L. Greene who was excused for the balance of
the meeting.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request dated November
18, 1960 from Jared Builder, Inc. for one year extension
on the Elley Kay Subdivision located between Middlebelt Road and Harrison on
the North side of Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13. Preliminary
approval granted January 19, 1960.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
#12-258-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 122nd Regular Meeting held
by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 20, 1960
;he City Planning Commission does hereby grant request dated
November 18, 1960 from the Jared Builders, Inc. , for one=year
extension on the preliminary approval granted on the Ellen
Kay Subdivision located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13.
Mr. Okerstrom: We are leaving a dead end street even though
it might be shorter than what the ordinance allows. (Mr.
Okerstrom was referring to Garden Street)
Mr. McCullough: It is less than 400 ft, that is probably why it was
allowed when the preliminary approval was granted.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution r. sulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Kane and Walker
NAYS: Okerstrom
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
3060
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-57 by the Socony
IEMobil Oil Company requesting the vacating of the east/west
alley between Arcola and Inkster which is located approximately 100 ft. South of
Plymouth Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36. Public Hearing held on November
22, 1960.
Mr. Peacock: This should be listed as a rediscussion and not as another
hearing.
This was determined as true. Petition V-57 was denied at the meeting held on
November 22, 1960. It is being brought back because it was thought that after a
rediscussion, the resolution adopted at that time could be rescinded and another
resolution adopted in its place. One reason for denying said petitbn was because
it was felt that the protective call should not be built within the residential
lot line of the first lot south of the commercial property. The petitioner had
been given approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals to do so. Another reason had
been that the use of the other commercial lots in the remainder of the block
serviced by said alley has not been determined and also for the reasons as stated
in the letter received from the Engineering Department dated November 15, 1960.
The location of one of the pumps had made it necessary for the p4titioner to ask
for a variance of the ordinance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in relation to
the erection of the protective wall.
Mr. Peacock: The pump could be moved and more property taken from
along Plymouth Road thereby eliminating the driveway at
the rear along Inkster Road.
Mr. Kane: The vacating of the alley has nothing to do with the
gas station. It is whether or not we want to vacate the
alley.
Mr. Angevine: If it is going to be vacated it should be done now not
after the property is built upon.
Mr. Okerstrom: What good will it do when it is vacated?
Mr. McCullough: In this case, it makes a better turning radii and they
can put in a driveway.
Mr. Pence: One point I would like to make. Your present ordinance
states that a protective wall is to be erected when the
property is developed. But your ordinance also states
that this wall is to be an unpierced wall . If this wall
goes on the property line and it is an unpierced wall,
of what value is that alley as a service drive? The N/S
alley has already been vacated, now if the E/W alley is
not vacated and the wall is put on the north side of
what value is that alley? Alleys get to be pretty
unsightly and with a wall at the north end it will aggravate
Iri this situation because you will have a condition of no-
man's land. The ordinance states the property owner is
responsible for the maintaining of this area but it really
becomes a matter of the City policing the area.
Mr. McCullough pointed out that the service station can be erected on the 100 ft.
as proposed but if the wall is erected on the north end, then you will have the
condition pointed out by Mr. Pence.
3061
1E: Mr. Pence further stated that the use of the alley as an approach for a gas station
is a common thing in Detroit and other areas.
Mr. Walker: You stated at one of the other meetings that you would be
willing to erect the protective wall for the entire length
of the E/W alley and also you would be willing to post a
cash bond for this protective wall. Is that correct?
Mr. Pence: Yes, that is right.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#12-25"-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 122nd Regular Meeting having been
held on Tuesday, December 20, 1960 on a rediscussion of the
action taken on Petition V-57 by the City Planning Commission
on Tuesday, November 22, 1960, the City Planning Commission does
hereby rescind said action.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Angevine, Kane and Walker
NAYS: Cameron, Peacock, Robinson and Okerstiom
Mr. Walker: The foregoing resolution was not carried, therefore it is
not adopted and the previous resolution is still in effect.
II
j Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was
#12-260-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 122nd Regular Meeting held on
Tuesday, December 20, 1960 the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant request from Rouge Building Company dated December
12, 1960 for ,me-year's extension on the preliminary approval
granted on the Bu-ion Hollow 'ubdivision #3 located in the
North half of Section 16.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The foregoing resolu'4ln is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#12-261-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 122nd Regular Meeting held
on Tuesdev, December 20, 1960 the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant request from Rouge Building Company dated December
IL 12, 1960 for one-year's extension on the preliminary approval
granted on the Burton Hollows Subdivision #4 located in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 16.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
3062
IL: Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was
#12-262-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission after carefully re-
viewing Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia
entitled, "Master Schcol and Park Plan", which plan was adopted
by the City Planning Commission on December 15, 1953 and amended
from time to time and revised on August 16, 1960 and thereafter
certified to the City Council and filed with the Wayne County
Register of Deeds in accordance with law and it appearing that
certain property hereinafter described should be deleted on
such plan, the City Planning Commission on its own motion does
hereby order and establish a public hearing to be held on
January 17, 1961 at 8:00 P.M. in the City Hall of the City of
Livonia to determine whether or not Part V of the Master Plan
of the City of Livonia should be amended so as to delete for
future public purposes the proposed park site in Section 2 and
designate the following described property for future public
purposes:
The Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter
of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter
of Section 2; the Northeast quarter of the Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast 1/4
of Section 2; the Soutn half of the Southeast
quarter of the Northeast one quarter of the South-
west quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 2,
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the time and place of
said public hearing be published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Livonia and that proper notice by
registered mail be sent to each public utility company and
railroad company owning or operating any public utility or
railroad within the City of Livonia in accordance with the
provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of 1931 ,. as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#12-263-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, Ncvemt.er :2, 1960 except
I[: for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried ai:d the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, it was
3063
#12-264-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 122nd Regular Meeting held
by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, December 20,
1960, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant request
from John F. Uznis Builders, Inc. , dated December 19, 1960
for one -year extension on the preliminary approval granted
to the Id'-1 Wyld Estates Subdivision #3 located in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 122nd Regular Meeting
held on Tuesday, December 20, 1960 at approximately 10:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
c 0, e
W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
-.I ' ' Z6 • Z/(/
Cha les U. Walker, Chairman