HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-01-10 3064
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
THE 125TH SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
- COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 10, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
a public hearing and the 125th Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five
MileRoad, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman called the Public Hearing
to order at approximately 8:02 p.m.
Members present: W. E. Okerstrom, James A. Watson, Robert L. Angevine, Leonard
K. Kane, Robert L. Greene, James Cameron, Robert Peacock
and Charles W. Walker
Members absent: **Dennis Anderson
Mr. David McCullough, City Planner was present along with approximately thirty (30)
interested persons in the audience.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is the proposed Canbros
Buckingham 1:1 ,:a Subdivision, which is a replatting of Out-
lots A and B of the Buckingham Village Subdivision #2 located on the Northwest
corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. Submitted
by Mason L. Brown & Sons, Inc.
The Fire Department has asked that the setback of Frank's
Nursery be established as the setback for any future
building and that the easement running north and south be
continued down to the front of the group of buildings.
Mr. Byron Canvasser was present for the petitioner.
Mr. Canvasser: We have a number of owners in this shopping center and to
ease a difficult situation, due to taxes, splitting of lots
etc. , we are asking permission to replat this property.
Mr. Walker: You are representing all the property owners?
Mr. Canvasser: Yes, Mason L. Brown & Sons who submitted the petition are
the surveyors.
Mr. Walker: Have you any definite plans for the future development of
this area?
Mr. Canvasser: We filed a building permit this morning in order to erect
an office building and retail- plaza adjacent to the existing
buildings on Lot 6. This will consist of 4 retail units,
a 25 ft. plaza with 12 office units.
Mr. Walker: Have you the plans with you?
Mr. Canvasser: They are filed with the building department.
- 1[: Mr. Walker: Can you comply with the request from the Fire Department?
Mr. Canvasser; This is the first I have heard of the request, I' ll have to
look into it.
Mr. Walker: Are there any garages from the subdivision on the easement
3065
line?
Mr. Canvasser: As far as I know they are not. I have nothing to do with
the residential property.
Mr. Angevine: What area will the new building cover?
Mr. Canvasser: There are two separate units, A and B, consisting of
approximately 10,000 sq. ft. They will have the same
set back on Lot 6 in line with the building on Lot 1.
There will be a 25 ft. plaza from the front of the lot
to the back.
Mr. Angevine: In regard to the parking area. What effect will these
additions have on the parking area. Will it be sufficient?
Mr. McCullough: I haven't checked out the parking area, but it will have
to be adequate to take care of the additional buildings.
Yr. Canvasser: We have approximately 67,000 sq. ft. at the present time.
We would be adding an additional 10,000 sq. ft. , making a
total of 77,000 sq. ft. We have parking area of one
space per 100 ft.which is approximately three times the
required amount.
Mr. Peacock: Is it your intent to pave the alley?
f
Mr. Canvasser: Yes, as we progress we would be paving the alley.
Mr. Peacock: What about the protective wall?
Mr. Canvasser: That question is before the Zoning Board of Appeals and I
believe it is scheduled for the 26th of this month.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. McCullough: Since this proposed plan conflicts with the Fire Department,
I suggest it be held up at least one week so that Mr.
Canvasser can check it out with that department.
Mr. Camer-n: I feel we should hold this up until Mr. Canvasser has
met with the Zoning Board of Appeals and get the protective
wall situation settled.
Mr. Walker: This itFln will be taken under advisement.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-212 by Lloyd
Wilkie requesting permission to opera: = a dry-cleaning
plant on property known as 15225 Farmington Road, located on the W. side of
Farmington and approximately 290 ft. S. of Five iale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
21.
Mr. Casey and Mr. Wilk were present.
Mr. Wilkie: This is a present building which we are going to lease
out. Presently the area to the rear is the lumber yard.
But they will be moving elsewhere. We want to enhance our
property to tie in with the shopping center presently there.
3066
**Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at 8:05 p.m.
Mr. McCullough: What color willthe brick be?
Mr. Wilkie: We had planned on a buff color. But it doesn't make any
difference, we can make it any color.
Mr. McCullough: I felt that red would conform with the existing shopping
center.
Another point - you can not have any dwelling on the
second floor of this building, you understand that?
Mr. Wilkie: This will be used for office use only - no residence at all.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#1-1-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, January 10, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Petition M-212 by Lloyd Wilkie requesting permission to
operate a dry-cleaning plant on property located on the West side
of Farmington, approximately 290 ft. S. of Five Mile in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments
ll: as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane,
Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resp'?•tion is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-214 by The
Ohio Oil Company requesting permission to construct a
gasoline service station on property located on the Northwest corner of Plymouth
Road and Wayne Road (if cut through) on Lots 10 and 11 of the Alden Village Sub-
division known as 34900 Plymouth in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 28.
Mr. George Whitson, representative of the Ohio Oil Company was present.
Mr. Walker explained to those present that this petition,although on the agenda for
a public hearing,could not be acted upon for the reason that a petition to rezone
this specific property from C-1 to C-2 is scheduled for the meeting next week, in
order to permit a gas station on this property . Due to a clerical error, it had
been placed on tonight's agenda. Mr. Walker further stated he had been informed
I:
by the Law Department that the hearing can be held but that action will have to be
postponed until after a decision has been made as to the zoning.
Mr. Whitson: There is a possibility of Wayne Road being extended North of
plymou Road . Mr. Hall who now has a frontage of 205 ft.
would have this frontage decreased to 132.6 with a road
3067
cut through. As I understand it Mr. Hall had previously
made application to request permission to erect a Big Boy
Drive-in restaurant on this property. But he was denied
simply because the facility he had in mind was toolarge
after the roadway was taken. Essentally Mr. Hall has only
132.6 frontage which can be used. What we have done is to
prepare a plot plan showing the layout of the station on
the property on only that part of the property not to be
used for roadway purposes.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. J. Vanz : I live in the neighborhood and represent the people in this
12066 Boston Post Rd) area. We wondered ch-l'y two lots were being rezoned to C-2.
I can see and understand now because of the proposed roadway,
that both lots were needed. We are not objecting to the
gasoline station although a C-2 zoning could be very detriments
to the area providing a gasoline station did not get
erected on the property. I realize that the Planning
Commission can not guarantee that a gas station will be
erected there but if it is isn't, we will be confronted with
a C-2 zoning which could allow a type of business that would
be very detrimental to the residential area. I do not know
if this gentleman could guarantee us in any way that the
property to be rezoned from C-1 to C-2 would be used for
gasoline station and that no other type of C-2 business
IL:
would be erected upon that property.
Mr. Whitson: I may be able to clarify this. We have taken an option to
purchase this property subject to our ability to have it
rezoned suitable for a gas station. If we do not go ahead
with the deal, we are subject to litigation. It is our
full intent and desire to go ahead with this station. We
have prepared this plot plan showing that none of the station
will encroach on any part of the right-of-way for the proposed
Wayne Road.
Mr. Robert Acchoine: (Owner of Lots 6, 7.) As I see Plymouth Road today, I do
2958 Hooker, Detroit) not be:sieve that a C-2 zoning would hurt anybody. I feel that
Plymouth Road should be zoned C-2 all the way so that all
property owners are treated the same on condition that this
board has control over what goes in so that nothing is
erected which would harm the people in the subdivision at
the rear of the commercial zoning. There are three gas
stations across the street. I feel it would be discriminatory
not to give permission to the0i Oil Company to erect a
gas station. I think that the Oil Company would agree to
make it more specific that they will use this property for
a gas station and nothing else. I think they are here to
cooperate with the city and the people in the area. I go
along with Mr. Vanzo that this permission should be given.
IL:
Mr. Vanzo: In relation to the protective wall; I would like to ask that
this wall be erected across the back of the entire piece of
property until the time comes that the highway is built
through including the area where the highway will be coming
through. If it is only erected on the portion of the gas
3068
the
station property, it will leave a pole between/Robert Hall
wall and the gas station wall.
flo Mr. Ualker: The zoning ordinance itself will require a wall as a buffer
between the residential and commercial area.
Mr. Paul Kurtz: I have 25 acres immediately to the west of the property in
14183 Wyoming, Detroit) question. I feel we have enough gas stations on this
road. There is 50 acres of land to be developed next to
it. If this gas station comes in it would obstruct the
view of a piece of property that is going to be developed
soon. The gas station wants to be as close to the road
as possible. If they would have a set back like Robert
Hall's, we would not object. I object to the gas station
being erected on this small a piece of property.
Mr. Greene: Would your business be hurt by the erection of the gas
station?
Mr. Kurtz: Yes, because it would obstruct the view. Ford Motor Car
Company is set further back also like we are planning to
do.
Mr. Greene: Would it be possible for you to buy this piece of property
and include it with yours?
Mr. Kurtz: Yes, it is possible.
Ire Mr. Watson: How deep is your property ?
Mr. Kurtz: It is one-half mile long in depth.
Mr. Acchoine: It doesn't seem right to have one property owner objecting
to someone else developing his land. I have no interest
in this station and it doesn't help my property but every-
one should be treated th same. If it will interfere with
them, then let them contact the Clio Oil Company and see
if something can be worked out.
Mr. Kurtz: Other businesses along here have a set back to conform with
each other. There isn't sufficient depth to this property
to have a set back to conform with the others.
Mr. Walker: This board is certainly awa reof the situation along
Plymouth Road. We do not eke the unsightliness of the
different setbacks of the businesses. We would like to have
a better control of this condition along Plymouth Road
and we are trying every day to do something about it. We
also feel that a deeper setback would be better for everyone
concerned but we do not have the entire say so on that.
Other departments can over rule us. Unfortunately anything
I[: that is built on Plymouth Road today has to have only a
40 ft. set back. Anything over that is given voluntarily
by the petitioner.
Since this item cannot be acted upon tonight, this item
will be taken under advisement. We are planning on holding
a study meeting and if you desire to be present, Mr. Whitsoq,
3069
we will notify you of the date.
I: Mr. Whitson: Yes, I would like to be present.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#1-2-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby duly
adjourn the Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 10, 1961 at
approximately 8:50 p.m.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane
Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is hereby
adjourned.
Mr. Walker called recess at approximately 8:51 p.m.
* * * * * * * *
The Chairman called the 125th Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:05 p.m.
with all those members present now who were present at the time the public hearing
was adjourned.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-209 by Socony
Mobil Oil Company requesting permission to construct an
automotive service station on the Southwest corner of Plymouth and Inksinr Roads
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36. Public Hearing 10/4/60, item taken under
advisement; 121st Regular Meeting, item taken under advisement.
The City Council approved the vacating of the east/west
alley south of the property in this petition, at last
night's regular meeting.
Mr. Walker: Just to clarify what has happened on this petition, the
Zoning Board of Appeals approved the relocating of the
protective wall pending this board's action on the vacating
of the alley. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved of relo-
cceing the wall on one foot of the north line of the first
the alley. Monday night, the City Council approved the alley vacation.
We have two plot plans before us for consideration - to
approve or disapprove. Plan A is without the alley being
vacated, thereby making the depth of the lot to be developed
100 ft. with the protective wall located on the south
commercial line. Plan B is with the alley vacated, making
the lot 120 ft. in depth and the protective wall located
on the 1 ft. of the residential lot immediately south of
the alley.
There is one important point to consider. If the wall is
built upon the commercial line it screens away the alley
from the commercial property, yet the alley is supposed to
be there for use by the commercial.
3070
Mr. Pence: (Representative for the petitioner) Our first plan shows a protective
wall fm m Inkster to Arcola with the alley vacated. The
purpose of the wall is to screen the residences from the
commercial area.
It was determined at this time that the Engineerng Department had objected to
a wall being erected on the N/S vacated easement. Mr. Pence stated they were willing
to build a wall for the entire length if the Engineering Department permits them.
Mr. Walker stated that he thought there was a sewer in that area and that is probably
the reason the Engineering Department had objected.
Mr. Pence: This will be a face brick wall on both sides and it will
be capped. The brick used will be that same kind as we
will be using on the exterior of the gas station. This
station will not be built of baked enamel but of face
brick.
You can make the approval subject to it being built of
face brick.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was
01-3-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 4, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Petition M-209 of Socony Mobil Oil Company requesting permission
to construct an automo+ Eve service station on the Southwest
corner of Plymouth and Ink •ter Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of
• Section 36, subject, however, to the following:
(a) that the protective wall be erected from Inkster to Arcola
as orally represented by the petitioner;
(b) that the petitioner can be relieved of erecting the wall
across the 20 ft. north/south alley if the Engineeing Department
expresses its opinion that to erect the wall is contrary to
the City's best interests or that a different type of construction
is necessary across this 20 ft. ;
(c) that if the wall is not built when the certificate of occupancy
is applied for, the petitioner will post a cash bond in the
amount of $12.00 per lineal foot insuring erection of the wall,
which may be forfeited by the City if the wall is not erected
within four (4) months;
(d) that the gas station be erected of face brick as orally
represented by the petitioner, 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:
1[
AYES: Cameron, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane and Walker 70
NAYS: Peacock, Greene and Okerstrom
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-485 by Dr. C.
Alexander who is asking for a change of30zo71ning on property
1[40 located on the North side of Ann Arbor Trail, 200 ft. E. of Hix Road in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 31 from R-1A to R-2 or PS. Public Hearing held 12/20/60, item taken
under advisement.
Mr. Peacock: We examined the area last Saturday and I can not see how
putting in a convalescent home would be detrimental to
that area. The people to the west are complaining because
of the patio that the convalescent home is planning on
having,but the ground drops very suddenly and because of
this drop the patio would be more or less obscured from the
residence.
Mr. Okerstrom: Isn't there some other way to situate the home on the
property than what it shows on the map?
Mr. Angevine: The doctor said the home could be erected differently than
what is shown on the plan before us.
Mr. Greene: The topography might necessitate a large amount of fill.
This might be against residential zoning.
Mr. McCullough: That is true.
Mr. Walker: This general area, because of its proximity to the park
and the topography of the area lends itself for this type
1[140 of use but what I am concerned about is that in this city
we have allowed a lot of PS zoning. If you recall the City
Council allowed a lot of PS in an area where we did not go
along with it and there has been so many rezonings to PS,
I am wondering how close we have come to the saturation
point of this kind of land use. There was one specific
reason for the PS zoning. It was to serve as a buffer
between the commercial and residential areas because it
would resemble residential. I think we have reached the point
where we have to go back on some of these things and re-
evaluate this and study it thoroughly and see how much we
should have and where it should be. Too much of this
zoning is coming before us that is only for speculation and
not for actual building at the present time.
Mr. Angevine: How much PS we can use can be only determined with the
amount of business the City will have. In this case, there
is a concrete purpose for this PS, whereas in some of the
other areas, it was only zoned PS for the future. I do
not think there is any PS in this particular area as yet.
Mr. Watson: This is a giant step in the right direction sc, as to get
away from the type of home that is presently on Plymouth
Road near Middlebelt. This is the right step to have a
1[0 convalescent home that is correct.
Mr. Walker: We should designate the set back of the buildings to con-
form with those to the west.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
3072
#1-4-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
IL: Tuesday, December 20, 1960 as submitted by Dr. C. Alexander for
a change of zoning in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from R-1A
to PS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition Z-485 be granted for the following
reasons:
(1) the topographical condition of this land is such that
it would probably require an inordinate amount of fill
in order to use it for residential purposes;
(2) the proximity of the park to the north provides a ready made
recreational area for this facility;
SUBJECT, HOWEVER, to the following conditions:
(a) that the proposed convalescent home be set back at least as
far back as the residence located immediately west thereof;
(b) that pursuant to Dr. Alexander's oral representation, the
building be designed in a U-shape in order to screen the
patio from the present and future buildings located on either
side thereof, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the
official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of November 30, 1960
110 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. ,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Company,
The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petitioner as listed
in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Kane,
Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: Anderson
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Lorraine Sigg
Subdivision located on the E. side of Wayne, 747 ft. S.
of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9. Public Hearing 12/20/60 item
taken under advisement.
The only question is whether or not we should require him
to install the access drive. As an alternative, Mr. Sigg
has asked that he be permitted to have circular drives for
each home.
1[: You are starting out in an unplatted area and if you permit
one subdivision in without access drives, the next one will
be even harder to require them for in the approval of said
subdivisions.
Mrs Walker: I have done a lot of think these lots and we need to
establish a standard set of regulations for subdivision
3073
development along mile roads. I think that where we have
a stretch of 1/4 mile or more along a mile road with no
obstruction a marginal access road should be mandatory. In
areas with shorter distances because of development, we
should use the back up treatment, as submitted in the
suggested driveway pattern
Mr. Sigg was present.
Mr. McCullough: Mr. Sigg doesn't watt to plat if an access drive is
required.
Mr. Angevine: The question in my mind is would it be a heavy enough
traveled road to demand an access road?
Mr. Walker: Part of this road goes .':rough heavily platted subdivisions
south of here, but north of the proposed subdivision the
lots are larger and unplatted.
Mr. Watson: What if nothing is done until Wayne Road is developed?
Would the City have any recourse if they wanted to put in
the access drives?
Mr. McCullough: They would have to buy it.
It is Mr. Sigg's feeling he cannot afford the bonding
requirements if the access drive is put in.
Mr. Peacock: Is it a possibility that Wayne Road will go through?
Mr. McCullough: Yes, it is.
Mr. Walker asked for a show of hands of those members who were in favor of the
access drive. There were seven members who preferred the drives to the circular
drives.
Mr. McCullough: I believe that Mr. Sigg would then prefer to withdraw his
subdivision.
Mr. Sigg confirmed this, and asked permission to do so.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#1-5-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
on Tuesday, December 20, 1960 the City Planning Commission does
hereby permit the petitioner of the proposed Lorraine Sigg
Subdivision in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9, to withdraw said
subdivision, for the reason he does not feel he can afford the
cost of the improvements required for marginal access drives.
fa A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson,
Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
3074
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is in relation to certain
property on Five Mile Road east of the Civic Center. The
City Council at their last meeting adopted a resolution to
have the City Planning Commission hold a public hearing to
determine whether or not to rezone this property from CC
to PS. The City Council does not want to purchase it and
they are not planning on purchasing it. The reason it has
been put on this agenda is that this particular property
was included in Petition Z-484 which had its public hearing
at the meeting held on December 20, 1960. Mr. Michael
Caffery, who is representing the owners of these parcels
has asked that the Planning Commission consider this tonight
rather than wait for another public hearing. These propertie
are owned by Mrs. Baze, Mr. O'Neil and Mr. Wheelock.
There are other parcels included in Petition Z-484 besides
those Mr. Caffery is interested in but these can be acted
upon at some later date.
Mr. Peacock: Will the present buildings be used?
Mr. Caffery: Mr.O'Neil's probably could not be used because it is frame,
as is Mr. Wheelock's. Mrs. Baze' is brick and under the
ordinance it more than likely can be used for PS, but I
believe that the man who wants to purchase this piece of
property will tear it down.
1[1: Mr. Walker: Originally in the discussion with the City Council and the
Planning Consultant, Mr. Albe Munson, and other professional
people, it was recommended that we see if control could be
had as to the architectural design of future construction
around the Civic Center so as to protect it. Here we are
considering a PS zone practically within the heart of
the City's Civic Center and I would like to know if the
professional people and the City Council are still concerned
about this.
It was suggested that the applicant be made to agree to conform with the architecture
of the civic center and have all plans approved by the City Planning Commission and
the City Council before building.
Mr. Peacock: I can not see why we cannot wait on this until we have more
information from the City Council.
Mr. Greene: This is one of the items on the Liaison Committee and I
can't see why we should approve this until we have had this
meeting.
Mr. Walker: Because you are the Chairman and your committee is going
before the council, if it is your wish, we will wait until
you have had this meeting.
110 Mr. Greene: It isn't my wish but I believe we should wait until we have
something more concrete on this. It is our recommendation
that we wait until we've had this meeting.
Mr. Caffery objected to the delay.
Mr.
3075
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until the meeting
between the Liaison Committees of the City Council and the
City Planning Commission has been held.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#1-6-70 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
the minutes for meetings held on Tuesday, December 13th and
December 20, 1960 except for that member who was not present,
he abstain from voting.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: 'ameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson,
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. Okerstrom, it was
#1-7-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 125th Special Meeting held by
the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 10, 1961,
the City Planning Commission does hereb1 grant request dated
January 6, 1961 for one-year's extension on the preliminary
approval granted on the Dover Courts subdivision located in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson,
Kane, 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 a motion to hold a public
hearing to determine whether or not the "A and B" building
size classifications on the Zoning Map of the City of Livonia should be changed
from 1000 ft. to 1200 ft. in the "A" classification and from 800 ft. to 1000 ft.
in the "B" classification.
Uprn a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#1-8-61 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 de-ermine whether or not
flection 4.32 of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No. 60 should be amended
as follows:
Section 4.32 Dwelling Size • One-Family. Zones "A" and "B" as shown
on the Zoning Map of the City of Livonia, are hereby established
and shall determine the minimum size of one-family dwellings within
said zones. The following regulations are hereby established for
3076
such zones:
ZONE A. In all zones designated as "A", no buildings of
a one (1) floor plan used as a one-family dwelling shall be con-
structed or altered where the first floor contains less than twelve
hundred (1200) square feet of usable floor area; no building of
one and one-half (1-1/2) story plan used as a one-family dwelling
shall be constructed or altered where the ground floor area of
said building or structure contains less than one thousand (1000)
square feet and the aggregate livable floor area of the entire
building shall not be less than twelve hundred (1200) square feet;
and no building of a two (2) story plan used as a one-family
dwelling shall be constructed or altered where the ground floor
area of said building or structure contains less than six hundred
seventy-two (672) square feet and the aggregate livable floor area
of the entire building shall not be less than twelve hundred (1200)
square feet.
ZONE B. In all zones designated as "B", no building of
a one (1) floor plan used as a one-family dwelling shall be con-
structed or altered containing less than one thousand (1000) square
feet of usable floor area; no building of a one and one-half (1-1/2)
story plan used as a one-family dwelling, shall be constructed or
altered where the ground floor area of said building contains less
than six hundred seventy-two (672) square feet and the aggregate
livable floor area of the entire building shall not be less than one
thousand (1000) square feet; and no building of a two (2) story plan
used as a one-family dwelling shall be constructed or altered where
the ground floor area of said building contains less than six hundred
twenty-four (624) square feet and the aggregate livable floor area
of the entire building shall not be le"s than one thousand (1000)
square feet.
FURTHER RESOLVED, 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: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane
Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: At the last meeting we adopted a resolution to amend Section
4.45 of Article 4.00 so as to set a bond for the erection of
the protective walls. It has been pointed out that the wording
of the amendment as adopted is not correct. Because of this,
it will be necessary to rescind the resolution and thereafter
make a motion to hold another public hearing on the corrected
amendment.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously
adopted, it was
3077
#1-9-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 125th Special Meeting held by
the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, January 10, 1961,
the City Planning Commission does hereby rescind Resolution
#12-256-60 adopted on Tuesday, December 20, 1960 for Petition
Z-483 amending Section 4.45 of Article 4.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance No. 60, for the reason that it has been determined
that the language contained therein is not correct, and that
another public hearing will have to be held on said petition.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
#1-10-61 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 4.45 of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No. 60 should be amended
by adding thereto the following:
(b) The erection of a protective wall or the planning of a
greenbelt as required by this section shall be a con-
dition precedent to the issuance of any certificate of
occupancy. In cases where the applicant can show that
it is impracticable to construct the wall at this parti-
cular time, he may comply with this condition precedent
by filing a cash bond with the City Clerk in the amount
of twelve dollars ($12.00) per lineal foot of wall or
greenbelt required, and by executing an affidavit wherein
the applicant agrees to erect the wall or plant the
greenbelt on or before a certain date. In those cases in
which a bond and affidavit are deposited, if the required
wall or greenbelt has not been erected within ninety (90)
days after the bond and affidavit are deposited or on the
date fixed in the affidavit, whichever is later, the City
shall have the right to forfeit the cash bond and from the
proceeds thereof to erect plant or cause to be erected or
planted the required protective wall or greenbelt. Any
balance shall be refunded to the original applicant.
FURTHER RESOLVED, 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 recommendations thereon to the City Council.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson,
Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough submitted to the commission preliminary plans of the proposed
Civic Center site. He explained these plans to them. It was determined that the
new Water and Sewer Building will have other departments in it besides their own
and because of this, it will be necessary to have it located in close proximity
to the City Hall.
3070
Mr. McCullough stated that if any of the commission members had any suggestions they
were welcomed to submit them to him.
li:
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 125th Special Meeting
held on Tuesday, January 10, 1961 at approximately 10:45 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
L01 U'. I /
W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
, . OJ /J
Charles W. Walker, Chairman
4