HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-04-18 3158..
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
THE 126TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, April 18, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
a public hearing and the 126th 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, James Watson, Robert M. Peacock, W. E.
Okerstrom, James Cameron and Charles W. Walker
Members absent : ** Dennis Anderson, Robert L. Greene and Robert L. Angevine
Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner was present along with approximately 50
interested persons in the audience.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-503 by Earl R.
Dahlin and nine other residents of Hillcrest Aienue are
asking that the zoning classification of property located
on the West side of Henry Ruff Road between Schoolcraft Road
and Lyndon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 be re-
zoned from RUF to RL.
Mr. Dahlin was present as spokesman for the other property owners in the petition.
Mr. McCullough explained that these lots had a frontage along Hillcrest of approxi-
mately 100 ft. with a depth of 252 ft. which backed up onto Henry Ruff. The
owners are planning on splitting these lots in half thus having lots approximately
} 100 ft. x 125 ft. with frontage along Hillcrest and Henry Ruff.
Mr. Dahlin explained that it was stated in their deeds that these lots can be
split. After the split they would average 13,000 sq. ft. , more than enough to
conform to the RLA which requires 9600 sq. ft.
Mr. McCullough: lily didn't the other property owners request a rezoning also?
Mr. Dahlin: Some of these owners have small children and they want this
large area for these children to play upon.
It was suggested that it might be wise to rezone the remaining lots facing Henry
Ruff on the Planning Commission's motion rather than rezoning only those listed
in the petition.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Walker asked the Commission what they thought about rezoning the remaining
lots not included in this petition. Mr. Kane felt that this would be the proper
way to do it - to include all the lots not just a few.
It was decided to take this under advisement until it was determined whether or
not the Planning Commission would want to rezone all the lots facing Henry Ruff.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-504 by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether
or not to amend sub-section (b) of Section 9.52 of Article
9.50 P.S. District Regulations.
3159
Mr. McCullough explained that the Law Department was not in agreement as to the
wording of the standard in this amendment. Because of this, this item will have
to be taken under advisement until he has discussed this further with them.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak.
Mr. Walker stated this item will be taken under advisement.
• Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is proposed Lyndon Meadows
Subdivision #4 submitted by Oakview Homes, Inc. , and located
on the East side of Henry Ruff Road approximately 1800 feet
North of Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
23. (A portion of the original Lyndon Meadows Subdivision).
Mr. McCullough stated there was no unfavorable correspondence but there were
a number of people in the adjacent subdivision who were present and had a number
of questions to ask. Mr. Holloway would represent these property owners. The
developer, Mr. Menuck was present along with his attorney, Mr. Goldman, and Mr.
T. Cantrall from Warner & Warner (Engineers).
Mr. Cantrall: This is part of the original Lyndon Meadows Subdivision
which was approved quite some time ago. They had received
an extension of one year on the approval last year on this
portion but neglected to do so this year. They are ready to
complete their subdivision now and are requesting pre-
liminary approval.
1[41i Mr. McCullough: One of the objections raised by the property owners is that
after the plat has been given final approval the developer
splits them into 60 ft. lots. The objectors who live in
other portions of Lyndon Meadows would like some assurance
that you would not do this with this subdivision. Would
you be willing to give them deed restrictions stating you
would not split these lots any smaller?
Mr. Menuck: There are two of us involved with lots on Henry Ruff, myself
and Mr. Richard Bleznak. We are faced with the situation
that we could not sell 90 ft. lots on Henry Ruff. We there-
fore, split them into 75 and 72 ft. lots, gaining two lots.
Mr. Okerstrom: Are these the size of the lots now?
Mr. Menuck: There will be no lot smaller than 75 ft. Some of Mr. Bleznak's
are 80 ft. on Doris which back up to Henry Ruff.
Mr. Okerstrom: Are you going to leave them this size or are you going to
split them?
Mr. Menuck: I can not make any committment.
Mr. McCullough: What size are the homes?
Mr. Menuck: They are 50 ft. homes, same price and same calibar as the
others. They will run as high as $25,000, one story and
two story.
Mr. Walker: You are asking for approval on a plat that shows 80 ft. lots
and with 90 ft. lots on Henry Ruff but you cannot guarantee
3160
that they will remain as such?
Mr. Menuck: This is the plat we propose to use.
Mr. Walker: Do you have any plan on reducing the size of these lots now?
Mr. Menuck: No, not as of now.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. R. Holloway: I am the representative of the Lyndon Meadows Civic Associa-
30258 Bentley) tion. We are concerned with this plat. We would like to have
assurance that the present plat will not be changed later.
We are concerned about the construction that would parti-
cularly surround Subdivision #1. We are concerned about
two story colonial homes abutting our type of ranch homes.
We would like some assurance that these lots will remain as
platted and that the homes will conform with the restrictions
of Subdivision #1.
Mr. Walker: As far as the architectural question is concerned, the
Planning Commission has no control over this. In the lot
size, I am not too sure we have much control over that other
than what the zoning ordinance would require under the
zoning designated. We have been aware of the splitting of
the lots and we have tried to work out something. I am not
too sure that we will be able to assure you of complete
control over this.
Mr. Holloway: The unfortunate thing is that in the matter of restrictions
there is no one we can turn to. If we cannot go to the
Planning Commission who can we go to?
Mr. Menuck: As far as the Lyndon Meadows restrictions are concerned,
these restrictions were broken when the association allowed
the colonial home to come in Subdivision #1.
Mr. Holloway: Mr. Menuck is correct. The owner asked for a waiver of re-
strictions so that he could build a two story house. We
canvassed the immediate neighbors. We agreed to give him a
waiver because he owned a lot right on Melvin coming from
Schoolcraft. It is fairly removed from Subdivison #1. This
house is surrounded by Subdivision #2 and #3 where we have
no control of the restrictions. They do allow construction
of colonial type homes and we felt that it was not fair to
make him build a ranch type home because of the surrounding
homes. All our homes are ranch type and we are surrounded
by them.
Mr. Wm. Garvey: They are putting in a street called Oakview. Is this street
14337 Doris) to be paved full or just half?
Mr. Walker: The only thing I can say is that the subdivider has to pave
his half. The other half will have to be worked out with
the Council. They have jurisdiction over the improvements.
Mr. Menuck: We are negotiating with Gordon Begin who own the property on
the north side of Oakview. We can not develop that row of
3161
of lots because there are no sewers but we are willing
to buy their property and if we do, we will pave the
whole street. Our attorneys are working on this matter
- right now.
Mr. GE.rvey objected to the smaller lots being on the east side of Henry Ruff Road
because the lots on the west side were all 100 ft. lots.
Mr. Okerstrom: Doesn't Mr. Menuck have to come before us with a final plat
before he can build?
Mr. McCullough: Yes, but after it is given final approval he can split
the lots as long as they conform with the zoning.
Mr. Okerstrom asked about the drain near Oakview. Mr. Cantrall stated the drain
was set up for the north side of Oakview. Mr. Okerstrom asked if it was to be
in the street or in the easement of the north side and where would the drain be
located on Melvin Avenue. Mr. Cantrall stated that all this would have to be
cleared with the Engineering Department before it goes to the Council for the
establishment of the bond.
Mr. Okerstrom also stated he felt that Oakview should be continued further east.
Mr. McCullough stated it ordinarily would run into Marie, or Oakview, as it
was recently changed to.
Mr. Walker: Do you have any report to make, Plat Committee?
Mr. Okerstrom: Only those points I just mentioned.
I 1[40 Mr. Watson: I think that there whould be an easier way to get into this
subdivision. The only way I could get to it to examine the
area was by a street running off of Middlebelt. I can not
see why Oakview cannot continue into an easterly direction
and tie in with the subdivision to the east. It might
eliminate Lot 293 but it could possibly be picked up again
on the other side of the street.
Mr. Walker: That would be in Gordon-Begin's parcel.
Mr. Menuck: They are developing lots there now.
Mr. Watson: It would be an advantage to Gordon-Begin also because it
will be another entrance to his subdivision.
Mr. Menuck: We have Henry Ruff Road, Melvin and Lyndon Avenue as
entrances to this subdivision. I would be glad to open
up Oakview but I cannot because of the property to the north
which is not developed.
Mr. McCullough: Why not designate Lot 293 as an outlot and negotiate with
Gordon-Begin.
Mr. Okerstrom: If he can't n,gctiate with Gordon-Begin we can always give
1:: him Lot 293 back.
Would you be willing to have this lot designated as an
outlot for a period of six months?
3162 •
•
Mr. Walker: I think we are in the position to grant the approval of
this subdivision subject to dedgnating Lot 293 as an outlot
and then call this to the attention of Gordon-Begin and
see what can be worked out. In the meantime, we will not
be holding Mr. Menuck up.
Mr. Menuck: How long will this take?
Mr. Walker: We will attempt to get in touch with him immediately. If
we cannot work anything out, we will release the lot to you.
Mr. Cantrall: Lyndon Avenue will be a main artery. It will run the full
1/2 mile and it will be only 330 ft. north of Oakview Avenue.
At the time Lyndon is opened up I do not see any problem at
all.
Mr. Walker: We are asking you to allow us to review this entire area
and it is possible after such a review that we will find we
cannot do anything.
Mr. Kane: I do not know what the plat to the east looks like but it
is going to be a rough job to take any lots from Gordon-Begin
and put a road through at this point.
Mr. Walker: That is correct, Mr. Kane, we may find that it will be
impossible to do anything.
**Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Walker asked if there were any further questions.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was
#4-70-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, April 18, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby
give approval to the preliminary plat of the Lyndon Meadows Sub-
division #4 located on the East side of Henry Ruff Road approximately
1800 ft. North of Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23,
because thg lots are now of adequate size, and subject, also, to the
following condition:
(1) that Lot 293 be designated as an outlot for a period of six
months, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting
property owners,proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof
of Service and copies of the plat together with notice having been
sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire
Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation Department and
Members of the Plat Committee.
Mr. Watson: Can we make it a part of the resolution that these lots on
Henry Ruff are to stay the same size as on the present plat?
Mr. Forrest: I do not think the Commission has a right to require that
because it is not within the powers of the Planning
Commission. It would probably not be enforceable.
Mr. Walker: The best plan would be to rezone this area to RLA, requiring
a minimum of 80 ft. lots.
3163
Mr. Anderson: This could still be done even after approving the preliminary
plat?
Mr. Walker: Yes, that probably would be the best way to do it.
A roll call vote on Res. #4-70-61 resulted in the following vote:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Goldman: It seems to me that your attorney will agree that the deed
(Attorney for Mr. Menuck) restrictions of one subdivision do not carry over to
another subdivision automatically. What you are asking is
far more than what the law allows. I believe that the
comments made in good faith go far beyond the requirements
of the law insofar as the deed restrictions contained within
a subdivision.
Mr. Holloway: Although there are only three of us representing the Civic
Association, it is not because of a lack of interest. We
feel very strongly about the size of lot and restrictions.
The only reason there are not twenty or thirty of us present
is because we contacted each individual personally and said
the Civic Association would represent them. We would be
agreeable to the Planning Commission rezoning this area to
RLA.
Mr. Walker: If it is within our p.,wer to keep these lots in their present
size, we would certainly do it.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-80 by Charles
0. Melvin requesting permission to remove a stock pile of
topsoil located on the East side of Middlebelt Road
approximately 1,000 ft. North of Plymouth Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, on Shopper's Fair property.
Mr. Robert Melvin was present representng Mr. C. 0. Melvin.
Mr. McCullough: A letter dated April 18, 1961 has been submitted by the
Engineering Department stating that some water is presently
standing and should be taken care of and also that the ingress
and egress would be over unimproved earth and that some
measure should be taken to prevent mud from being deposited
upon Middlebelt Road. They recommend approval.
Mr. Okerstrom: The stockpile in question was removed from a certain portion
of land to the south, right?
Mr. Melvin: Yes, it was.
Mr. Okerstrom: Does the stockpile presently belong to the same owner?
Mr. Melvin: Yes, as far as I know it does.
Mr. Okerstrom: If this is not so, the gentleman is not in his right to
remove the stockpile.
3164
Mr. Melvin: The topsoil was removed from the parking and building
area of Shopper's Fair.
1[41 Mr. Peacock: The topo shows that the egress andingress is to the north
of the Cut Stone Building. Is that building also owned
by Shopper's Fair or Cut Stone?
Mr. Melvin: I am almost certain that it is owned by Shopper's Fair.
Mr. Peacock: Unless they do own it, I do not see how we can approve
it on someone else's property.
Mr. Melvin: It was approved previously but because it was so late in
season the permit is expiring.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#4-71-4.1 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the
City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-80 by
Charles 0. Melvin requesting permission to remove a stockpile
of topsoil on the East side of MiddlebeltRoad, approximately
1,000 ft. North of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
25, subject, however to the following conditions:
(a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to
collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at
1[: all times shall maintain adequate drainage;
(b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any
proposed subdivision streets;
(c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic
requirements established by the Police Department;
(d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the
land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable
to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the
Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation,
and
subject, also to the petitioner meeting the requirements of the
Engineering Department by clearing up the drainage problem presently
on the property and to the Law Department being satisfied that
Mr. Charles 0. Melvin is still the owner of the stockpile,
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with theCity Clerk,
a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for three (3) acres,
($1500.00) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period,
and
THAT, the period for which the permit herein, authorized shall
be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration
date of the bond as required therein, whichever, is the shorter
period, and
THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein
authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution.
3165
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments
as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendation having
been obtained from the Police Department under date of April
13, 1961 and from the Engineering Department dated April 18,
1961.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not it was proper to include the
condition in the foregoing resolution.
Mr. Peacock: If the petitioner has no knowledge of the ownership of this
property changing hands, we would be removing soil from
someone else's property.
Mr. Forrest: There are numerous legal rights entitling him to remove the
topsoil stockpile. He should show satisfactorily that he
has proper ingress and egress
Mr. Peacock: He has shown the ingress and egress on the topo but he does
not know if it belongs to the same owner.
Mr. Okerstrom: Were notices sent out to all those involved?
Mr. McCullough: Yes, to everyone within 500 ft.
Mr. Forrest: If the petitioner hasn't the right the Planning Commission
doesn't have any suthority to allow him to remove topsoil
and the owner of this property can stop anyone from stealing
the stockpile off of his land.
Mr. Anderson: You purchased the topsoil, Mr. Melvin?
Mr. Melvin: Yes, we did.
A roll call vote on Res. #4-71-61 resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, 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. Peacock, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
#4-72-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, April 18, 1961 at approximately
9:10 p.m.
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and
Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is hereby adjourned.
11[: A recess was called by the Chairman at approximately 9:11 p.m.
* * * * * * * *
3166
Mr. Walker, Chairman, called the 126th Regular Meeting to order at approximately
9:25 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was
called.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-491 by Mike
Sinacola, et al, asking that the zoning classification of
property located approximately 300 ft. South of Seven Mile
Road and 175 ft. East of Middlebelt Road in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 12 be rezoned from C-2 and R-1B to R-3A and/or
PS. Public Hearing 2/21/61, item taken under advisement;
Special Meeting 3/28/61, item taken under advisement at the
request of petitioner; Special Meeting 4/11/61, item taken
under advisement.
There was a very lengthy discussion as to whether or not the Planning Commission
could approve petition for R-3A with a condition that only retiree apartments
be built. It was felt that zoning petitions are either approved or denied without
conditions.
It was also determined that those property owners who objected at the public
hearing to the R-3 zoning are also objecting to any retiree apartment buildings.
One of the objections was that they felt that the R-3 zone would result in the
over-crowding of schools but a letter from the Clarenceville School Board states
they do not object to the R-3 zone. Mr. Cameron read the letter to the commission
and audience.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
I[: #4- -61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, February 21, 1961 on Petition Z-491 by Mike Sinacola,
et al, for a change of zoning in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
12 from C-2 and R-1B to R-3A and/or PS, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
Z-491 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) it is felt that property can be developed into suitable
one-family residences;
(2) the petitioner has not definitely stated what he intends
to build in the R-3 zone
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Watson and Okerstrom
NAYS: Cameron, Anderson, Kane and Walker
NOT VOTING: Peacock
Mr. Walker: The motion is not carried, therefore, the resolution is
not adopted. Does anyone care to make an alternative
motion?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was
#4-73-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, Febris-ry 21 , 1951 on Petition Z-491 by Mike Sinacola,
et al, for a change of zoning in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
12 from C-2 and R-1B to R-3A and/or PS, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition Z-491 be granted for the following reasons:
3167
(1) the petitioner has indicated that he will develop this
site into a retiree housing area which will be a combination
of housing types, located in close proximity to professional
and commercial facilities, as well as public transportation;
(2) none of the existing houses in the area will face the
proposed apartments;
(3) a letter from the Clarenceville School Board presumably
indicates that they have no fear of the possibility of over-
loading the schools;
(4) the petitioner proposes to erect a $600,000 professional
building in connection with the apartments and demolish an
existing commercial building. This should improve the
aesthetics of this site considerably.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of February 1,
and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison
Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Tele-
phone Company, The Consumers Power Company, 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, Anderson, Kane and Walker
NAYS: Watson and Okerstrom
NOT VOTING: Peacock
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: There are a number of persons in the audience interested
in Item #10. It might be wise to take this item next
in order that they would not be held up any further.
This item is Petition Z-495 by the City Planning Commission
asking that the zoning classification of property located
on the South side of Eight Mile Road approximately 670 ft.
East of Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3
be rezoned from C-2 to M-1. Referred to Industrial
Commission for their recommendation at Special Meeting
3/7/61; public hearing held on 2/21/61 and taken under
advisement. Industrial Commission has recommended approval.
Mr. Irving Bond, Mr. Thomas Heap and Mr. Walter Shellhorn from the Industrial
Commission were present.
Mr. McCullough gave a brief history of the petition stating that it had previously
been before the Commission and the City Council but that at that time it had been
denied by the City Council. He further informed the Commission that Mr. Reddy,
representing the home owners in the surrounding area is-very much opposed to the
property being rezoned to M-1 and has indicated that they are coming in with a
plan to redevelop the area along Eight Mile Road for a distance of 1/2 mile
eastward from the present commercial zoning to Osmus, into additional commercial
zoning. He continued by saying that the land owner of the industrial plant has
submitted a site plan of his proposed addition which he intends to build if the
, 3168
zoning is granted. One of the objections raised before was the fact that the
I: cars were being parked on the right-of-way of Shadyside. He didn't make any
effort to have the parking oh his own land. His site plan indicated how he would
enlarge his parking area if his zoning is granted. He is contemplating purchasing
the land to the west of his present building for the parking. He is also pro-
posing a greenbelt.
Mr. Reddy was asked to come forward.
Mr. Reddy: Once property is zoned for M-1, there is no control. There
are a great many uses permitted under the M-1 classification
which are quite objectionable. We would like to have one
of the planning commissioners look along with our committee
to see what we can do with our area. We have only alternate
streets now. We feel that there has been a lack of planning
or foresight on the part of the City.
Mr. McCullough: Is it possible for your committee to sit down with the
Industrial Commission, the owner of this piece of property
and the Planning Commission to discuss this matter?
Mr. Reddy: Yes, maybe something can be worked out. This is an isolated
area. Our property values are declining.
Mr. Walker: What is the cause of this declining?
Mr. Reddy: We feel part of it is because east of Osmus the property
is zoned for M-1 for a depth of 300 ft. We feel that with
l[s proper planning it may be isolated. We would like to see
the remaining area between Osmus and the present commercial
zone be rezoned from residential to commercial. We feel to
be effective you should come back a little more than 300
ft., but it should be on a property line and it should be in
agreement with the majority of the people. We cannot get
100% approval but we have had indication that a number of
people are interested in this. Our association takes in
property up to Merriman Road but we feel that those living
east of Merriman would be interested also. They have the
same problem.
Mr. McCullough: Do you think it would be worth while to work out a meeting
with the Industrial Commission with your committee and with
Mr. Oaks?
Mr. Reddy: I would like to work something out first with the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Walker: We have three members of the Industrial Commission present
tonight. We have invited them to this meeting in order that
we may hear their reasons for recommending that this
petition be granted.
The Planning Commission is certainly aware of the conditions
Ifs you speak of, Mr. Reddy, in this area. We are very much
concerned about them. I will ask Mr. Bond, Chairman of the
Industrial Commission Mr. Heap and Mr. Shellhorn to give
us their viewpoints now.
3169
Mr. Shellhorn: If this is rezoned to industrial, it will pull in a higher
tax rate. This is not true in commercial or residential. We
1[1:
also feel that the property is depreciating and possibly
will continue to do so and that is one of the reasons we
voted in favor of it because of the property on the north
side of Eight Mile Road in Farmington being primarily
industrial between Inkster and Farmington Roads. We feel the
property would not depreciate as rapidly and it ,would benefit
the residents of the area if this property is zoned for
industry because .it will help them not to take a loss but
raise the value of their property.
Mr. Bond: We, as a whole, made the recommendation to rezone this
property. We feel that because of the area across Eight
Mile Road becoming industrial, because of the future
traffic and because of the future trend we could not see
where commercial zoning would benefit this area. The trend
is for sbcpping centers but I think it would be a hard job
to sell commercial in this area. I sympathize with the
property owners but I do not think the trend is for commercial.
Mr. Leonard K. Kane, was excused at 10:00 p.m. for the remainder of the meeting.
Mr. Bond: I believe that the industrial in this area would have good-
looking buildings. Also, with the proper buffer zone I do
not see how it can hurt the residential section at all. I
do not feel it is best for commercial.
Mr. Walker: If this petitionwere granted, the commission would have to
look into this deeper and zone more than just this one
parcel. They would have to look for more land to be developed
for M-1. In this particular case, we have a business as
a non-conforming use. They cannot do any expanding or im-
proving. This keeps a business static. And this is the
problem before us. The Industrial Commission is concerned
with businesses coming in the City and also concerned with
businesses going out of the City. This particular business
has expanded in size. They are operating business in Livonia
and Farmington. This has created the need for two overheads
making for a bad business situation. We feel that we should
do something to keep the business here or it will eventually
have to move out.
Mr. Bond: This man has been successful. We would like to see him stay
in the City and we would like to do everything in our power
to keep him. We realize he has been working in two different
locations. We definitely do need industry. If we do not
have industry, or the business remains static, the property
owners will have to pay.
Mr. Heap: It appears to me that he is quite willing to cooperate with
the residents in the area from the standpoint of the green-
( belt, proper landscaping and clean appearance of his plant so as
to make it as attractive as possible.
Mr. Walker: We have a letter from the petitioner stating he is going to
purchase more land for his business. Because of the lack of
area, it was impossible for the commission to approve it
3170
because we were infringing on the requirements of the
zoning ordinance itself but now because he is acquiring
more land it is easier to have the commission consider it.
Mr. Watson: I would like to know if there are any plans started to see
if the owner of this property could be located in some other
part of Livonia. Is there anything the Industrial Commission
can do in this respect?
Mr. Bond: This has not been discussed with the present owner but we
would be willing io meet with the man to discuss this with
him although I do understand that this petition has been
under discussion a long time.
Mr. Watson: It will cost him money to do so if he does move somewhere
else in Livonia or out of Livonia, but I feel that someone
should be able to help him as he has implied that he wishes
to stay in Livonia.
Mr. Bond: If he moves away, the present building still exists and
the same thing could happen again.
Mr. Walker: This was one of the questions csked at the previous hearing
on the original petition. This was a very important question
that was brought before the commission. I would like to
ask Mr. Oaks to give us his argument why he did not choose
to move to another location.
Mr. Oaks: It is very difficult to change locations and to change the
telephone number. We have had the same number for six
years and our business relies on the telephone number. If
we were to change locations and have another number, it is
very possible that •our customers contacting us by telephone
may call our competitor. By the same token, the change of
address makes it very difficult in the picking up and de-
livering of tools. A change of location creates problems. It
is not easy to obtain new customers. We are not anxious to
change locations. We would like to remain here. Considering
the picture we submitted to you, I actually cannot see any
objection to this business. It could be worse than what we
have. There are some unsightly things in the rear but we
have no room inside for this material to be stored. Even if
we move it will not remove the plant but if we are allowed to
stay, this is what we propose to have the building look like.
Mr. Cameron: How many people do you employ?
Mr. Oaks: Twenty-two.
Mr. Cameron: With the addition, you will be employing more people?
Mr. Oaks: Yes.
I[: Mr. Watson: How many more?
Mr. Oaks: I do not know, it all depends.
Mr. Watson: Where would the people park.
3171
Mr. Oaks: Because of the additional property I am proposing to purchase
next door, there will be sufficient room for the parking.
The parking would be on the land to be acquired and not.on. -.
Shadyside.
Mr. Okerstrom: Will there be sufficient land for the side yard requiran ents?
Mr. McCullough: If he acquired more land it would have to be sufficient for
the side yard and the off-street parking requirements. He
understands that;he intends to buy enoughproperty to provide
the necessary parking and side yard requirements.
Mr. Oaks: I would buy enough to satisfy the City Ordinances.
Mr. Okerstrom: I feel the representative of the civic association has a
wonderful plan to rezone the complete frontage on Eight Mile
Road to commercial. A certain depth should be established.
Mr. Bond: How long would it take to accomplish this rezoning?
Mr. McCullough: It would take at least 8 weeks if it were started tonight.
Mr. Reddy: I do not think this area could be adequately studied in
two weeks.
Mr. Heap: Mr. Reddy, did I understand that your civic association had
a committee on the development of the planning to improve
the residential area and open up the land?
I[: Mr. Reddy: Yes, and there is one owner who owns property on Eight Mile
who is on the committee.
Mr. Heap: How far have they come along?
Mr. Reddy: The committee was formed two months ago and we have gotten
just this far. We have plans of the area and we have people
examing and studying these plans. If this property owner
should sell and it was sold to a trucking company to park
trucks this is one of the objections to the M-1 zone. There
is nothing to restrict this piece of property to a tool
shop and there is nothing in the law that protects us against
something else.
Mr. Peacock: It is felt by the home owners that having industry so close
depreciates their property. Didn't the industry north of
Eight Mile Road depreciate your property also?
Mr. Reddy: Only a small bit. They look fine on Eight Mile Road; it is
at the rear where it is very unsightly.
Mr. Shellhorn: Is trucking manufacturing or commercial?
Mr. McCullough: M-1
Mr. Bond: I would like to meet with Mr. Reddy and his committee to
discuss this further.
Mr. Walker: Are you suggesting that prior to a decision you would like
to meet with Mr. Reddy, hold this up until you have had this
meeting?
3172
Mr. Bond: Yes, I would like to do this as soon as possible.
It was suggested that a committee of five people be appointed by Mr. Reddy to
meet with Mr. Bond, Mr. Oaks and the Planning Commission and if possible hold
this meeting the following Tuesday, April 25, 1961.
Mr. McCullough: The next item is a request from the City Council, pursuant
to Res. #190-61 to have the City Planning review the
existing commercial zoning adjacent to Five Mile Road from
Farmington Road west and to submit thereafter its new
recommendations for locating such commercial property in
the most uniform, orderly and desirable manner. This is
in reference to Petition Z-481 previously acted upon by the
City Planning Commission.
It was determined that this item would be taken under advisement until the next
meeting. In the meantime, it was suggested that Mr. McCullough contact the
City Council to determine and clarify their request.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
#4-74-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 126th Regular Meeting held on Tuesday,
April 18, 1961 by the City Planning Commission on a request by certain
residents and the City Council (Res. 132-61) the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine that no action be taken on the question of
whether or not to rezone certain property located on the north side of
Ann Arbor Trail between Parent and Lawrence in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 32 from C-1 to RUF for the reason that this zoning has been on
the map since before incorporation.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Anderson and Okerstrom
NAYS: Walker
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request dated March 29,
1961 from David Lewis for one year extension on Bai-Lynn
Park Subdivisions 6, 7 and 8 located East of Merriman Road
and North of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section
23.
During the brief discussion, the question arose in relation to a condition of the
preliminary approval whereby the developer was to have driveway turn-arounds on
those lots fronting on Schoolcraft Road. It was determined that this item would
be taken under further advisement until this was investigated further by Mr.
McCullough.
Mr. McCullough: The next item is a discussion about location of commercial
line along the north side of Five Mile Road just East of
Cavour in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13.
After a brief discussion and after the commissioners had examined an old zoning
map, it was determined that the commercial area was only for a depth of 100 ft. at
the point questioned.
3173
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
OILO #4-75-61 RESOLVED that, having considered the request of Walter Abraham for
a determination of the location of the commercial boundary at a
location north of Five Mile Road and east of Cavour in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 13, the Planning Commission exercising its powers
granted under Section 3.06 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, does hereby determine that the northern boundary of said
commercial district is located parallel to the South line of
Section 13 and 160 ft. north of said south section line.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
•
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimouly
adopted, it was
#4-76-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby postpone
the regular meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 16, 1961 to be
held on Tuesday, May 23rd instead, for the reason that several
of the planning commission members and the City Planner will
be out of town on said date.
11! Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
IL Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a discussion with the developer
of proposed Newburgh Heights Subdivision in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. Menuck and Mr. Goldman, his attorney, were present.
It was determined that the property involved in the proposed subdivision had been
rezoned by the developer in 1958 from RUFB and AG to R-1A requiring a minimum of
60 foot lots. In May, 1960 the Planning Commission had rezoned it again under
the Master Pattern to RLA requiring 80 foot lots. The developer desires to submit
a plat having 60, 70 and 80 foot lots. Mr. Goldman, attorney for Mr. Menuck,
explained the situation to the commission in detail.
Mr. McCullough explained he had advised the developer the planning commission could
not accept the proposed subdivision plat because of the zoning and the proper
relief was not to submit a plat but to petition to have this property rezoned back
to 60 foot lots.
Mr. Peacock asked if this was the first plat ever submitted for this area?
Mr. Goldman that there had been tentative plans before these and felt that the
I: planning commission had put the burden on them by the action of rezoning this
property from R-lA to RLA.
Mr. D. McCullough explained that the City Council had determined this and that
it would be necessary to go to them and persuade them that this is a hardship
case.
3174
Mr. Anderson asked if the owner had been notified at the time the Planning
Commission and the City Council had rezoned it to RLA. Mr. Menuck stated they
far had been and they objected at the public hearing.
Mr. Walker felt that the planning commission had nopower except to suggest that
a petition for rezoning be submitted. Possibly directing it to the City Council
first.
Mr. Menuck stated he would prefer having the Planning Commission hold a public
hearing and having the recommendation forwarded to the City Council.
Mr. Goldman thanked Mr. Walker and the Commission for allowing them to discuss
this matter with them.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
#4-77-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 126th Regular Meeting having been
held, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application
TA-79 by William H. Jamens requesting permission to remove sand
and topsoil from a parcel located on the East side of Merriman
Road and approximately 300 feet South of Eight Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, by ratifying and readopting Resolution
#3-44-61 adopted on Tuesday, March 7, 1961 subject, however, to
the following additional requirements as stated in the recommendations
from the Engineering Department, dated April 13, 1961 and April 14,
1961:
(1) the applicant shall at no time remove any soil below the
li:
approved grade as delinated in the attached plan and made a
part of said permit;
(2) that grade stakes be set in accordance with the approved
grading plan showing the elevation to which the grading operation
can be conducted;
(3) a minimum of 400 feet of 24 inch C.M.P. shall be installed
in accordance with the approved grading plan prior to the start
of any soil remcval operation, an additional 100' to be placed
prior to release of permit;
(4) the applicant shall not be permitted to remove any soil
below the approved grading plan on the basis of subsequent filling
with other types of soil;
(5) that a fence or barricade be erected at all ingress and
egress points into the sand removal area in order to prevent the
public from using the borrow-pit as a disposal ground;
(6) that the Engineering Division be given 24 hours notice prior
to the commencement of work in placing the corrugated metal tube
as shown on a sketch on file in the Engineering Department and
marked Drawing No. 24-61 (Suburban Consultants, Inc.) and approved
on 4/13/61 by William J. Strasser, City Engineer;
(7) that an inspection fee of $100 be required to cover the
inspection of the installation of the pipe and periodic inspection
during the course of the sand removal operation;
1[4d and subject, also, to the recommendation dated April 14, 1961 from
the Livonia Police Department.
A roll call vote cn .the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
3175
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
I:0
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-78-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, January 10, 1961 the City Planning Commission does
hereby deny approval of the preliminary plat of the Canbros
Buckingham Plaza Subdivision located on the Northwest corner of
Schoolcraft and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
24 for the following reasons:
(1) that the developer has failed to comply with Section 3.02 (f)
and 3.02 (i) of the Subdivision Regulations;
(2) that there is no indication that the requirements of Section
4.45 will be met;
(3) Section 4.03, which requires an inside turning radius of 30
feet has not been carried out; in
(4) The developer has not made the revisions asked for/the Fire
Chief's letter of January 5, 1961 relating to fire fighting
needs or furnished the Planning Commission with copies of his
drawing #6037, as requested; and
im+ The denial shall be without prejudice to the plattor's right to
submit a revised plat at a subsequent date.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed
in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with
notice having been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent
of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation
Department and Members of the Plat Committee.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock and supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-79-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section
20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, does
hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to
determine whether or not to rezone the following described
property:
Parcels Cl, C2a and C2b located in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 25
from M-2 (Heavy Industrial) to C-2 (Commercial Business) and/or
P (Parking). This property is located on the South side of
Schoolcarft Road approximately 1,000 ft. West of Inkster Road
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25,
3176
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and 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.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Anderson, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-80-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section
20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, does hereby
establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine
whether or not to rezone the following described property:
(1) Parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23,
City of Livonia, T. 1 S. R. 9 E. , being more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at a point distant S. 0° 10' 30" E. 330.0 ft. from the
center post of Section 23; thence S. 89° 54' 5" E. 1324.64 ft. ;
thence S. 0° 18' 15" E. 259.45 ft. ; thence N. 74° 26' 30" W.
320.48 ft. ; thence N. 8° 24' 2@ E. 25.75 ft. ; thence W. 568.15
ft. ; thence S. 0° 5 ' 5" W. 39.51 ft. ; thence S. 87° 12' 42"
W. 108.76 ft. ; thence N. 85° 28' 31" W. 60.34 ft. ; thence W.
110.40 ft. ; thence S. 0° 10' 30" E. 195.00 ft. ; thence W. 173.00
` . ; ft. ; thence N. 0° 10' 30" W. 385.30 ft. to the point of beginning,
(2) Parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23, City
of Livonia, T. 1 S. R . 9 E. , being more particularly described
as follows:
Lots 206 through 213 inclusive and Lots 269 through 273 inclusive
of Lyndon Meadows Subdivision No. 3 located in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 23, City of Livonia,
(3) Parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23,
City of Livonia, T. 1 S. R. 9 E. , being more particularly
described as follows:
Lots 12 through 15 inclusive, Lots 19 and 20, Lot 22 and Lots
24 through 26 inclusive of the B. E. Taylor's Schoolcraft Manor
Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23, City
of Livonia,
from RUFB (Rural Urban Farms) to RLA (Residential Large Lot).
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and 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.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
3177
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 126th Regular
Meeting at approximately 11:15 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, 1961.
16;
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
L=j Com/
W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
GU. G�
Charl W. Walker, Chairman
a