Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-08-29 • 3459 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 134TH SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 1[40 On Tuesday, August 29, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 134th Special 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: W. E. Okerstrom, James Watson, Jr. , James Cameron; Robert L. Greene, Robert M. Peacock and Charles W. Walker Members absent: Leonard K. Kane, Dennis Anderson and Robert L. Angevine Mr. D. R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr.Verne Schrader, Assistant City Engineer was present along with approximately twenty-five (25) interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-518 by the City planning Commission to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the South side of Seven Mile Read between Stamford and Whitby in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from C-1 and RM to PS. There is no correspondence. This was forwarded to us by the City Council to rezone this property from C-1 to R-1A. It was felt that a PS zoning would be more appropriate for the use Dr. Rasak intended to use the property for. After discussing it with the civic association and neighbors surrounding this property, it was thought that it might be wise to increase the depth and width of the original piece of property due to the fact that a dedication of Stamford and Seven Mile Road would reduce the property considerably. Apparently one of the neighbors immediately adjacent is not in agreement with the additional width advertised. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone present to represent the property owner of the area in the petition? Mr. McCullough: No. Mr. Walker: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Cliff Thompson, representative of the Helman Park Civic Association, 19012 Norwich stated their objections to the proposed rezoning. He felt that it would not be helpful and constructive to the area. He further stated that Mr. Petrucci who lives immediately west of the property in question may have something to say. Mr. Petrucci: It makes me very unhappy for the reason that three or four years ago it was zoned from R-lA to C-1. We were against it at that time. Once a rezoning is allowed, it's just a matter of time before the property owner is back for a bigger portion of commercial. We thought the original size of 80' x 130' was sufficient. The reason I am against it is the fact that the owner had a chance to build something upon the original 80' x 150' but he didn't and it wasn't too long after that that he put the property iroup for sale which leads me to observe that the same thing will happen again. The doctor informed me he was only asking for an additional 70' to the rear of his property. He said nothing about additional frontage along Seven Mile Road. Mr. McCullough. The depth is 220 ft. ; it is for the full width of his 3460 pro )erty but we advised him that this could be cut down. Mr. Petrucci: Because he has already made an attempt to sell his property leads me to think that after he received the additional frontage, he wth attempt to sell it to someone else. I feel that there Ere nuf:icient clinics in the area, there is no need for this additional clinic. Mr. Green.: You speak as though we are enlarging his C-1 area. Actually he asking for PS which has fewer permitted uses than he can now have in ::he C-1 area. You still feel you are against this rezoning to PS? Mr. Petrucci: It is my understanding that there was no PS at the- time whe._i he was allowed de C-1. A for sale sign was put up. The civic ass""ciation then thought up the idea of requesting that it be rezoned back to R-1. The for sale sign came down and now he is back for more fro-.tage. Mr. Walker: Didn't this come to the Planning Commission from the City Cou:.cil at the r equest of the civic association, whereby they wanted it to be rezoned to PS? Mr. Thompson: We requested the City Council to up the C-1 zone to PS and that letter was forwarded to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. The ?lanning Commission approved it for R-1A. The owner then informed the Commission when he found out it was going to be zoned back to R-1A the _ he would rather have it zoned PS. At that time after several dis- t: the Planning Commission rescinded their first resolution and ini-:fated another requesting PS but for a much larger area. :L. McCullough It was advertised incorrectly the first time. Mr. Thompson: Mr. Petrucci has a petition of 122 signatures objecting to he proposed rezoning. Mr. Thompson : ead the objections to the commission. Mr. O'kerstrom, Part of this area is now zoned C-1 (50' x 150') The reason we :::tended the frontage to the west was to give Dr. Rasak sufficient par ing area so that he could conform with the requirements of PS. Ii thi petition before is is denied, the area zoned C-1 will remain C-1. Mr. Cameron: Do the people who object realize that it will remain C-1? It was brougli out at this time that a number of uses under C-1 would be more objectionabic ' han those under PS zoning. Mr. Walker explained more fully why the size of the p: perty to be rezoned was increased. Mr. Petrucci: Dr. Rasak informed me the only thing he wanted was an add: _ional 70 ft. to the original 80 ft. realizing that he would lose 30 . for Stamford. He stated that 50 x 220 was adequate room for bui: ling his clinic with ample parking area. After a brief :iscussion it was determined that the civic association were in agreement f,ncreasing the depth of the present C-1 zone and not increase the frontage long Seven Mile Road. Mr. McCullough stated that additional footage would have to ::e added due to the dedication of Stamford and Seven Mile Road. The • 3461 total dimensions would be 80' x 253' ; 80' from the centerline of Stamford and 253' from the centerline of Seven Mile Road. 1[40 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was #8-146-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-518 by the City Planning Commission for a change of zoning in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 from C-1 and RM to PS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-518 be granted for only that part of the advertised area which is described below: The westerly 80 ft. from the centerline of Stamford and the 253 ft. southerly from the centerline of Seven Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9, for the following reasons: (a) that the land owner now has C-1 zoning and the City is concerned that some C-1 uses might adversely affect the residents of Heiman Park Civic Association; (b) that his present dimensions of 50 feet by 150 feet are inadequate and might result in demands for on-street parking; (c) that the east side of Stamford is zoned commercial and inserting this professional use hopefully may stop the spread of string-type commercial zoning westerly along Seven Mile Road. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The City F..st, under date of August 9, 1961 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. A roll calls ote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, 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 Petition Z-519 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to City Council's Res. #668-60 to determine w whether or not to amend Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia by requiring notices to be mailed to all abutting or adjoining property owners in all zoning matters. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #8-147-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-519 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to City Council's Res. #668-60 to determine whether or not to amend Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia by requiring notices to be mailed to all abutting er adjoining property owners in all zoning petitions, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council 3462 that Petition Z-519 be granted for the following reasons: (a) this office has been doing this for about one year on its own initiative; (b) the abutting land owner is the person most likely to be adversely affected by any zoning change, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The City Post under date of August 9, 1961 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. '?alker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-520 by the City Council to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the Southeast corner of Lyndon and Middlebelt Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24 from R-1A to PS. This comes from the City Council. You will recall three corners were pre- viously denied by the City Planning Commission and the City Council but the City Council instructed us to hold ablic hearing on one of these three corners. The property owners phoned our office that they could not be present and asked that you delay any action on this matter until they can be present. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Harold Stanbury: I am the representative from the Compton Village Civic 29118 Barkley) Association. We would like to state our objection to the proposed rezoning. We have gone on record with a petition objecting to said rezoning previously. We objected to the rezoning to PS on the fact that this property was all R-1 when we bought in the area and we were led to believe it would be in the future and so we bought our property on that basis. We feel that in this area that there is no need for PS. There is a medical clinic 500 ft. on the opposite side of Middlebelt and other clinics within 1/2 mile of our area. There is no adequate parking facility for the clinic. These lots that front on Middlebelt have been R-1 from the beginning. Four or five lotshave already been sold for residential. If this rezoning is permitted, there would be mixed zoning in that area. Mr. Walker: How many homeowners are you representing, Mr. Stanbury? Mr. Stanbury: Approximately 285. The civic association has sent a letter to the City Council. The people in the immediate area have petitioned to the City Council, and the Mayor and others are familiar with our objection. 3463 Mr. Walker: Were you present at the City Council meeting when they recommended it be sent back to the Planning Commission? Mr. Stanbury: They denied the first three corners. Gordon-Begin amended their petition for only one corner. It also was denied but then they turned around and asked that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on just the one corner, the one under discussion tonight. Mr. Korner, property owner adjacent to the property involved, objected to the rezoning. He stated a petition was submitted• to the City Council that contained the names of the owners on Lori Street. Approximately 30 signatures were upon it. They felt that there will be other changes if this change is allowed. Mr. McCullough: Would you be opposed to having this taken under advise- ment until the owner of the property can be present? Mr. Stanbury: We would object to any delay. It was brought out by the members of the civic association that the value of the homes being built at the present time are very much lower than the original homes built. A difference of $14,600 and $30,000. Mr. Walker: I'd like a show of hands of those in the audience who are objecting to this rezoning? There were approximately twelve in the audience. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, it was fl-148-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-520 as submitted by the City Council for a change of zoning in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 from R-1A to PS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-520 be denied for the following reasons: (a) there is an existing clinic within approximately 550 feet which meets the needs of the area; (b) the corner is probably too small to accommodate a building with sufficient parking under the recent changes made in the law, and (c) that the petitioner has failed to be present at three consecutive meetings to answer questions, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The City Post under date of August 9, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and 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 Application TA-85 by Kaufman and Broad Development Company requesting permission to 3464 to remove sand and topsoil from the proposed Park Heights Subdivision located between Pembroke and Seven Mile Road immediately West of Sunset Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12. The petitioner intends to remove as deep as five feet and refil with clay. The Engineering Department has approved the application, subject, however, to the following: (1) the area to be developed with the construction of basement type homes with attached garages. (2) if a change of building program is made, the Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works be permitted to review plans to ascertain whether construction will take place on natural ground; (3) the developer replace the sand to be removed with selected yellow clay fill. (4) these restrictions to run with title to the land. It was determined that a satisfactory ingress and egress has not been worked out between the Police Department and the petitioner. Mr. Walker: I feel that the only solution to this is for the Planning Commission to take this under advisement until the preliminary plat which is up for an extension has been acted upon. This item is on the agenda for later in the evening. Mr. Byron Lasky was present for the petitioner. Mr. Lasky: I want to state that I have met with Officer Newstead and have indicated to him that whatever he suggests in the way of an ingress and egress, whatever he suggests in the way of a stockpile or whatever suggestions he has for safety to insure that there will be no nuisance created by the removal of the sand will be complied with 100%. Also any recommendations made by the Planning Commission will be complied with. Mr. Walker: What street do you have available to use to remove this sand? Mr. Lasky: We propose to use Sunset. Officer Newstead stated that maybe some way from the north could be used rather than the south. I have indicated my complete willingness to cooperate with any recommendations he has. Also pursuant to your ordinance any conditions that might be imposed on the granting of the license would be acceptable to us. Mr. Lasky further stated that the sand on this property has been approved for highway building. They were not highway builders but in order to know if they could discuss the sale of sand, it was necessary for them to receive approval from the City of Liw nia to remove said sand. Mr. Walker: Mr. Peacock, do you have a report on this? Mr. Peacock: We reviewed the area Saturday and it appears that the large portion of this area is very low and that there should be no removal whatsoever. I suggest that no action be taken on this until we have heard Item #10 in relation to the extension of the approval on the preliminary plat • 3465 of the Park Heights Subdivision. Also, there are contour lines shown on the topography map but there - IL: is no indication where sand or topsoil will be stockpiled. Verne Schrader, Assistant City Engineer: The homes I understand would be basement type with attached garages. If there is any deviation from this plan, the Engineering Department would have to review the plans over again so that the proper footings, grade levels, etc. are correct. We have recommended a certain amount of backfill after the sand is removed. Mr. Walker: You wouldn't want us to approve this with any deviation from the recommended backfill? Mr. Schrader : No. Mr. Walker: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Okerstrom: I would like to defer any action upon this until Item #10 has been heard. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until later in the evening. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-228 by Meathe- Kessler & Associates, Inc. architects, to erect a church in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, approximately 600 feet North of Seven Mile and 600 feet West of Purlingbrook, if such road were cut through. This item will only be heard if the petitioner can obtain waivers of notice from all land owners entitled to notice by law. Mr. Phillip Meathe, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan and Father Cushing were present. Mr. Meathe: Purlingbrook is being contemplated to be cut through from Seven Mile Road north. Mr. McCullough explained that the former owner of the property in the petition has agreed to pave part of Purlingbrook as a condition of the sale of the property. Mr. Meathe: The site is 17 acres of land. The first building will be a temporary church building approximately 98' x 121' . There will also be a rectory near Purlingbrook. The road will be only one entrance off of Seven Mile Road. There will be a 80 ft. easement by 1000 ft. which will be the east border of the property which will be landscaped. There will eventually be an eight room school. At this time the south east/west driveway at Purlingbrook will be put in. There will be no other ingress and egress on Purlingbrook or Seven Mile Road. It was determined that this church will be located directly north and a short distance west of the new library. Mr. Peacock: What about the parking lot? Mr. Meathe: It will be put in at the same time as the building is erected. 3466 ##Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at 9:05 p.m. 1[00 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Greene, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #8-149-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 29, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-228 by Meathe-Kessler & Associates requesting permission to erect a church north of Seven Mile Road and west of Middlebelt Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, subject, however to the following conditions: (a) that there will be an 80 ft. easement on the east border of church property running north from Seven Mile Road for approximately 1,000 ft. for the proposed new drain, and (b) that the petitioner obtain a waiver of notice from Tony Rossi, owner of Parcel Q2, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, 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. Okerstro„ supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #8-150-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, August 29, 1961 at approximately 9:15 p.m. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker, Chairman, called recess at approximately 9:16 p.m. * * * Mr. Walker, Chairman called the 134th Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:30 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-516by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to rezone certain property in and around the Alden Village Subdivision located in the South half of Section 28 from R-1B, RUFB and M-1 to RUB. This property is located north of Plymouth Road, approximately 1,000 feet West of Farmington Road. Public Hearing 8/15/61, taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough explained the only question raised at the last meeting was whether or not the Planning Commission could amend the petition from a B to an A classifi- cation without readvertising the petition. The Law Department has determined that 3467 this could be done. Also a question was raised in relation to including a small area of presently zoned M-1 to RUA. The property owner of this industrial property has had a meeting with the civic association and they have come to an agreement, whereby if a good size industry should come along and desires to use this property for an industrial use, the civic association would agree to having .this rezoned back to M-1 pro- viding a greenbelt is erected. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #8-151-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby amend Petition Z-516 requesting a rezoning of property located in the South half of Section 28 from RIB, RUFB and M-1 to RUB, to read as follows: R1B, RUFB and M-1 to RUA A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, 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 M . Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #8-152-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 15, 1961 on Petition Z-516 as submitted by the City Planning Commission for a change of zoning in the South half of Section 28 from R1B, RUFB and M-1 to RUA, as amended by Res. #3-151-61, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-516, as amended, be granted the following reasons: (a) that this action brings the zoning closer to the platting. It should be noted that the lots are platted into those slightly less than 20,000 sq. ft. , or less than one-half acre. The requested zoning is 15,000 sq. ft. ; and (b) that in defining the respective areas as we have, we, thereby, have some protection to existing residential uses from industrial encroachment from the north, east and west, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of July 26, 1961 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 1:: Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 3468 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-517 by Jerome 1[40 Hirsch who is asking that the zoning classification on property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road approximately 1200 feet West of Merriman Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, be rezoned from RLA to R-3. Public Hearing 8/15/61, taken under advisement. At the last meeting a number of property owners were present and objected to the rezoning but not to the use. There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not this use could be allowed under R1 as a private educational institution upon the approval of the City Planning Commission. Hr. Forrest, Assistant City Attorney, was asked for his opinion on this question. Mr. Greene: In view of the discussion, would it be possible to permit this as a teach institution? Mr. Forrest: I did not understand that this was a teaching institution; that is another point. If it is a foster home it is not allowed in R-1 but if it is a private instituation then it can be allowed upon the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Greene: But who will say which is which? Mi . Forrest: Perhaps if you submit an inquiry to the Law Department as to whether or not it is a private educational institution, we can make and submit an opinion upon this. I[: Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Greene, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #8-153-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 15, 1961 and the 134th Special Meeting having been held on Tuesday, August 29, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby request the Department of Law to forward an opinion as to whether or not the use in Petition Z-517 can be considered a private educational institution so as to permit said use in the present zoning of RLA without a change of zoning. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Hr. McCullough informed those in the audience that this item will be scheduled again for the meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 19, 1961. If the Department of Law decides the use can be considered a private educational institution, this petition will be withdrawn. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-514 by Leon Siegel on behalf of Mary Grande who is asking that the zoning classification of property located on the North side of Seven Mile Road approximately 300 feet East of Lathers in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, be rezoned from C-1 and RUFB to PS. Public Hearing 8/15/61, taken under advised. 1:: The petitioner has indicated that she will donate the north 500 feet of the property involved to the City. This would adjoin an existing park site. Mr. Leon Siegel was present. 3469 Mr. Peacock: I examined this area and I can see no way of utilizing this piece of property they are willing to donate; the City would only require an open drain. Mr. Greene: The 500 ft. they are donating to the city is the ravine and the flood plain. It takes up the entire piece of property. What they are giving us is the ravine and the water. Mr. Walker: We should not use the lure of this donation for the rezoning. Mr. Siegel: I don't think you should use this as a reason for rezoning. We did not intend to give this idea when it was donated. Mr. Peacock: There arecther places in the City that would be more suitable for this particular use. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #8-154-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 15, 1961 on Petition Z-514 as submitted by Leon Siegel on behalf of Mary Grande for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from C-1 and RUFB to PS, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-514 be denied for the following reasons: IL: (1) to grant it will make the platting of the land to the west rather awkward; (2) the proximity of the school tends to make this use undesirable; (3) since the petitioner intends to retain the existing residence on the south end of the parcel and there is only one entrance and exit on the site plan, it is conceivable that emergency vehicles might not be able to get to the proposed building. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of July 26, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petitioner, as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Greene Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Daugherty Subdivision submitted by J. A. Daugherty and situated on the Southwest corner of Curtis and Merriman Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10. Public Hearing 8/15/61, taken under advisement. The Law Department has forwarded an opinion whereby the Planning Commission has no authority to act on the proposed plat of the Daugherty Subdivision until such time that that portion of the prior plat (Marvin's Robin Hood Subdivision) has been vacated. 3470 Mr. Walker: Since the plat was submitted incorrectly, it should be withdrawn. I[: Mr. Anderson: It should be denied without prejudice since it was sub- mitted incorrectly. After a brief discussion it was determined that the plat should be denied without prejudice. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by MI-. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #C-r5-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 15, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby deny without prejudice the preliminary plat of the Daugherty Subdivision located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10 fro the reason that the Department of Law has determined that the Planning Commission has no authority to act on said subdivision until such time the portion of the Marvin's Robin Rood Subdivision in the proposed Daugherty Subdivision has been vacated. 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. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request from Kaufman & Ercad Development Company for a one-year extension on the preliminary approval of the Park Heights Subdivision located between Pembroke and Seven Mile Road immediately West of Sunset Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section '2. Preliminary approval granted 4/21/59. The City Attorney has determined that when a plat has been given preliminary approval and the bond has been set by the Council which is good for two years, the City Planning Commission cannot take any action to revise said plat. Mr. Paul May, 19930 Sunset objected to the proposed removal of sand and topsoil from the proposed Park Heights Subdivision. The question was brought up as to where the ingress and egress would be for the trucks to remove said sand and topsoil. Mr. McCullough: Mr. Lasky, where would you have your ingress? Mr. Lasky: Subject to the approval of Officer Newstead, I would like to come in on Seven Mile Road. There is no way to use Pembroke. There will be no trucks driven on the residential streets. I am perfectly willing to abide to any terms or any bond established upon us by your body. The west side of Sunset belongs to the proposed plat of Park Heights. After a brief discussion, it was determined that Seven Mile Road should be used for the ingress and egress. 3471 Mr. Lasky: I would like to go on record I am aware of the problems 1[ 4; that have been discussed and I would be perfectly amenable to any re- quirements that you will impose on this removal operation. Mr. Peacock: How many acres to be removed? Mr. Lasky: Within the confines of the plans submitted as much as we can get. At the creek, we cannot remove sand. Mr. Okerstrom: This plat was submitted in 1959. No extension has been granted. Has a bond been set? If not, this plat is null and void. Mr. Forrest: They have two years in which to act pursuant to the Council's approval, if the bond has been set. Mr. Okerstrom: Nothing has been done to this plat since approval was given in 1959. Mr. Lasky: The state sewer ban prevented us from building. The Council's resolution stated we could put in the improvements or set up a bond within the two years. Mr. Walker: There are two important points we have to consider: One, in viewing the area, there is no question there is a large portion of the property that is exceedingly low. This needs fill. It should be brought up to grade. Two, you're before this board for removing something that you do not 1[0 have. You are asking us to approve the removal of backfill that you are taking away. We require you to reseed that area where the topsoil has been removed, bui if you are going to use back fill I do not know if anything would grow there. If it doesn't grow, it would leave the area in such a condition that would be objectionable to the surrounding property owners and might be harmful to the children in the area. These are some of the things that have to be considered by this commission. Mr. Anderson: It is my understanding that you are selling this to a highway construction company and that trucks are going to be coming in and out. It has been my experience that someone has to be present at all times to watch over the removal. Mr. Lasky: The bond will be imposed upon us and it is incumbent upon us to see that they abide by .any conditions. Mr. McCullough asked the gentlemen in the audience who were objecting to the removal if they would meet privately with the members of the planning commission and the developer to discuss this matter and see if some solution could be worked out. The gentlemen agreed. They were John Spicer, 30742 Seven Mile Road; John Gilhooly, 19550 Sunset and Paul May, 19930 Sunset. Mr. Watson and Mr. Peacock concurred with Mr. McCullough's suggestion. Mr. Walker: Items #4 and #10 will be taken under further advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia by adding thereto Article 13.50 (M-1 Limited District Reguhtions). 3472 This is a more restricted zone of Light Industrial. This had been thoroughly discussed with the Northwest Civic Assodation of Livonia, and they are agreeable to rezoning the frontage along Eight Mile Road in the north half of Section 3 to this new type of zoning. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Greene, it was #3-156-61 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 amend the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60 by adding thereto Article 13.50, M-1 Limited District Regulations. 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 a recommendation thereon to the City Council. A roll call vote on the fcregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, Anderson, 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 to rezone certain portion of the north half of Section 3 from RUFB and C-2 to M-1 Limited District Regulations and RLA. This is in accordance with suggestions made by the civic association. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Greene and unanimously adopted, it was #8-157-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone the following described property as follows: The north 360 feet of the North half of Section 3 from Osmus westerly to Shadyside to be rezoned from C-2 and RUFB to M-1 Limited District Regulations; and also The north half of Section 3 from Osmus westerly to Farmington Road to be rezoned from RUFB to RLA except that land presently zoned C-2 and PS, and also except that land in the Spring Valley Subdivision and Spring Valby Subdivision #2 or the area previously described above (which is to be rezoned to M-1L). The above described property is located in that portion of the north half of Section 3 which is bounded on the north by Eight Mile Road; on the west by Farmington Road, on the South by Pembroke and on the East 3473 by Osmus. 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 a recommendation thereon to the City Council Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item in relation to a proposed ordinance to be known as R-Recreational District Regulations was put on the agenda in error. The next item on the agenda is Lyndon Meadows Subdivision #4 located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 on the East side of Henry Ruff Road and approximately 1800 feet north. of Schoolcraft. This is a revision of Lyndon Meadows #4 by adding thereto certain lots previously included in the Belle-Mar Subdivision. This addition will be known as Lyndon Meadows Subdivision #5. Mr. Okerstrom: I would like to examine this revision more closely before taking action. Mr. Watson concurred with Mr. Okerstrom. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the nomination of officers for the City Planning Commission. The election is scheduled for Tuesday, September 19, 1961. Mr. Walker: The nominations are now open. Mr. Anderson: I nominate Charles Walker for Chairman Mr. Greene: I support that nomination. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, the nominationE for Chairman were closed. Mr. Okerstrom: I nominate Mr. Watson for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Anderson: I support that nomination. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Greene the nominations for Vice-Chairman were closed. Mr. Cameron: I nominate Mr. Okerstrom for Secretary. Mr. Greene: I support that nomination. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Anderson the nominations for Secretary were closed. It was suggested that the ballots be drawn up and mailed to the commissioners and that those members absent tonight would be allowed to write in their selection. 3474 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 134th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, August 29,' 1961 at approximately 10:45 p.m. I[: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 6/0/ 4!" W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTED: Cha es W. Walker, Chairman j