HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-09-19 3475
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE
131ST REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 19, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held a public hearing and the 131st 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 8:06 p.m.
Members present: James Cameron, Leonard K. Kane, Charles W. Walker, James
Watson, Jr. , Robert L. Angevine and W. E. Okerstrom
Members absent: #Robert L. Greene, Dennis Anderson and Robert M. Peacock.
Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner was present along with approximately 20
interested persons in the audience.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition V-60 by George
Hanses who is requesting that the alley located approximately 100 ft.
South of and parallel to Seven Mile Road, running easterly and westerly
between Stamford and Myron in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 be vacated.
Mr. McCullough submitted and read a letter received from the Engineering Department.
Mr. George Hanses was present.
Mr. Hanses: I own property directly north of the alley and south of
the alley which divides the two pieces I own. I would like to have
the alley vacated in order to join the two pieces together and not have
any cars going through them.
I have statements from the owners of the land north of the alley, next
to my property and also south of the alley and they have no objection
to the vacating whatsoever.
Mr. McCullough: Any people on the block use the alley as a service drive?
Mr. Hanses: I am the only one conducting a business on that alley, I
have a hardware store on Seven Mile Road.
Mr. McCullough: What is located west of you?
Mr. Hanses: There is an eighty foot parking lot.
Mr. McCullough: i mean, west of that.
Mr. Hanses: Nothing, there is a house on Stamford with a beauty parlor
in it.
Mr. Forrest, Assistant City Attorney arrived at 8:10 p.m.
Mr. Hanses: There is an area 100 ft. along Stamford, south of the
alley that is zoned C-1.
I[: Mr. Hanses explained the area more fully to the commissioners.
Mr. Angevine: How wide is the alley?
Mr. Hanses: Twenty (20) feet wide. No objection from the utility
companies except that they request a 20 foot easement to be created.
3476
Mr. Walker: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was
#9-158-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, September 19, 1961 on Petition V-60 as submitted by
George Hanses for the vacating of the alley located approximately
100 ft. South of and parallel to Seven Mile Road, running easterly
and westerly between Stamford and Myron in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 9, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition V-60 be granted subject to a 20
ft. easement being created, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The City Post, under date of August 30,
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, petitioner and
abutting property owners as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Angevine, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
1[40 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-220 by Leo J.
Kliza requesting permission to construct and operate an auto wash
establishment on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Middlebelt and Garden, approximately 850 ft. East of Middlebelt
Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Steve Polgar was present for the petitioner. He stated the petitioner would be
present shortly, but that he would try and explain the new auto wash to the commission
Gasoline would be sold on the premises but only to those customers who come in for
a car wash. The customer would get a reduced price on the car wash if he purchased
so many gallons of gas. No gasoline would be sold unless a car wash was purchased.
He submitted a drawing of •the proposed building and informed the commission that the
building would be of face brick on the exterior with all modern automatic devices
and completely soundproof. It is not entirely automatic as there will be 10 em-
ployees working full time. There will be one lane going out and two lanes coming
in. This is in case there is a back up of cars or in case of polishing of cars.
He continued by stating that it will have all concrete paving with drainage provided
into the regular drainage system. The water is only used once with detergents. The
sewers are across Plymouth Road but this has been all checked out with the Engineering
Department.
Mr. McCullough: Did you get all the necessary signatures as required by law?
I[: Mr. Polgar: We have 90% of the people in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. McCullough: Can the length of the building be altered if necessary?
Mr. Polgar: Because of the width of this lot, the length can be changed
if necessary.
3477
There will be a total of three lanes and parking space for cars
not to be washed. The pumps for the gasoline will be moved toward
the rear.
Mr. Kliza, petitioner, arrived at this time.
Mr. Walker: Have you discussed with the Law Department whether or not
this will have to conform to the gasoline station ordinance due to the
fact that you will be selling gasoline on the premises?
Mr. Polgar stated he had not.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Kliza, will you go more into detail about the selling
of the gas along with an auto wash?
Mr. Kliza: We are being competitive having a tie-in with gasoline.
If you purchase any amount of gas your car wash price is figured
pro rata. All gas sold is priced the same as any gas station in
the area.
Mr. Watson: The building I saw looked very much like the picture pre-
sented tonight. I have never seen a more modern plant. It is entirely
face brick. No noise whatsoever, it was very quiet. There is a glass
partition between the waiting room and the washing area. Very picture-
sque inside.
Mr. McCullough: What will the cost of construction be?
Mr. Kliza: Approximately $150,000.
Mr. Walker: Because the question has been presented before the commission
on the question of gas being sold on the premises, do you see any reason
for any action or recommendation from your department to the commission
that we shouldn't consider this, Mr. Forrest?
Mr. Forrest: Mr. Polgar spoke with Mr. Kropf. There doesn't seem to be
any problem as long as you amend your proceedings and adopt a resolution
that you give approval to the gas station portion.
It isn't a gas station in the same sense as other gas stations.
Mr. Okerstrom: What if there wasn't an auto wash business there and only
two pumps and they sell gas. Would it be a gasoline station then?
Mr. Forrest: Yes, I suppose so. But since your body has the power to approve
both uses, personally, I feel you can do it now.
You have notified the people that you intend to sell gasoline, Mr.
Polgar?
Mr. Polgar: Yes, and they have no objection. No gas will be sold unless
I[:
they have an auto wash.
Mr.Okerstrom: Where gasoline is sold, the lot frontage must be 150 ft.
Mr. Walker: But that's for a gas station.
3478
Mr. Forrest: We have not rendered an opinion on this. If it is a gasoline
station the petitioner will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals
to have the 150 ft. frontage requirement waivered.
1[40
Mr. Walker: You have seen this. Would you hesitate to render an opinion
as to whether this is a gasoline station or not?
Mr. Forrest: Yes, because Mr. Kropf has spoken to Mr. Polgar and I do
not know what was said.
Mr. Watson: Mr. Pinto rendered a verbal opinion.
Mr. Polgar: Mr. Pinto stated if he were asked for an opinion upon this,
he would have to state that this is definitely not a gasoline station
anymore than selling coke would be a confectionary store.
Mr. Walker: Anybody in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Harold Zukie: I pay a lot of taxes on Plymouth Road. There is no reason
11627 Haller) to have another car wash next to one already there. Why
go in my one block? I pay more taxes than anybody else in
the block. Why should he jeopardize my business? Why can't he go on
Six,Seven or Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Walker: This board has no authorization to control the growth of
the City because of economics. We have tried to control the planned
growth of the City but we have been told by the Department of Law that
we do not have the power to do so. If it were to be denied it would
have to be denied for other reasons than for economic reasons.
Hr. Zukie: We are going to get a court order to restrain them.
Mr. Walker: Anybody else in the audience who wishes to speak.
Mr. Okerstrom: I would like an opinion from the Department of Law as to
whether or not this is a gasoline station.
Mr. Angevine: Do you want to poll the commissioners on this? From the
technical standpoint we should check into it. We should get a firm
decision from the Law Department.
Mr. Polgar: If there is any doubt on this at all because of the legality
of this, I would be glad to get an opinion, but I see nothing wrong with
approving it with the condition that the Zoning Board of Appeals would
have to approve the standard.
Mr. Okerstrom: I feel we should get an opinion for the next meeting.
Mr. Polgar: Were I to concede that it is a gas station, would you
approve it subject to the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals?
I[:
Mr. Watson: I could no more stretch my imagination that this is a gas
station. In view of the fact that you can not buy gas alone indicates
the primary business is for an auto wash.
Mr. Walker: I would like to poll the members to see how many members
want to take this under advisement until they have received an opinion
from the Law Department, or act upon it tonight.
3479
Mr. Okerstrom polled the commissioners if they wanted to act upon the petition
1[40 tonight and the results were as follows:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Angevine, Kane and Walker
NAYS: Okerstrom
Mr. Walker: The results show that the majority wish to act upon this
petition tonight. The floor is open for a motion.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was
#9-159-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, September 19, 1961 the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant petition M-229 by Leo J. Kliza requesting permission
to construct and operate an auto wash establishment and to sell
gasoline on said premises, subject, however, to the following
conditions:
(1) that the building be set back no less than 85 feet from
the centerline of Plymouth Road;
(2) that the pump island be relocated so that the southern
end thereof is 25 feet north of the south wall of the proposed
building;
(3) that the building be shortened in order to permit a 50 ft.
rear yard which is needed to accommodate turning movements into
the building;
(4) that entrances and exits are to be at least 35 feet wide;
(5) that the entire area be concrete and drained in accordance
with Engineering Department's specifications; and
(6) subject to a letter being received from the Law Department
as to whether or not this constitutes a gas station under Ordinance
#328 and if so the petitioner will, in the event of an affirmative
determination, need the approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals
since he cannot comply with the standards; 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.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Forrest, please submit the opinion as soon as possible
so that the petitioner may go before the Zoning Board of Appeals if
you find it necessary.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Angevine, Kane and Walker
NAYS: Okerstrom
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Iro Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-230 by Shell
Oil Company requesting permission to construct and operate a gasoline
service station on property located on the Southwest corner of
Harrison and Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36.
Mr. Irwin was present for the petitioner.
3430
Mr. McCullough: The petitioner does not comply with the standard of
150 ft. frontage required by the ordinance. Also, the curb cuts are
less than the required 25 ft.
Mr. Irwin submitted a letter from the Zoning Board of Appeals giving him a variance
on the required width.
Mr. McCullough: What is the total area?
Mr. Irwin: Using the 27ft. right-of-way, we have 17,160 sq. ft. This
will be constructed of masonry and porcelain enamel exterior.
The curb cuts are designated as requested by the State of Michigan
and approved by them.
The Zoning Board of Appeals did not act upon the curb cuts. They did
say if that is the way the State of Michigan wants them, okay.
Mr. McCullough: Was the requirement of the necessary 25 ft. for the curb
cuts brought out during the meeting?
Mr. Irwin: No, only unofficially.
Mr. Francis R. Bouffard, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals: The dimensions
11240 Oxbow of the area are 190' x 175' minus the right-of-way of
43 ft. This would reduce the width to 132' . This makes the area
under the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum. The Board granted him a variance
on this. The curb cuts were not brought up but it was felt that the
Planning Commission should act upon this question.
Mr. Forrest: The Mayor wants the Traffic Commission to study all
ingress and egress problems.
Mr.MC Cullough: Action can be taken upon this petition, subject to the
approval of the Traffic Commission.
Mr. Walker: Would this have to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals
for these curb cuts?
Mr. Forrest: I believe the Zoning Board of Appeals wanted to hold an decision
in abeyance until the Traffic Commission acted upon it in relation to
the curb cuts.
Mr. Bouffard: When there are curb cuts involved, we will approve subject
to the approval of the Police and Safety Department. They wanted
approval on the variance of the 150 ft. frontage requirement. Any curb
cut approval would be subject to the approval of the Public Safety
Department, Planning Commission and Traffic Commission.
Mr. Okerstrom: This would have to be approved subject to the standards of
our ordinance. Anything that can not be complied with would have to go
1[4rback to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and subject to the approval of the
Traffic Commission.
Mr. Walker: Anybody in the audience who wishes to speak?
3481
Mr. Irwin: Our curb cuts were approved by the State of Michigan.
I[: Mr. Forrest: The State Of Michigan has nothing to do with this. It has
to conform with our ordinance.
##Mr. Robert L. Greene arrived at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. Irwin explained the parking spaced on the gasoline service station site to the
commissioners.
Mr. Walker: If we are going to act upon this petition, we will have to
include in our resolution that this will be referred to the Traffic
Commission for their approval of the curb cuts.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#9-160-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a P,blic Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, September 19, 1961 the City Planning Commission does
hereby grant Petition M-230 of the Shell Oil Company requesting
permission to construct and operate a gasoline service station in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36, subject, however, to the following
conditions:
(a) that the Traffic Commission approve the designated curb cuts;
since they do not meet the requirements of Ordinance #328 (4) ; and
(b) that the applicant designate an area for parking of autos
which cannot be serviced immediately; and
IL:
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: Angevine, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: Cameron
NOT VOTING: Watson and Greene
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-521 by the City ,
Planning Commission pursuant to City Council's Res. #561-61 to determine
whether or not to amend sub-section (f) and adding thereto sub-section
(g) of Section 10.02 and amend sub-section (h) of Section 11.02 of the
Zoning Ordinance of the City Of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60. These sections
are relative to regulating the size of signs in Livonia.
This proposed ordinance is the result of a combined effort between
the Zoning Board of Appeals and our office to establish a basis
for the size of signs. There is no correspondence.
Mr. Walker: Does this incorporate all the changes discussed at previous
1[1w
meetings?
Mr. McCullough: Yes.
Mr. Walker: Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak?
3432
Mr. Bouffard: Does this apply to both C-1 and C-2 zones?
Mr. McCullough: Yes.
Mr. Shaw from the Aurora Gasoline Company: I would like to get some information .
When you mentioned that only sign per business, does this
refer to a corner lot also?
Mr. McCullough: Only one sign on a pylon or above the building but you can have
another against and on the building flat.
Mr. Shaw: Would this include signs on the pump?
Mr. McCullough: No, it doesn't intend to mean these kind of signs, they
are too small.
The reason for attempting to establish a maximum in the
size of signs is that some businesses have bigger signs than their
buildings.
Mr. Shaw: Would this apply to billboards too?
Mr. McCullough: Yes, this will allow only one sign.
Mr. Shaw: Where does it go after action has been taken by the Planning
Commission?
1[10 Mr. McCullough: It goes to the City Council.
Mr. Irwin (Shell Oil Company): I just heard about this at this moment.
Mr. McCullough: What is the size of your building?
A fifty-foot set back would mean a fifty foot sq. sign.
Mr. Irwin: That would eliminate our standard sign.
Am I to understand that any sign attached to the building
does not count? Only the advertising sign out front?
Mr. McCullough: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Irwin: That throws out our Banjo sign; it is 56 sq. ft.
Mr. McCullough: Any permanent sign is limited to one.
Mr. Irwin: Could we bring in information as to the size of our signs?
Mr. McCullough: This would be agreeable but all the oil companies would have
to agree to one size.
11[:
Mr. Walker: We would have to get the minimum and maximum from all the
gas and oil companies and then from these obtain the average.
Mr. Irwin stated he would see that this information is submitted to the Commission.
3483
Mr. Walker: Any one else in the audience who wishes to speak?
1[40
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#9- -61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
Petition Z-521 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant
to City Council's Res. #561-61 to determine whether or not to amend
sub-section (f) and adding thereto sub-section (g) of Section 10.02
and amend sub-section (h) of Section 11.02 of the Zoning Ordinance
of the City of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-521 be
approved.
Mr. Greene: Do you want to go ahead, Mr. Okerstrom, on this petition
before the information is brought in by the gas companies?
Mr. Okerstrom: It is my understanding that we are considering the signs
of more than just the gas and oil companies.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Kane and Okerstrom
NAYS: Watson, Greene, Angevine and Walker
Mr. Walker: The motion is not carried, therefore the foregoing resolution
is not adopted.
1[40 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-522 by the City
Planning Commission, on its own motion, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 4.45 Protective Walls, of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No. 60,
as amended, so as to require a protective wall in the P-1, PS, Commercial
or Industrial Districts adjoining or contiguous to any residential district
or districts.
I would like to suggest that this item be taken under advisement until
we have had a study session on it.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Any objection from the commissioners to holding this up
as suggested by the City Planner?
Mr. Herman Gould Would I have to put up a wall next to Mr. George Hanses
26530 W. Six Mile Road) hardware store? I have a lot next to his.
Mr. McCullough: If you ever build upon your property and you are adjacent to
residential property - you would have to put up a protective wall between
your business and the residential property.
Mr. Hanses: Does it affect me where I already have the building?
1[. Mr. McCullough: No.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement.
3484
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-523 by the City
Planning Commissicn, on its own motion, to determine whether or not to
amend Section 13.07 Protective Barrier of Article 13.00 of Ordinance No.
60 so as to require a protective barrier between parking areas and any
residential district whether or not such residential district has been
developed.
This ordinance would immediately require any area zoned P which is
adjacent to residential property to erect a wall.
I would like to suggest that this also be taken under advisement, because
it is connected with the previous petition.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
This item will be taken under advisement.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was
#9-161-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the
Public Hearing held on Tuesday, September 19, 1961 at approximately
9:25 p.m.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Greene, Angevine, Kane, Okerstrom and
Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is hereby
adjourned.
Mr. Walker called the 131st Regular Meeting to order at 9:26 pm. with all those
present who were present at the time the public hearing was adjourned.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-85 by Kaufman
and 9road Development requesting permission 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 2. Public Hearing 8/29/61 taken under advisement.
The Law Department had been requested to rule on whether the Planning
Commission has power to approve this considering the language of the
Ordinance and the fact that the request for excavation is in some
cases five (5) feet below grade of existing streets.
The Law Department has rendered an opinion, which states the Planning
Commission is powerless to authorize removal operations which require
removal of soil below the normal building grade as established from
the nearest existing or proposed street.
e petitioner was informed of this but he could not be present due to
day being a Jewish holiday.
Mr. Walker: Several members investigated this area and there is no doubt
in their minds that there is not sufficient sand to be removed.
There is such a large area that is so low that it is doubtful if there is
sufficient soil to stay above the required grade level. I think in lieu
3485
of this and the opinion from the Law Department, we can deny this
1[40 petition for our own reasons plus those submitted by the Law Department.
Upon a motion duly made by L . Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
#9-162-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the
City Planning Commission does hereby deny Application TA-85 by
Kaufman & Broad requesting permission to remove sand and topsoil
from the proposed Park Heights Subdivision located between Pembroke
and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2 for the
following reasons:
(1) The Law Department has rendered an opinion that the Planning
Commission is powerless to authorize removal operations which require
removal of soil below the normal building grade as established from
the nearest existing or proposed street.
(2) It is felt by the Topsoil Committee that there is not sufficient
sand to remove from the area and stay above the required grade hvel,
as required by the Ordinance.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property
owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in
the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from
the Department of Public Works under date of August 29, 1961 and
from the Police Department under date of August 29, 1961.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Greene, Angevine, Kane, Okerstrom and
Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9:30 p.m.
* * * * * *
Mr. Walker called the 131st Regular Meeting back to order at approximately 9:40 p.m.
with all those present who were present at the time recess was called.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request from Kaufman
& Broad Development Company for a year's 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 by the City Planning Commission in
April, 1959.
After a brief resume of this item which brought out the facts that this subdivision
had been given preliminary approval by the City Planning Commission in April, 1959
but that no extension has ever been requested as required by the Subdivision Rules
1[4r and Regulations. If no request is made and granted such plat is null and void.
Mr. Greene: If we deny this, the petitioner would have to start over?
Mr. McCullough: Yes, I feel that this is the only thing that can be done at
this time.
3486
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Greene, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, it was
110 #9-163-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 131st Regular Meeting held
by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 19, 1961
on a request from Kaufman & Broad Development Company for a
year's extension on the preliminary aipproval of the Park Heights
Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby deny said request for the reason
that the preliminary approval previously granted has gone beyond
the expiration date and the Planning Commission has had no authority
to act upon it since April 21, 1960.
Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-517 by Jerome
Hirsch who is asking that the zoning classification on property located
on the South side of Seven Mile Road approximately 1,200 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; Special Meeting
8/29/61 taken under advisement. (The Law Department has ruled that
no zoning change is necessary) .
The Planning Commiss4.on asked the Law Department for a ruling as to
whether or not the use intended for the property in Z-517 can be
constituted as a private educational institution. This would mean
that no zoning change would be required but that approval will be
1[40 necessary by the Planning Commission for the use in the RLA zone.
The Civic Association president stated previously that they did not
object to the use but to the proposed change of zoning.
I would suggest that this petition be denied for reasons that
no zoning change is required for this particular use and that a
public hearing be held to approve the use by the City Planning
Commission.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted,it was
#9-164-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, August 15, 1961 on Petition Z-517 as submitted by
Jerome Hirsch for a change of zoning in the Northeast 1/4 of Section
10 from RLA to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition Z-517 be denied for the reasons
that the Department of Law has determined in their letter dated
September 8, 1961 that no zoning change is necessary for the intended
use, namely a private educational institution, and that the City
Planning Commission does hereby resolve to hold a public hearing to
determine whether or not to approve said use.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the
official newspaper, The Livonian, 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 Prc.:f of Service.
3437
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the b regoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a revision of Bretton
Gardens #2 submitted by Carey Homes, Inc. This subdivision is located
east of Purlingbrook approximately 500 ft. South of Pembroke in the
IL: Southeast 1/4 of Section 2.
The commissioners examined the revised plat wherein Melvin Avenue has been changed
to a curved street at the easterly end of the plat. It previously had
been designated at a 90° angle. This constituted a slight change in the
plat layout.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#9-166-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated Sept. 12, 1961 from
Carey Homes, Inc. , for approval of a revised plat of Bretton Gardens
#2 located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning
Commission does hereby give approval to said revised plat.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by M . Kane, supported by Mr. Cameron and unanimously adopted,
it was
#9-167-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated August 25,1961 from
the Biltmore Building Company for a year's extension on the
preliminary approval for the Biltmore Estates Subdivision
located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning
1[40 Commission does hereby grant said request, subject, to any
all conditions previously made still prevailing.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a revision of Rosemore Manor
Subdivision located in the South half of Section 22 on the East and
West side of Hubbard Avenue. Mr. George Pastor proposed to move the
retention basin presently located in Kimberly Oaks #3 onto adjacent land
which will be located between Kimberly Oaks #3 and Rosemore Manor
Subdivision. This retention basis will be used jointly by the Fort
Investment Company, developers of Rosemore Manor Subdivision and Mr.
Pastor, developer of Kimberly Oaks Subdivision #3.
It was determined after a brief discussion that the retention basis should not
be removed from Kimberly Oaks #3 until another is designated. A public hearing
should be held on the new area (which includes six lots and an additional area
for the retention basis) at the same time the present retention basin is removed
from Kimberly Oaks #3.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public
hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 14.03 (h) of Article
14.00 and Section 15.03 (b) of Article 15.00.
I[:
This amendment would remove drive-in theatres as a permitted use in M-1
and M-2 industrial districts.
The question was asked, where are they to be permitted? It was suggested that a
letter be written to the Law Department requesting where said use will be permitted.
3488
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public
hearing to determine whether or not to rezone certain property (Lots
I[: 43, 44 and 45) in the Newburgh Estates Subdivision located South of
Amrhein Road and West of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
30 from RUFB to M-2.
It was decided that this should be taken under advisement for further study before
establishing that a public hearing be held for rezoning said property. Mr. Walker
asked if there were subdivision restrictions which would prevent the building of
a tool and die business on said lots. Mr. McCullough answered that he believed there
were deed restrictions.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the election of officers for
the City Planning Commission. Mr. Walker has been nominated for Chairman;
Mr. Watson for Vice-Chairman and Mr. Okerstrom for Secretary.
Mr. Walker: Two members were not present at the time nominations were
made. If these two members wish to nominate anyone else at this time,
they made do so before the ballots are passed out.
Mr. Angevine and Mr. Kane stated they had no further nominations.
Since there was only one candidate nominated for each office, Mi . Kane moved that
the nominated candidates be elected unanimously. Mr. Greene supported Mr. Kane's
motion.
Mr. McCullough announced that there was one more item he would like to present.
This was in relation to the problems that have come up with regards to ingress and
egress in parking areas. He would like to suggest that applicants for commercial
and industrial building permits be required to obtain from the Police Department
approval for parking in relation to proper ingress and egress. These applicants
would have to obtain this approval prior to the Planning Commission meeting and
decision on any petitions relative to a commercial or industrial building.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Cameron and unanimously
adopted, it was
#9-168-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 131st Regular Meeting having been held
on Tuesday, September 19, 1961, the City Planning Commission does
hereby determine that all applicants for a commercial and/or industrial
building be required to obtain the approval of the Police Department
on parking in relation to ingress and egress, and that a public hearing
be held to accomplish this if necessary.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Walker informed the commissioners of a meeting he had attended on Monday,
September 18, 1961 with the Water & Sewer Commission. It was in relation to St.
Priscilla's Church on Seven Mile and Middlebelt. He had been informed that the
church expected the City to extend the water system and that this would cost the
City approximately $8,000. The property owner has agreed to put the sewer in but
it will be on private property and the City has no authority to maintain the sewer.
After discussing this further, Mr. Walker continued by stating that it was
l[l determined by the Water & Sewer Commission that since they had a certain amount of
money in their budget earmarked for extending sewers they would include this sewer
along with others being extended.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 131st Regular Meeting
3439
held on Tuesday, September 19, 1961 at approximately 10:45 p.m.
IL: CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i
7_./0 e:
W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
w
Char es W. Walker, Chairman
1