HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-10-17 3500
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE
132ND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 17, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
a public hearing and the 132nd 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 8:10 p.m.
Members present: James Cameron, Robert L. Greene, Robert L. Angevine, James
Watson, Jr. , Leonard K. Kane, Dennis Anderson, W. E. Okerstrom,
Arthur C. Samuels and Charles W. Walker
Members absent: None
Mr. Walker, Chairman, introduced Mr. Arthur C. Samuels to the other members of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Samuels was appointed to the Commission after Mr. Peacock
moved from the city.
Mr. McCullough, City Planner, was present along with approximately 200 interested per-
sons in the audience.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-527 by the City
Planning Commission to determine whether or not to rezone property
located on the South side of Schoolcraft Road approximately 250 ft.
East of Alois between Newburgh and Alois in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 30 from RUFB to M-2. This is pursuant to City Council's
Res. #674-61.
Mr. McCullough explained that an industrial concern desired to erect a plant on several
parcels of land and they needed the additional 100 ft. due to the set back require-
ments in the industrial zrne.
Mr. Walker: What is the depth of the parcels - from Schoolcraft to the railroad
tracks?
Mr. McCullough: It varies anywhere from 300 ft. to 1200 ft. due to the tracks
curving northerly.
Mr. Walker: What about this street, Alois?
Mr. McCullough: At the present time, it is only a paper street on the
thoroughfare map. The parcels in question do not reach Alois. They
are located about 250 ft. east of Alois.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Kane: If this property is rezoned, does the industrial concern have ingress
and egress to the industrial property. It's zoned RUFB on Schoolcraft.
Mr. McCullough: It is their intent to buy all the homes fronting on Schoolcraft
on these parcels and to tear them down. All this petition would do is
move the line of the RUFB zone 100 ft. northerly.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Greene, it was
#10-178-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-527 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
3501
to City Council's Res. #674-61, for a change of zoning in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUFB to M-2, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition Z-527 be granted for the following reasons:
1[411 (a) that decreasing the buffer zone from 300 ft. to 200 ft.
does not materially affect land owners along the north side of
Scboolcraft;
(b) that the revenues the City will receive far outweighs any
adverse effect this plant may have on those owners.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonia City Post, under date of
September 27, 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 as
listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Samuels, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane,
Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
IL:
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-525 by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60, as amended,
should be amended by adding thereto Article 13.50 M-1 Limited District
Regulations.
This proposed ordinance was submitted at the request of the civic association
located in the north half of Section 3. It is a more restricted industrial
zone with specific uses.
Mr. Charles Forrest, Assistant Attorney arrived at approximately 8:30 p.m.
The text of the proposed ordinance was explained to those present in the audience.
Mr. McCullough stated that Mr. Devere Fleming, 32625 Eight Mile Road, had been in
to see him and suggested that Section 13.58 be revised to read side yards of twenty
(20) feet rather than thirty (30) feet and giving the owner the option of arranging
his side yards so that ten (10) feet shall be enough on one side if thirty (30) feet
are on the other so long as the adjacent owner shall later provide at least ten (10)
feet along the ten (10) feet already provided.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Angevine: Can we make any changes in this proposed ordinance since
we have already advertised it one way?
Mr. Walker: Mr. Forrest, we proposeto change the side yard requirement
in the proposed ordinance only where it would be on a corner lot,
are we in our legal right to do this without another public hearing?
Mr. Forrest: You have submitted this proposal to the floor and you have
heard no comments? Then you have the right to amend your proposed ordinance
to conform with what you want. This will be reflected in the minutes that
you have submitted the change to the floor and you have no comments from it.
3502
Mr. Kane: Why are we cutting down the side yard requirement from 30 to
20 feet?
It was explained that some of the lots are•only 87 ft. wide making them very small
for a building after allowing for the side yard requirement. Mr. Angevine suggested
that this ordinance be given another name, that"M-1 Limited"might be confused for
the present ordinance M-1 (Light Industry). It was determined that"M-Limited" would
be better. This can be done at the time the proposed ordinance is presented to
the Department of Law by the City Council to be included in Ordinance No. 60. Mr.
McCullough stated he would forward this suggestion to the City Council.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted,
it was
#10-179-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition
Z-525 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion,
to determine whether or not the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,
Ordinance No. 60, as amended, should be amended by adding thereto Article
13.50 M-1 Limited District Regulations, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-525 be granted for
the following reason:
(1) that this amendment is necessary to fulfill the promise which the
Planning Commission made to the civic association representatives in
the north half"of Section 3, and
subject, however, to the following amendment:
(a) that Section 13.58 be revised to read side yards of twenty (20)
feet rather than thirty (30) feet and give the owner the option of
arranging his side yards so that ten (10) feet shall be enough on
one side if thirty (30) feet are on the other so long as the adjacent
owner shall later provide at least ten (10) feet along the ten (10)
feet already provided;
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the
official newspaper, The Livonia City Post, under date of September
27, 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 as listed in the Proof of
Service.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-526 by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to
rezone certain property in the north half of Section 3 from C-2 and RUFB
to M-1 Limited District Regulations and from RUFB to RLA.
It was determined after several meetings with Mr. Reddy
and other members of the civic association that the limited industrial zone
was preferred over any other for the frontage along Eight Mile Road and also
they preferred the RLA for the residential section. The RLA zone required
9600 sq. ft. per lot as minimum. Due to the density of the population in
that area, it was not thought that commercial would be the proper zone for
along Eight Mile Road.
3503
Mr. Reddy: Since this matter of rezoning the north half of Section 3
19938 Shadyside) came up, we have passed out a survey among the property
owners in our area. We have 93% of the surveys back. It reflects the
1[0 feelings of the people in our area. 749, approved the rezoning of the
property along Eight Mile Road to M-1 Limited, 167. opposed the proposed re-
zoning. We would be glad to submit this survey for your records.
Mr. Reddy presented the survey to Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker: Those who approved the rezoning, were they the owners of
property along Eight Mile Road?
Mr. Reddy: No, they were owners of property in the residential area.
Some of the members in the association live on Merriman. They were not
included in this petition. They would like to have their property included
in the rezoning to RLA. They were under the impression that they were
to be included. They are included in our survey. In fact, they would like
the proposed RLA zoning to include one block east of Merriman.
Another important point they would like understood, is that those who
purchase property along Eight Mile Road know that it is a limited industrial
zone and not the regular M-1 zone.
Mr. Walker: I would like to clarify one point. We are only considering
that property west of Osmus for rezoning at this time. This is the way it
was advertised.
Mr. McCullough; Our understanding at the time we had the meeting with the
civic association was to rezone only that property west of Osmus, but if
the property owners east of Osmus and over to one block east of Merriman
wish to have their property rezoned to RLA also, this can be done in the
same manner as we are doing this area. A petition will have to be initiated
by the Planning Commission in order to have a public hearing on that area.
It can not be included in this present petition because this area was not
included in the advertisement.
Mrs. Pauline Hanaford: We're interested in finding out if Eight Mile Road is ever
31795 Eight Mile Road) going to be widened and how much property would they take
from us?
Mr. McCullough: At least 60 ft. from the centerline of Eight Mile Road.
Mrs. Hanaford: If this frontage is rezoned to industrial and business goes
in next to an already situated residence, how does it affect the taxes
of the residence?
Mr. Walker: It doesn't affect their taxes until they use it for
industrial also.
Mr. D. Fleming: I live on the corner of Mayfield and Eight Mile Road. I
own four lots along Eight Mile Road. One lot in the second block between
Mayfield and Shadyside is only 87 ft. wide. If you require a 30 ft.
side yard on each side of the building, there would be only 27 ft. left
1:: for the building. Nobody would buy these lots.
Mr. Walker: I believe we took care of this in the last item. We
amended the proposed ordinance and reduced the requirement.
3504
Mr. Fleming informed the commission that the set back on the north side of Eight Mile
110 Road in Farmington was only 25 ft. He felt that the required 50 ft. on the south
side of Eight Mile Road would be a handicap considering that only 300 ft. is being re-
zoned to industrial.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Fleming if he realized that the 50 ft. set back requirement has
been a requirement in all industrial zones for a number of years?
Mr. Fleming stated he was not objecting to the rezoning only the set back requirement.
Mr. Earl Compeau, 32345 Eight Mile Road, stated he owned a parcel of land approximately
22 acres in size. There were two other 22 acre parcels on either side of his. If the
property owner with the corner lot should develophis frontage in industrial and the
rear portion in residential, how would my neighbor on the other side and I have access
to the rear portion of our lots if the 360 ft. frontage is sold for industrial?
Mr. McCullough suggested that a road could be run off Hubbard.
The question was asked if there would be any chance to have the rear portion of these
lots fronting on Eight Mile Road rezoned for parking?
Mr. Walker stated he did not think so.
It was determined that there were at least five persons in the audience who lived
east of Osmus who were in favor of rezoning their property to RLA. They felt it
should go east to Merriman.
IL Mr. Walker informed those people that the commission at a later can study this and
possibly rezone that area also.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Cameron, supported by Mr. Greene and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-180-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-526 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion
to determine whether or not to rezone certain property in the
north half of Section 3 from C-2 and RUFB to M-1 Limited District
Regulations and from RUFB to RLA, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-526
be granted, for the following reasons:
(a) the Oakland County side of Eight Mile Road is either built
up with or soon will be built up with light industry;
(b) the existing population on both sides of Eight MileRoa
is insufficient to support much commercial;
(c) the proposed rezoning of residential areas was advertised
in response to requests made by representatives of the sub-
division association.
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The City Post under date of September
1:: 27, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit
Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and
petitiote r as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
3505
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-524 by S. C. and
D. Y. Abdoo who are asking that the zoning classification of property
located on the Northeast corner of Farmington Road andClarita in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 be rezoned from R-1A to C-1.
Mr. John Holmes was present for the petitioner, Dr. S. C. Abdoo.
Mr. Holmes explained Dr. Abdoo's reason for requesting the rezoning. He stated that
Farmington Road is a well traveled road at the present time and if it goes into a
four lane highway, it will further reduce the value of the property for residential.
He continued by saying that there is commercial in that particular block although it
is on the opposite side of the street, and it is hoped that Dr. Abdoo will be permitted
to have a commercial establishment on that corner which would act as a natural buffer
strip from Farmington to Shadyside. He further stated that there is a ravine in that
area and the chances are that there will never be any residential built upon the
property due to the terrain. He concluded by stating that Dr. Abdoo is a foot
specialist who oresently has his office in the David Broderick Towers Building in
downtown Detroit. He has found out that people do not travel downtown as they use
to and he is hoping to use this property for his office. It is planned to have
a dentist and possibly another doctor along with his office in this building. This
is not for investment purposes but for Dr. Abdoo's personal use.
It was determined that the overall dimension of the entire 5 lots was 100' in depth
and 113' in width but that an additional 7' would have to be deducted from the
depth for the full dedication of Farmington Road reducing the area to 93' x 113' .
Mr. Watson asked if there were any plans available to show the parking area of the
proposed building. Mr. Holmes stated there were no plans as yet.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mrs. Helen Rickert, 18901 Westmore, Mrs. Corinne Bowers, 18835 Westmore and Mr.
Max Seltz, 18943 Farmington objected to the proposed rezoning.
Mr. McCullough stated that the area was quite small for the use intended.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
#10-181-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-524 as submitted by S. C. and D. Y. Abdoo for a change
of zoning in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10 from R-1A to C-1,
the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition Z-524 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) that enough commercial for this square mile was established
elsewhere on the master plan;
•
(2) that it would constitute spot zoning;
(3) that it would tend to start an area of strip zoning along Farmington Rd. ;
(4) there is considerable amount of PS zoning one mile north of this location
which is largely unused; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonia City Post, under date of
September 27, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The
Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake I Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan
Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments
and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service.
3506
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following vote:
AYES: Samuels, Watson, Greene, Angevine, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Cameron
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-61 by H. G. Smith
and L. M. Hotchkiss who are asking that the east 130 ft. of the east/west
alley running along the northern boundard of Lots 164 through 170 in the
Westmore Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3 be vacated.
Mr. McCullough stated that the Engineering Department had recommended that it be
vacated but since the petition was advertised for a public hearing, the owners of the
property abutting the alley west of the portion to be vacated are asking that if this
is granted that the remaining westerly portion of the alley also be vacated.
Mr. Herbert Smith, one of the Trustees of the West Point Church of Christ, was present
and stated their reason for requesting the vacating of the east 130 ft. was in order
to use this as a parking lot for the church.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Miss Margaret Mitchell of 33240 Seven Mile Road, was present. She is the owner of
one of the parcels of land west of the proposed vacating. She requested that the
entire alley be vacated.
IL: Mr. Walker: This will be taken under advisement for further study.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a proposed new plat, Newburgh
Heights Subdivision submitted by Paris Home Builders,and located on the
Northwest corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18.
Mr. J. Menuck, President of the Paris Home Builders, Mr. A. Goldman, his attorney
and Mr. B. Warner of Warner & Warner, Engineers were present.
Mr. McCullough explained that there had been a proposed Junior High School site in
this subdivision but the School Board had informed him that they had purchased a
site on the East side of Newburgh which eliminated the need for this site in the
proposed subdivision. Also,immediately north of the presently zoned C-2 area on the
northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Newburgh Road, there is alarea designated as
a fire station site. He also informed the commission that the subdivision rules and
regulations prevent streets from intersecting at less than a 90° angle.
Mr. Goldman stated they were submitting a letter to the City Council offering to sell
the proposed fire station site to the city. Mr. Warner has an alternate scheme of
Newburgh Heights Subdivision including the fire station site.
Mr. Warner presented these plans to the commission. He stated that no access drives
were shown on the plats. Mr. Menuch preferred to discuss this further with the
commission. Mr. Warner explained the plat to those present. The area of the fire
1:: station site was shown as being a little smaller than what was originally designated.
He also explained what was proposed instead of access drives. There will be no lots
with driveways coming onto Newburgh or Five Mile Road. This will be made as part
of the deed restrictions. Also, all houses will have attached garages.
Mr. Kane: All houses will be siding on Five Mile and Newburgh?
3507
Mr. Warner: Yes, none of the homes will front on Five Mile or Newburgh
Roads.
1[: Mr. Walker asked about the subdivision rules and regulations requirement as to pre-
venting streets from intersecting at less than a 90° angle.
Mr. McCullough stated that the rules state no street will intersect at less than 90°
angles.
Mr. Warner stated that the present plat shows that it will conform to the subdivision
rules and regulations.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Okerstrom: Couldn't we approve this plat subject to an agreement being
made in relation to the fire station site?
Mr. McCullough: I would suggest that this be taken under advisement until
a decision has been made in relation to the fire station site due to the
fact that the site designated on the present plan is not of the same size
as orignally designed by the Fire Department.
Mr. Walker: We will take this under advisement until such time that your
letter is forwarded to the City Council and the Fire Department has been
notified that the proposed site has been made smaller.
As soon as we hear from the City Council and t he Fire
IL Department this item will be on the next meeting thereafter.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was
#10-182-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, October 17, 1961 at approximately
9:31 p.m.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Samuels, Watson, Greene, Angevine, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The public hearing has been duly adjourned.
The Chairman called the 132nd Regular Meeting to order with all those present now
who were present at the time the public hearing was adjourned.
Mr. Walker stated that due to the amount of persons in the audience present for Item
#8, Petition M-231, the Planning Commission would take this item up first before
continuing with the remainder of the agenda.
Mr. McCullough: The next item to be heard is Petition M-231 by Rev. H. Speer
requesting permission to erect a church on property located on the west
I:: side of Harrison approximately 620 feet south of Six Mile Road in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 13. Public Hearing 10/3/61, taken under advise-
ment.
Rev. H. Speer was present. He presented a petition to Mr. Walker signed by property
who did not object to be property being used for a church.
3508
The question was asked when this church would be built. Rev. Speer stated that they
would like to build it within two or three years. But,there is a drainage problem
in the area and it was felt they wouldn't want to build at the end of three years
if sewers were put in at the end of four years. It would cost approximately $1,000
for a satisfactory disposal system and that much again for tapping into a new sewer.
Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Harold Henderson (property owner in the area) if there was
a septic tank problem in that area. Mr. Henderson confirmed this, especially on
Harrison and Whitcomb. He stated there was seepage from the sewage. It has existed
for some time. Mr. Henderson further stated that people living in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed church are still very strongly opposed to the church being
permitted.
Mr. Walker asked for a show of hands of those in the audience who are protesting to
this petition. There were twenty-five persons who raised their hands.
Mr. Walker informed those present that the Planning Commission had never before
denied a church but they had never been confronted with so many questions before
either. There was a question of drainage, an unimproved road, a dead end street and
also the question of allowing a church in an area that was completely surrounded by
homes. There was also the question of the petitioner using the house presently situated
on the property as temporary quarters for the church.
Mr. Samuels asked if the property was owned by the church. Rev. Speer answered that
it wasn't.
Someone in the audience stated that the notice sent to the property owners stated that
the petitioner was requesting permission to erect a church, but that in reality he
was going to use the house that was on the property.
Mr. Walker stated that the petitioner was asking permission to use the area for a
site for a church. It was not up to the Planning Commission to give him permission
to use the building. That is the reason tie uotice was written the wasy. it was. If
approved, Rev. Speer would be able to build his church at a later date as well as
right now.
Mr. Henderson asked Rev. Speer if he intended to have a recreational area in the rear
of the property. Rev. Speer stated that they did, but that it would be at least 300
ft. from the road and several hundred feet from the nearest residence.
Mr. Greene stated he hadn't been at the previous meeting but he felt that technically
it is not the Planning Commission's obligation to see about the safety of the people
in this home, but in granting this petition, we would be granting the use.
Mr. McCullough said that possibly Mr. Forrest could answer the question of whether
or not the PlanningCommission has the right to permit the occupancy of the house?
Mr. Greene stated he did not feel it was the function of the Planning Commission to do
this, that it is not their responsibility.
Mr. Forrest answered that the commission did not have this authority but that the
petitioner would have to comply with the building code and the other provisions of
the zoning ordinance.
1[40 Mr. Anderson stated that he felt if the commission granted this petition, they were
granting him the permission to use this site for a church.
Mr. Walker concurred with Mr. Anderson, stating that if this petition is granted and
3509
the petitioner can conform with the requirements of the building department and the
fire department, he will be conducting the church in the present building.
Mr. Forrest stated that the Planning Commission approves the use not the particular
building.
1[4; Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was
#10-183-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday,
October 3, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby deny without
prejudice Petition M-231 by Rev. H. Speer requesting permission to erect
a church on property located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, with
the recommendation that the City Planner help the petitioner select
another site for the church, for the following reasons:
(1) that the west half of Harrison is largely a private road and in such
condition that it will not accommodate heavy traffic volumes;
(2) that Harrison is a dead end street which may result in its having
to carry heavier traffic volumes than it could carry;
(3) that the evidence indicates an already dangerous health situation
regarding the septic tank use in the immediate area; 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 vote:
AYES: Cameron, Samuels, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker
ILI NAYS: Angevine, Watson and Kane
Mr. Watson asked if Rev. Speer had checked other property in the area and Rev. Speer
answered he had.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9:50 p.m.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Walker called the 132nd Regular Meeting back to order at approximately 10:05 p.m.
with all those present now that were present at the time recess was called.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a letter dated October 11, 1961 from
the Industrial Development Commission requesting the Planning Commission
to hold a public hearing to rezone certain property in the Newburgh Estates
Subdivision located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 30 from RUFB to M-2.
Mr. P. Barth of the J. L. Mooney Company was present and informed the commission if this
property could be rezoned to industrial that two tool and die shops would be built upon
the property, one plant to be started next spring. The question was raised if this
subdivision didn't have recorded deed restrictions. Mr. Barth stated he did not know.
He did have a copy of the deed for these properties but he hadn't thought of checking.
Mr. Okerstrom wondered if in the event this is rezoned to industrial, would it be wise
to possibly include several more parcels to the west rather than just these three parcels.
Mr. Walker stated this would be taken under advisement until it was checked out as to
the deed restrictions.
3510
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, it was
I[: #10-184-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 132nd Regular Meeting held by
the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 17, 1961,
on a request dated October 10, 1961 from the Burt Homes, Inc.
for a year's extension on the balance of Meri-Lynn Farms
Subdivisions #5 through #9 located in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant
said request, subject, however, to all conditions prevailing
on the preliminary approval.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-185-61 RESOLVED that, final plat of the Kingsbury Heights Subdivision #2
located on the northwest corner of Levan and Five Mile Roads in
the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 be given final approval, subject,
however, to Lawrence Street being changed to read "Comstock Street",
and
FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that
tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City
Planning Commission on February 17, 1959; and it further appearing
that said proposed plat together with the plans and specifications
for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of
_O Public Works under date of January 16, 1959; and it further appearing
that a surety bond in the amount of $10,000.00 to cover the installa-
tion of improvements has been filed in the office of the City Clerk
under date of October 11, 1961; such bond having been approved by
Charles J. Pinto, Assistant City Attorney on October 11, 1961 it would
therefore appear that all the conditions necessary to the release
of building permits have been met and the Building Department is
hereby so notified.
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 add 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. These sections are relative
to regulating the size of signs in Livonia. Public Hearing 9/19/61;
Special Meeting 10/3/61; taken under advisement until oil industries
submitted certain information relative to their specific signs used
at gasoline stations.
Mr. Marzolf has asked for a meeting with the Mayor and the City Attorney
in relation to this proposed ordinance. The information asked for at
the last meeting has not been submitted.
I: Mr. Walker: I feel this shows bad faith having them ask for a meeting
with the Mayor and the City Attorney after we held this item up for two
more weeks until they had time to submit the information we requested.
v
3511
Mr. McCullough: They feel that the set back of the sign at an intersection
should be on the right of way on both sides of the intersection.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously
I[: adopted, it was
#10-186-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, September 19, 1961 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 add 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,(relative to regulating the size of signs
in Livonia), the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition Z-521 be granted for the
following reasons:
(1) that under the existing law there is virtually no control
over sign sizes;
(2) that this provides for a larger sign with larger buildings and
deeper setbacks; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonia 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 Company, City Departments
and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service.
IL*0 Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was. •
#10-187-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
the minutes for the meetings held on August 29, 1961 and September
19, 1961 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from
voting.
AYES: Cameron, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom , Angevine, Watson,
Kane and Walker
NAYS: None
NOT VOTING: Samuels
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 132nd Regular Meeting
held on Tuesday, October 17, 1961 at approximately 10:30 p.m.
CITY PLANNING CC11' P S�SIONN
Qs)
AT STE W. E. Okerst •m, Secretary
Char s W. Walker, Chairman