Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-11-28 • 3338 IL MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 138TH SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 28, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 138th 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: Robert L. Angevine, James Cameron, Leonard K. Kane, W. E. Okerstrom, Arthur Samuels, James Watson, Jr. , and Charles W. Walker Members absent : ##Dennis Anderson and Robert L. Greene Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner, was present with approximately 65 interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition M-236 by Henry Orback, on behalf of the Livonia Jewish Congregation is requesting approval to erect a synagogue on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road approximately 120 ft. west of Osmus in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3. There is no correspondence. Mr. Henry Orback was present on behalf of the Livonia Jewish Congregation. ILOMr. Walker asked Mr. Orback to give the commission and audience any pertinent in- formation he had with regard to the petition. - ' Mr. Orback presented a scale model of the proposed synagogue. He stated this was the only unit contemplated at the present time. The building will be set back approximately 140 ft. from thproperty line or 200 ft. from the center of the road. The seating capacity will bi°300 people. The size of the parcel was two acres less the street right -of-way. The proposed building was to be used as a sanctuary, a sunday school and possibly as a social hall for dinners, meetings, etc. , the same as multi-purpose rooms are used in the schools. There is ample room for parking as it is contemplated to have room for 100 cars which was felt adequate for the type of building they were building. It is hoped that the congregation can purchase additional property to the east and west of the present site. ## Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at approximately 8:10 p.m. Mr. Orback continued furtbet by stating that the present home on the property would be demolished when the new building is constructed. Mr. Charles Forrest, Assistant City Attorney arrived at approximately 8:10 p.m. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. J. Breitenback, 31750 Sevep Mile Road stated he had no objection to the proposed synagogue. The only thing he objected to was the amount of set back along Seven Mile Road. He stated that at the time Spring Valley Subdivision was approved, the Breiten- 1[0 back farm house was used as an anchor to determine the setback of the other buildings which were to be erected at a future date along Seven Mile Road. It was determined that this farm house was 280 ft. from the center of the road. Mr. Breitenback stated that this stipulation was made at a meeting by the City Planning Commission when the Spring Valley Subdivision was approved. He had copies of the minutes of the Commission meeting with him if the Planning Commission wish to verify this. IL*0 3339 Mr. Walker stated that the depth of the property in question is approximately 375 ft. If a setback of 280 ft. was used, it would practically make it impossible to build upon this lot. Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Orback if it was possible to move the building back another 20 feet and provide more parking in the front. Mr. Orback felt this was up to the Commission. He said that having the parking in front would not be very attractive to the whole area but it was up to the commission to decide. Mr. Angevine asked if the 280 ft. setback stated before was from the center of the road? Mr. Breitenback said it was not from the center of the road it was from the property line. He stated he did not intend for them to maintain this much set back but he felt that some determination should be made now. Mr. McCullough stated that the proposed building as shown on the site plan is set back 140 ft. I believe Mr. Breitenback is worried about any future buildings being 17 constructed closer than •70.ft. from the lot line. 1100 Mr. Watson suggested the first building be built on the required set back and any future building built at the rear of this first building. Mr. Michael Harman, 19358 Hardy felt that before action is taken on this item, he wanted to obtain the feelings of the members of the Spring Valley Subdivision in order to determine if they were agreeable to the proposed use for this property. Mr. Walker asked if there was someway the Planning Commission could approve the sub- mitted site plan so as to control the building of any future building. Mr. McCullough felt that deed restrictions could be entered into as to any future building and set back of said buildings. Mr. Forrest, Assistant Attorney, stated that the Planning Commission has the power to establish conditions. Mr. Sol Bienenseld, 29623 Transcrest, stated he was an attorney for the congregation of the proposed synagogue. He felt that the Planning Commission did not have the power to deny this petition as long as the petitioner complied with the setback re- quirements, the parking requirements and the building code. He continued by stating that any objection pertaining to the use resulting in too much traffic or being a nuisance would not be a valid reason for denying petition. LMr. Forrest stated that the City Planning Commission has to abide by the City Ordinance. As far as we know this ordinance is lawful and until proven otherwise, the Planning Commission will have to abide by it. Mr. Walker asked if there was anybody else in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. John Miller, 31640 W. Seven Mile Road stated he did not think that anybody in the immediate vicinity had any objection to the synagogue. The only thing they were con- cerned with was the setback. • 3340 Mr. Walker asked Mr. .Forrest if the Planning Commission had the power to approve this petition subject to the plot plan submitted showing the 140 ft. set back? Mr. Forrest stated this was permissible. • la Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Samuels, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #11.208.61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, November 28, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-236 by Henry Orback, on behalf of the Livonia Jewish Congregation requesting approval to erect a synagogue on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road approximately 120 ft. west of Osmus in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, subject, however, to the following: (1) that this building as shown on the plot plan submitted, and all future buildings be set back no less than 140 ft. north of the center line of Seven Mile Road, as indicated on said plot plan, 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: IL AYES: Samuels, Cameron, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane, Okkerstrom and Walker NAYS; None Mr. Walkers The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-237 by Michigan Sign Erectors, requesting approval to erect an oversized sign (8' x 8') on property located on the Southwest corner of Harrison and Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24. Mr. McCullough explained the petition to the commissioners The owner of the store previously leased a building on Plymouth Road in a C-2 .zone.. .Me recently moved to this present location on Five Mile Road which is a C-1 zone. He is seeking permission to erect the sign which he ;revioualy had upon the building on Plymouth Road, onto his present property. Under the ordinance he is allowed one square foot of sign for each lineal foot of frontage. This would allow him a sign,in this case, measuring 25 ft. square. Under the proposed new ordinance he would also be allowed a 25 foot sign. This sign he is seeking approval for is an old sign. It is to be erected upon an 8" pole, 10 ft. 9" from the ground. The Inspection Department had no objection to the sign other than the fact that it was so large. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who Wishes to speak. One of the commissioners stated he did not think that this sign would hurt the area at all. It might even help due to the fact that there were no street lights in that `' t area.and it was quite dark. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was . 3341 1[0 #11-209-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, November 23, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-237 by the Michigan Sign Erectors, requesting approval to erect an oversized sign on property located on the Southwest corner of Harrison and Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, subject, however, to the following: (1) that the sign itself does not exceed the height as stated in the ordinance, 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: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition V-62 by the City Council to vacate the 86 foot street known as Alois Avenue, which runs south from Schoolcraft Road between Lots 6 and 7 of Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision in the North 1/2 of Section 30. Mr. McCullough informed the commission that the engineering department had recommended that the vacation of this street be granted. He explained that at the present this was only a paper street and if it is continued, it may have to be improved. At one time someone had thought of subdividing along here and that is it is a dedicated L> street. He stated further that both owners of the property on the east and west side of Alois were present and that neither objected to the vacating. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wishe to speak? Mr. Lawrence Burge, 17374 Winston, Detroit, owner of Lot #6 and Mr. Elton Bakewell, 14499 Eckles, Road, Plymouth, owner of Lot #7 stated they did not object to the proposed vacation. The question was asked if this street would ever be needed to go south of the C & 0 railway. Mr. McCullough stated that it was very difficult to receive permission from the C & 0 Railway to cross the railroad. They only want crossings at major streets. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Samuels and unanimously adopted, it was #11-210-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, November 28, 1961 on Petition V-62 as submitted by the City Council for the vacating of Alois Street between Schoolcraft and the C & 0 Railway in the North half of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition V-62 be granted, subject, however, to the following: (1) that the casements described below be granted to the . utilities and further that all relocation costs of the utilities L will be paid by the property ow ere; (a) that the north/south easement is to be 12 ft. wide and located along the east twelve (12) feet of what was formerly Alois Street for the entire length of the property; and. (b) a further twelve (12) foot east/west easement which is located six (6) feet on either side of a line located two hundred (200) feet south of the south line of Schoolcraft, and 3342 IL FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonia City Post under date of November 8, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments, petitioner and abutting property owners as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane it was #11-211-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, November 28, 1961 at approxi- mately 9:00 p.m. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Samuels, Cameron, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Walker called for a recess at approximately 9:01 p.m. * * * * * * 1[0 Mr. Walker, Chairman, called the 138th Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:10 with all those present now as were present at the time recess was called. Mr. McCullough: There are some persons in the audience who are present for Item #6 on the agenda which is Petition M-233 for the approval of a Jewish School. In order not to make these people wait any longer, we can bring this item up at this time. The petitioner has requested that this item be postponed until the next meeting of the Planning Commission which is scheduled for December 12th, 1961. We have a letter from him to this affect. No action will be taken tonight. Mr. Walker stated that this item would be postponed until December 12th, 1961. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-521 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #561-61 to determine whether or not to amend the zoning ordinance relative to regulating the size of signs in Livonia. This is for a possible amendment to the previous approval. Mr. Marzolf from the Metropolitan Gasoline and Petroleum Association asked that an amendment be made to the previous approval, with regard to gasoline station signs. I offered a suggestion that possibly one pylon sign and [-m* 3 sandwich type temporary signs not larger than 24" x 36" in area be permitted. He requested that two pylon signs and 6 sandwich type signs be allowed. Mr. Walker asked what had been allowed in the proposed new ordinance? Mr. McCullough stated that none had been allowed with the exception of one pylon based on the size of the building. 3343 Mr. Walker asked how many sandwich signs? Mr. McCullough stated none. IL It was determined that at the study session the commission had agreed to allow three (3) sandwich type signs, 3' x 4' in size. Mr. McCullough stated at the meeting held between the Mayor, Mr. Marzolf and himself, it had been suggested that if possible some sort of a compromise be made to satisfy the petroleum industry. This is the reason he offered the suggestion of one pylon sign and three sandwich type temporary signs not larger than 24" x 36" in area. Mr. Marzolf in turn requested two pylon signs and six sandwich type signs. Mr. McCullough stated that Mr. Marzolf had said at the meeting that if some sort of a compromise could be reached, they would try to see that the present stations conform with the new ordinance also. A representative from the Speedway Petroleum Company stated that he would hate to see an ordinance adopted limiting the amount of signs to one pylon sign. There are locations where one is all that is needed, but in the case of a country road with a country set back one sign is not sufficient. Mr. McCullough stated that a revolving sign could be used in those specificcases. Mr. Walker asked the commission if they would prefer to hold another public hearing to readvertise the proposed ordinance with the changes recommended by the petroleum companies as requested by them. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was #11-212-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from the Metropolitan Industries Association, for a rehearing on the proposed sign ordinance, Petition Z-521, adopted at the 132nd Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, October 17, 1961, the City Planning Commission does hereby deny said request. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Samuels Cameron, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. It was ascertained at this time that Resolution #10-186-61 on Petition Z-521, adopted on Tuesday, October 17, 1961 should be amended so as to clarify the amount and size of sandwich type signs allowed and also as to banner signs in other businesses. This had been discussed at a study meeting but was not specifically pointed out in the recommendation to the council. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #11-213-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 138th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, November 28, 1961 on Petition Z-521 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to City Council's Res. #561-61, relative to - regulating the. size of signs in Livonia, and which petition was adopted at the 132nd Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, October 17, 1961 under Resolution #10-186-61, the City Planning Commission does hereby amend said resolution in the following manner: (1) it is the intention of the Planning Commission that the following should be excluded from the operation of the ordinance: • • 3344 IL (a) Three (3) 3' x 4' sandwich type signs in the case of filling stations; and (b) Banners in the case of all businesses. Mr. Walker; The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next, tweiteins relate to one another.They are in relation to the proposed Park Heights Subdivision located in the Sp>$thwest 1/4 of Section 2. Mrs B. Laskjl, developer for the proposed subdivision has requested a meeting to discuss said subdivision. This subdivision was de- nied an extension a few weeks ago. Mr. Girardin, Superintendent of Parks & Recreation, has requested that this same area be designed at a park site. I would like to suggest that these two items be held up until Mr. Lasky and Mr. Girardin can be present. Mr. Walker stated that these two items will be heard at a later meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is in relation to the Canbros Buckingham Plaza Subdivision located on the Northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Inkster Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. This is on the agenda for a possible amendment to the previous action taken on April 18, 1961. After a brief discussion, during which it was ascertained that the protective wall around the proposed shopping center at Schoolcraft and Inkster was in the process ILAi of being erected, the City Planning Commission determined that said plat previously denied should be approved. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #11-214-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 138th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, November 28, 1961 on the proposed Canbros Buckingham Plaza Subdivision located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft Road and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24, the City Planning Commission does hereby rescind Resolution #4-78-61 denying said plat and does hereby give approval to the Canbros Buckinjham Plaza Subdivision located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24,as submitted. 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 • ogether 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Samuels, Cameron, Angevine, Watson, Anderson, Kane and Walker NAYS: None NOT VOTING: Okerstrom Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a resolution to determine the north line of commercial property located on the North side of Joy Road approximately 400 ft. west of Harrison in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36. 3345 ILMr. McCullough explained that the Bureau of Inspection has requested the Planning Commission to determine the north line of commercial zoning on Parcel Fl for the reason that the owner of said property has refused to erect a protective wall between his property and the subdivision at the rear of his property. He claims that there is additional commercial property,not owned by him, between his property and the sub- division, and because of this he is not liable for the protective wall. Mr. McCullough continued by stating that the Planning Commission has the power under Section 3.06 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia to determine zoning boundaries. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, it was #11-215-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 138th Special Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, November 28, 1961 on a request by the Bureau of Inspection to determine the north line of certain commercial property, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine, pursuant to Section 3.06 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, that the north line of commercial zoning of Parcel Fl in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 36 is coterminus with the south line of Lots 218 through 228,1 inclusive, in the Livonia Estates Subdivision. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Walker asked if there was anything else to be brought up tonight. Mr. Angevine ILtrnounced to those present that the Planners Convention was being held at the Sheraton Caaiilac hotel in Detroit. It began Sunday and will be open until Thursday. Upon a motion•duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, it was #11-216-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 138th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, November 28, 1961, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Regular Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 19, 1961 will be held on Tuesday, December 12, 1961. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Co mmission does hereby adjourn the 138th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, November 26, 1961 at approximately 9:45 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION CO e 40, "/ ;7"-/' i / - W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTED: I Char es W. Walker, Chairman