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