Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1968-08-13 5375 MINUTES OF THE 196th REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA to On Tuesday, August 13, 1968, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, held its 196th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:30 p.m. with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Charles W. Walker Donald Pollock Harry Wrightman Donald Heusted Raymond W. Tent *Myra Chandler Marvin Moser Robert Colomina Members absent: None Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Planner II; David Perry, Assistant City Attorney; Daniel R. Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator, were present. Harvey W. Moelke, Mayor, was also present. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-25 by James D. Lark of Binder & Lark Building Company requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Merriman Road, approximately 760 feet north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, from RUFC to R-3-B. Mr. Walker advised the Commission that a petition containing signatures of 118 residents of the area objecting to this rezoning had been received. Mr. Burt Binder was present representing the petitioners and stated that he has been building in the City of Livonia for eight years and they propose to construct homes valued at approximately $30,000 to $40,000 in this area. He stated they would be constructed on 80' lots which they feel is adequate in size for this area and they will have side entry garages. Mr. Wrightman questioned if Mr. Binder feels that a $40,000 home on an 80' lot which complies with the side yard requirement of the Ordinance, would compliment the area. Mr. Binder replied, yes, he has built many homes like that which look very nice when finished. Mr. Carl E. Allman, 17329 Merriman Road, President of the Merriman-Six Civic Association, stated that a petition had been circulated and 118 names of objectors obtained in opposition to this rezoning because they do not feel a rezoning class- if ication of this type would enhance the area. He stated they have open area and would like to see it remain a large-lot area. He referred to Nottingham Woods Subdivision on Six Mile Road and stated they consider that a good subdivision. Mr. Walker stated there is a letter in the file saying the residents are opposed to this but would go along with half-acre lots, and questioned Mr. Allman, as IL: President of the Civic Association, if the people in the Association had discussed what they would like to hold the area to. 5376 Mr. Allam said they didn't discuss this but they Would not be opposed to building within the present zoning classification and what they mainly object to is small to lots. Mr. Tent questioned how many homes Mr& Binder proposes for this area. Mr. Binder stated, approximately 60 homes► Mr. Tent stated that under the present zoning classification this would bring it down to about 45 homes. Mr. Binder stated that there is a subdivision immediately east which is entirely 60' lots and that when you get into half-acre lots the cost is prohibitive and when you create lots costing $10,000 the market does not support them. Mr. Tent stated that the Commission heard the same regarding economics from Mr. Menuck and those homes are going for $57,000 and that he feels with the church on the corner this area can be developed into something. Mr. Binder stated that on the other side of Merriman Road there are small lots. He said he realizes the desires of the Commission and residents to have larger lots but he wants people to be able to buy his homes and the market for half acre lots is only so big. Mr. Wrightman asked if Mr. Binder is familiar with the ordinance governing the half- acre lots in regard to paving, etc. , and stated that the requirements are different in the half-acre development. IleMr. Binder stated that he is aware of those requirements. Mr. Pollock questioned the plan which was submitted by Mr. Binder in regard to the indication of the land to the south and east being completely surrounded by church property. Mr. Binder stated he was sorry, that it was in error and indicated where the church property is. Mrs. Laura Regiani, 31100 Six Mile Road, stated that here property abutts this proposed rezoning and she would be completely closed in. Mayor Moelke stated that he lives in this area and was, at one time, President of the Merriman-Six Civic Association and that half-acre lots in this area are not large lots; they are small lots and many people have larger lots, even three-acre lots. He stated that we had the same type of arguments from Mr. Menuck when he was develop- ing Nottingham Woods Subdivision, but he was in last week and wanted to know if there is any more property in Livonia that he could develop into half-acre lots. He stated this lowers population density, helps to control taxes, and if we con- tinually make small lots we will have more taxes, more children to educate, and homes that do not pay their own way. He stated he urges the Planning Commission to preserve this area for half-acre development and that he appreciates the fact that the Planning Commission has pointed out that the City has made the improvement cost less in half-acre development and that this more than makes up the difference IL; in land cost. 5377 Mrs. Lorraine Mensch, 31020 Wy Six Mile Road, stated they like RUF and do not want it changed and she is wondering where the lots are going to go back there. She stated there is a drainage ditch and if Mr, Binder buys that and it is closed off, what will happen to all that water. Mr. Walker stated that the Commission had not got into this phase as yet, and questioned if Mrs. Mensch would like to see a plan that would leave an opening for further development in the future for deeper lots. Mrs. Mensch stated she does not want to be closed in. Mr. Pollock questioned if Mr. Binder owns the land zoned RUF to the north of this petition. Mr. Binder stated, no, they have tried to acquire it but the owner will not sell it. Mr. Wrightman questioned if Mr. Binder owns the land outlined on the map. Mr. Binder stated he has an option to buy the land. Mr. Wrightman stated that we have a statement of a neighbor along Six Mile Road that she felt she would like to keep the rear end of her property open so that the land could be developed at a future date and we have heard from Mr. Binder that the people on the north do not want to sell ; what about the land that is left surrounding this petition, what use can any of it be put to? Mr. Walker stated this is a situation that our Department will come up with an answer to before we take action on this petition, and that when we are determining whether or not we are going along with the zoning the staff will work out a proposal for the surrounding land. Mr. Pollock stated that if the people fronting on Six Mile sold acreage to any developer an additional ten acres can be picked up and added to the development. Mr. Walker stated he thought this is something that should be considered when looting at the total package. He stated that the Commission will not act on this petition tonight and the President of the Civic Association will be notified when this item is put back on an agenda. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Walker, chairman, stated the itcm will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-26 by Jack N. Tucker and Morris Friedman requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Yale, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. Mr. Morris Friedman, petitioner, stated that they have owned the land in Stark Gardens Subdivision for ten years and pay taxes on it and they have been building industrial in Livonia for about five years; now they would like to use the property for an officd building. He stated he believes a building such as they are proposing would serve the City of Livonia as well as themselves. 5378 Mr. Pollock questioned if Mr. Friedman said he has owned the land for ten years. Mr. Friedman stated ye , he and Mr. Tucker. Mr. Pollock questioned if, when Mr. Friedman sold the houses, he had indicated that the outlots would be used for commercial, Mr. Friedman indicated they did not indicate that and the reason is because they were waiting to see what would happen when the highway was resolved. Mr. Tent stated he assumed Mr. Friedman has no tenants in mind for this building. Mr. Friedman stated, no, that he came here first years ago and built the building which is now rented by Lindsay-Paveli :h and they built the Quality Controls build- ing then rented it to thegi. Now, he stated, everything on the Industrial Road is built up and they would like to build professional. Mr. Tent stated he understood that, but at the time Mr. Friedman built the sub- division they believed that this land would be devekped residentially, now the plans are for other than residential, and in this area there is no transition for this between the residential area; is this logical? Mr. Friedman stated he wants to plan something like this for the future and that he picks choice places, like the Industrial Road and Merriman Road. He stated that if Mr. Tent could see the type of factory they have built he would have an idea of the type of office he will build. Mr. Friedman stated he is not sure that he wants any more industrial and he feels he wants to develop some commercial. Mr. Wrightman stated that he has taken a dim view on development of outlots at later dates when the people who invested in their property thought it would be developed into a use that is compatible to the. He stated that Mr. Friedman made the decision to leave the outlots vacant, now he is asking the City to aid him in the development of it and he thinks the Commission has to consider the resident's investment also. Mr. Friedman stated he agrees, but the Commission also has to consider the freeway - you can't build a nice home on property facing a freeway. And, he stated, the Commission has set a precedent with the Pastor building right behind a subdivision on Schoolcraft. Mr. Tent stated that 50% of our P.S. zoning is not being used and this spot zoning does not comply with our Master Plan. Mr. Jack Tucker, petitioner, stated that this has been discussed and their think- ing is that with all these residents in the area there is an absolute need for professional service and, looking at it from the point of being for the gbod of the community, this would qualify for professional buildings. He stated, this seems like the ideal place for professional because, as Mr. Friedman stated, you can't build homes here facing a freeway. Mr. Pollock stated that one of the most undesirable things is a developer who comes into Livonia, builds a large quantity of homes, holds out an outlot which is usually pictured as a play area, but two to four years later the commercial interest forces its way into the residential. He stated he will go on record that he thinks this is a terrible way to operate a community. 5379 Mr. Tucker stated the reason for the delay was not their reason; it was the Commission's. He stated that the Commission kept delaying and putting on restric- tions until only last year they got the subdivision approved and it is not their fault that the outlots were put on here; that was the Commission's. Mr. Tucker stated that their original plans showed the entire area as land developed. Mr. Friedman stated that he has never built a single home or garage in this City, he has only built industial which doesn't cost the City anything for maintenance. He stated that the Commission is accusing him falsely and that these outlots were not in their plan. Mr. Walker stated he was on the Commission, going back in history, and the reason this had a hard time is that the Commission took a three-square-mile area of the City tried to upgrade it and that we had an approved development for 60' lots but nothing was done until the area was upgraded. Mr. Wrightman stated that he feels that in the Commission's latest concept of professional service they have taken the attitude that it should be a complex with a multiple amount of services available and it appears that in this particular case, they would not be able to achieve this type of development and inasmuch as it is still zoned R-2, is there any reason why it can't be developed as residential? Mr. Friedman stated, yes, he can put up a $10,000 home and hope that someone will buy a house on the freeway. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. *Mrs. Chandler arrived at the meeting at 9: 30 p.m.. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-28 by Donald E. Rapelje requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue approximately 700 feet south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, from RUF to R-3. Mr. Donald Rapelje, petitioner, was present and stated that he would like to build on this property but he does not have a half-acre lot which the zoning requires. Mr. Wrightman asked if he owns the property now. Mr. Rapelje replied, yes. Mr. Wrightman questioned if the lots along side this property are zoned RUF. Mr. Rapelje stated that on the north there is a 95' lot and there are other homes on Denne that have 80' lots; none of which meet the RUF. Mr. David Perry, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he believes the Commission should ask this gentleman if he went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that this type of rezoning could constitute spot zoning and he questions the lEi legality of it. Mr. Perry stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals can grant him a variance that will allow him to build on this property. Mr. Rapelje stated that the City Council split this lot on June 19th and told him that, better than try the Zoning Board of Appeals, he would be better off trying to get it rezoned. 5380 Mr. Tent questioned the reason for the Council splitting this lot. Mr. Hull, Planning Director, stated that he is sure the Department did not sign this lot split, but it is not uncommon for the Council to grant splits that are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tent stated that he wondered if the Council would rescind their action. Mr. Hull stated that the Council has the right to split a lot but this does not mean the petitioner has a right to build upon the lot, and apparently they felt that a zoning change would be the most logical method. Mr. Rapelje stated that he bought the property knowing that it required a half- acre lot but knowing that other lots in the area are not half-acre he went ahead and bought it, and he bought it before it was split. Mr. Pollock questioned if this could be held in abeyance until the petitioner talks with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walker questioned if he could be allowed to withdraw his petition and his filing fee returned because he does have a hardship. Mr. Hull stated a letter can be written recommending that action be taken. Mr. Walker stated that he thinks a letter should be written to Mr. Bacon to return the filing fee and we hold on to the petition until we get an answer. Mr. Hull advised that before he can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals he must first apply for a building permit and when he is turned down, he can go to the Zoning Board. Mayor Moelke stated that when Mr. Rapelje presents his plans to the Building Department, they will turn him down and the Council will then probably ask him to purchase the easement and then he will have to show that he can't buy it, but the power of waiver is there. Mayor Moelke suggested that the Planning Commission pass a resolution to rescind Mr. Rapelje's filing fee. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-12 by James Moriarty requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit for a special trade contractors building proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway in the North 1/2 of Section 28. Mr. Tent questioned if this is an open storage area and what about a fence, etc. , as was discussed in the study session, and certain requests were made at the study session, were these requests complied with? Mr. Hull stated that the proposal as submitted is as it was at the time of the study session. Mr. Walker questioned if Mr. Moriarty is asking for a permit for storage, not for a building, and what type of equipment would be stored here. 5381 Mr. Moriarty stated dump trucks, bulldozers, etc. ; equipment for the contractor. Mr. Daniel Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator, stated that the gentleman was in to see him and at the time he brought in the first site plan the building was on the south lot line; the plan was revised and showed the structure with an office building on the front and the removal of a house. He stated the storage is only temporary until the building is constructed. Mr. Hull statedthat when this was discussed with the Commission, we wanted to determine the calibre and quality of the structure and the location of the building on the lot, and in our opinion he has conformed to that. Mr. Hull stated that the thing he did not conform to is the fact that he would have closed storage but with the nature of his business, it would not be practical to have closed storage. Mr. Moriarty stated that some of this equipment will never be closed. Mr. Andrew stated that the premise here is that there will be a fenced area be- hind the building for storage; they are going to build a warehouse building with an office on the front and storage in a fenced area. Mr. Tent stated he would like to divert this to a study. Mr. Pollock stated that if he builds a warehouse, the man has a right for storage, and that he can think of no better place for a contractor's storage than in an 1161industrial area and by a railroad. r Mr. Hull stated it is in the Commission's power to grant this proposal for a special contractor's permit. Mr. Tent stated that he does not understand this and that he had not seen plans unil this evening and that the matter should be taken into a study session. Mr. Wrightman stated that he realizes storage is a part of the industrial category, however, if this is just going to be used for this purpose without the intention of building a building later, he is concerned. Mr. Andrew stated he was upset, that we have had this plan for almost a month. Mr. Wrightman questioned if plans have been submitted to the Building Department. Mr. Hull stated that the plans are before the Commission tonight. Mrs. Chandler stated that if we are talking about a fenced area in an industrial area she thinks we ought not to get hysterical ; the Industrial Coordinator and Planning Director believe this is a use that is compatible to the area and she believed the Commission shoulnoiook at it, and she stated she doesn't want any misunderstanding that this is/an Eight Mile area because this is a planned area. Mr. Walker stated this item will be taken under advisement and brought to a study session. Mr. Wrightman stated the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-11 by Diane Seaman, Pastor of Unity of West Suburbia Church, requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit to expand the present church building onto a portion of Parcel 11JJ1 located on the south side of Curtis Road, west of Middlebelt in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. 5382 Thomas Kowalsky, 6945 Knollwood, Birmingham, Michigan, representing the petitioner stated that this is not the first time this proposal has been brought before the Commission and that previously it was attempted to procure property across the street for parking. He stated they have an option on the property adjacent to their own and would like a waiver so they may expand their present facility. Mr. Pollock questioned if they have 164.9' now and want to pick up 130' additional frontage on Curtis. Mr. Kowalsky stated that is correct. Mr. Hull stated that the Department will obtain a description of the flood plain area from the Engineering Department and that the plans submitted this evening do not convey the entire concept as adequately as they should. Mr. Walker questioned that regarding the flood plain, can we spell out exactly what land we want. Mr. Hull stated, no, that he thought the Engineering Department will do that. Mr. Pollock questioned if they plan to tear down the present building. Mr. Kowalsky, stated, yes. Mr. Pollock questioned if this will be the extent of their building on this land. Mr. Kowalsky, stated yea. Mr. Walker stated he believed this item should be taken under advisement until the petitioner has time to go before the Engineering Department to determine what is required for the flood plain easement. Mr. Walker Brosey, 18202 Melvin, requested the Planning Commission to review the minutes of a previous meeting; that these minutes state that the church was not to be expanded any further than from what it is presently, and that the original grant given the church was as it stands today. He requested that after the meeting with the Engineering Department, the residents of the neighborhood be notified of any further meetings. Mr. Tent stated he believed this is a fact, and if they wanted to expand could they relocate in another part of the City. He stated this is the reason the Commission did not allow the parking across the street. Mr. Walker stated that these minutes will be reviewed along with further study. Mrs. Chandler questioned if they tear down the present building for a church, what will be the difference in size. Mr. Kowalsky, stated there .,71.11 be a substantial improvement and the proposal submitted to the Commission is a future proposal, perhaps one to five years away from actuality. In that period of time, he stated, there will not be any change. He also stated that the face of the proposed structure will be suffic- iently set back and no closer to the street than the facility is now. 16: Mr. Wrightman stated that with the additional property, the plan does not show any parking requirement compliance. • 5383 Mr. Kowalsky, stated that that will be submitted to the Commission and will show that they will comply. Mr. Hull , stated they will have to comply, but that was impossible to determine because they did not submit their plans for the church until just this evening. Mr. Pollock questioned if Mr. Brosey considered this a detriment in view of the present building and the church's activities - would he consider that detracting to the nieghborhood. Mr. Brosey stated he does not find them detracting. Mrs. Petrie, 18203 Melvin, stated that the church is one of the nicest things we could have built there; it is quiet, and they would like to have their own parking because they now have to park on the streets. She stated she is in favor of this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-29 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Inkster, in the South 1/2 of Section 13, and on the south side of Five Mile Road, west of Inkster, in the North 1/2 of Section 24, New zoning lines to be extended to rear property lines and involves rezoning from RUF to C-1 and P; RUF and C-1 to P.S. and P. Mr. Walker stated this is on a motion by the Commission to see if we can bring lot lines into categories of zoning use. Mrs. Carl Lowry, 15035, stated she is opposed to parking lots which would go 700' back and she doesn't see how these people can ever sell their property. She stated a parking lot on Cavell on the north side of her property is no good. Mr. Wrightman stated that anyone developing this property would be required to erect a wall along the border of the parking and the residential. Mr. Hull stated that this is maximum zoning for the purpose of the public hearing, that the Commission can alter the zoning, but this is a relatively complex re- zoning and it will be difficult to make a judgment at a public hearing. He stated that the interested people can come in and work it out in an orderly manner. Mr. Walker advised the audience that this proposal came about because the commercial lots have a depth of 100' and it is often impossible to develop a 100' lot because it is too small. This then becomes an undesirable type of commercial lot. The intent is to review it and determine whether or not we will increase the depth of the lot and include parking in the rear and require a developer to build a wall to separate the commercial from the residential. Then we would expect to get a higher type of commercial development, but if we allow the shallow 100' lot we will not get desirable commercial. Mr. Walker stated that there is already 100' depth of commercial zoning and the Commission is not proposing to remove it but see what can be done with it, and he believes it to be the obligation of this Board to upgrade it for the benefit of the residents in the area. He said the Commission can bring in a better development with deeper zoning but after someone meets his requirements on a 100' lot, he is not going to put up a very desirable business. 5384 Mr, Robert Hansen, 15348 Greenlane, stated that there isa wall behind his house now and it collects garbage and attracts rats. Mayor Mo3lke stated that people can use the commercial zoning for parking; there is nothing to prohibit them from that, and the parking in the rear is to prevent a big building from going up next to a residence. Mrs. Chandler stated that if this is rezoned a developer can put up a building and have room for parking and this will ttilize the land in a better way and it will not be an area for weeds to grow in. Mr. Walker stated that in the past the Commission has dealt with 100' commercial lots and they are not desirable and we are reviewing this situation to attempt to attract better development into the area; the Commission will keep in mind at all times the interest of the residents. Mr. Hansen referred to the general condition of the Lawson store and stated that it needed some housekeeping done. Mayor Moelke stated that, regarding the condition of the Lawson store, a com- plaint can be turned into the Inspection Department and he will be served a violation for which there will be a fine and the City is reviewing this for the purpose of doing something for these business people. Mr. Benedict Bertram, 15104 Lyons, questioned if a parking lot can be chained to keep out children who have been having wild parties in the existing lots. IL: Mr. Walker stated that matter can also be considered. Mr. Thomas Boone, 27454 Five Mile Road, stated that he has a 'half-acre of property on Five Mile Road and there are two adjoining homes, and questioned how the Commission would determine that particular problem. Mr. Walker stated the only thing we can do in a situation like this is make a study of the entire area which it effects and determine the effect on the abutt- ing land so that we do not make anybody's property useless. Mrs. Anna Conley, 27610 Five Mile Road, stated that she thinks this is a good thing and that there is a doctor on the corner and a real estate on the left of her. Mr. Gunn, 28335 Five Mile Road, was present and objected to the petition. Mr. John Mitchell, 15175 Santa Anita requested to be notified of future meeting regarding this petition. '±s. Darnell, 28407 Five Mile Road, was present and stated she does not object to this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the petition will be taken under advisement. ILI Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petiton 68-7-1-27 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Eckles Road, in Section 18, from R-3-B to R-$. 5385 Mr. Theodore Doman was present and stated that he had a person inquire about the property for use as a convalescent home and he was led to believe that any medical use would be excluded from this category. He questioned if it could be used for an advertising agency. Mr. David Perry stated that he would say you could put in any office but not a convalescent home. He stated he did not think it would exclude a medical office or dental office; one of the permitted uses is general office use. Mr. Doman stated he would like to have assurance that they can put in an account- ing firms, advertising firms, engineering firms; they expect to have more than one building on the land. Mr. Perry stated that this is a broader category than the professional and as long as there is no manufacturing involved, any office would be permitted. Mr. Walker stated he thinks it is agreed that it does not include a convalescent home, but almost anything else that has been mentioned. Mr. Doman questioned if there is an R-E zoning classification in the Ordinance. Mr. Walker stated, yes, there is. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-82-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, August 13, 1968, at approximately 11:00 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Walker, Chairman, called the 196th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 11:15 p.m. with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-25 by James D. Lark of Binder & Lark Building Company, requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Merriman Road, approximately 760 feet north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 , from RUFC to R-3-B. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated that this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-26 by Jack N. Tucker and Morris Friedman requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Yale, in the Southwest 1/4 of 'Section 21, from R-2 to P.S. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously adopted, it was 5386 #8-83-68 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 13, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-26 as submitted by Jack N. Tucker and Morris Friedman requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road, east of Yale, in the t44 Southwest 1/4 of Section 21 , from R-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-26 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed rezonirg•would constitute encroachment into an existing residential neighborhood and may adversely effect the character, calibre and quality of development. (2) There are great quantities of vacant P.S. zoned land within our City at the present time. (3) The City is attemptingto consolidate its commercial and professional service zoning into a logical form rather than encouraging the linear corridor (strip) type of development. (4) This is an isolated request for a rezoning that is not related to any other similar zoning or land use within this area. (5) The proposed zoning is in conflict with the Planning Commission's master plan for commercial and professional service development. FURTHER RESOLVED that, tnotice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of July 24, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Consumers Power Company and City Depart- ments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the nest item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-28 by Donald E. Rapelje requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue approximately 700 feet south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, from RUF to R-3. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-84-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 13, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-28 as submitted by Donald E. Rapelje requesting to rezone property located on the east side of Hubbell Avenue approximately 700 feet south of Plymouth Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35, from RUF to R-3, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Clerk that the filing fee for Petition 68-7-1-28 be returned to the petitioner for the following reasons: (1) The petition is not an applicable means of solving the problem. (2) The means to solve the problem is not through the rezoning of lands. 5387 (3) The Commission has undergone limited expense in the processing t440 of this petition, FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of July 24, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edisbh Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, C Mirman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-12 by James Moriarty requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit for a special trade contractors building proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway in the north 1/2 of Section 28. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Colomina, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 13, 1968 on Petition 68-7-2-12 as submitted by James Moriarty requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit for a special trade contractors building proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway in the North 1/2 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to Petition 68-7-2-12 until the next study meeting to be held by the Commission at which time a special meeting can be called in. order to grant this waiver use permit. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Heusted, Tent, Colomina NAYS: Chandler, Moser, Walker, Wrightman ABSENT: Pollock Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion is lost for lack of support, and the floor is open for an alternate motion. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Chandler, it was RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 13, 1968 on Petition 68-7-2-12 as submitted" try James Moriarty requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit for a special trade contractors building proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway in the North 1/2 ofSection 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-2-12 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed development is of sufficient calibre to justify approval. (2) The proposed development will not conflict with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 5388 (3) The proposal is consistent with the land use of the t4140 general area. Mr. Hull suggested that since the petitioner and Mr. Andrew are present this, evening+ the Commission satisfy themselves regarding the plans for this petition. Mrs. Chandler stated that if she was not satisfied she would not have made the motion to approve it. Mr. Moser stated that he would support the foregoing motion. Mr. Tent stated he would like to conduct the study now and review the_plans be- fore the Commission acts on the petition because the fact is when you submit a set of plans at the last meeting that we have had in our office since July. . . and he stated he thinks he should be afforded an opportunity to review the plans. Mr. Tent stated that just because the staff believes these plans look good to them he can't abide by that as a blanket order. Mr. Wrightman stated he is not so much concerned about fencing in machinery because this is the logical place for it and this is what the industrial belt was designed for and if the parties have plans here and want the property for temporary storage which will become permanent later, he doesn't see what else could be presented. Mr. Moriarty stated that his original intent was to get a permit to store the equipment on the site until the building is built, and he hopes to start right away with the building. He stated that he will have the building under con- struction within the next six months. Mr. Tent indicated that he would be opposed toa resolution approving this waiver use request unless it specified a time, perhaps six months, in which construction of the proposed building would be begun and that he would be in favor of an approving resolution if the time factor was included. Mrs. Chandler requested to know if 12 months would be more realistic. The petitioner indicated that this would be fine. Mr. Chandler amended the foregoing motion as follows: #8-85-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 13, 1968 on Petition 68-7-2-12 as submitted by James Moriarty requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit for a special trade contractors building proposed to be located on the west side of Stark Road north of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway in the North 1/2 of Section 28, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-2-12 be approved for the following reasons based on the condition that within twelve mo'hths from the date of approval the petitioner will have the permanent building under construction: (1) The proposed development is of sufficient calibre to justify approval. (2) The proposed development will not conflict with the require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance. 5389 (3) The proposal is consistent with the land use of the general area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was sent to property ownerswithin 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr.. Moser stated he would support the motion. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Moser, Colomina, Heusted, Chandler, Walker, Wrightman NAYS: None ABSENT: Pollock Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-11 by Diane Seaman,Pastor of Unity of West Suburbia Church requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit to expand the present church build- ing onto a portion of Parcel 11JJ1 located on the southside of Curtis Road, west of Middlebelt in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Walker stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-29 by the City Planning Commisslon on its own motion to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Inkster, in the south 1/2 of Section 13, and on the south side of Five Mile Road, west of Inkster, in the North 1/2 of Section 24. New zoning from RUF to C-1 and P; RUF and C-1 to P.S. and P. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-27 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Eckles Road, in Section 18, from R-3-B to R-E. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, .it was #8-86-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been. held on Petition 68-7-1-27 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, east of Eckles Road, in Section 18, from R-3-B to R-E, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-27 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the Master Plan of the Northwest sector of the City. (2) It is a logical transitional use between the freeway and adjacent development. 5390 (3) There is a need for this type of development in this sector of the City. (4) The exposure to the freeway of this site will ideally help encourage this type of development, and that the approving resolution not be released until the executed deed for the the required right-of-way is received. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of July 24, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-20 by Garratt & Nickson, Attorney for Hearthside, Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the southside of Broadmoor Avenue, east of Eckles Road, in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-2. (Amended to read RUF to P. ) Mr. Walker stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on he agenda is a resolution to allow the withdrawal of Petition 68-6-5-1 by Tru-Wall Investment Company requesting to remove topsoil from C.M.I. Industrial Sub- division located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unani- mously adopted, it was #8-87-68 RESOLVED that, having considered Petition 68-6-5-1 as submitted by Tru-Wall Investment Company requesting to remove topsoil from C.M.I. Industrial Subdivision located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to allow the withdrawal of said petition. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted, Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated July 30, 1968 from Rodney C. Kropf requesting an extension of approval on Petition 67-5-5-1 to .remove topsoil stockpile from property located on the south side of Six Nile, 200 feet west of Levan, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously adopted, it was 5391 #8-88-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated July 30, 1968 from Rodney C. Kropf requestingaa renewal of Petition 67-5-5-1 for removal of topsoil stockpile from property located on the south side of Six Mile Road, 200 feet west of Levan, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17; and the City Planning Commission, in confor- mance with Section 18.13B of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, having given approval on May 16, 1967 to said Petition, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to grant an extension on Petition 67-5-5-1 for a period of six months subject to main- tenance of the existing bond previously filed by K & L Development Corporation, furnished by the Aetna Insurance Company; such bond being for an indefinite period until released and discharged by resolution of the City Planning Commission; FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the extension on the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-4-1-9 by Nelson Dembs requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road, east of Merriman Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, from R-5 to R-7. Mr. Walker stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda' is a letter dated July 24, 1968 from Frank Kerby, Chief Inspector, recommending a Bond Release in connection with Petition 67-6-5-4 by Jack B. Anglin Excavating Company to remove topsoil from -2roperty located on the east side of Newburgh and South of Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17, a portion of Kingsbury Heights Subdivision No. 3. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-89-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the recommendations and report of the Bureau of Inspection dated July 2",1968, the City Planning Com- mission does herein authorize _11:: release of the Bond in the amount $6,000.00, filed by the American Insurance Company, for Jack B. Anglin Excavating Company, 42750 Grand River, Novi, Michigan, under date of July 24, 1967 and the cash bond of $600.00, filed August 2, 1967, Receipt #01087, posted in connection with topsoil operations performed under Permit No. 110, Petition #67-6-5-4, issued to Jack B. Anglin, 42750 Grand River, Novi, Michigan; it appears from the above report that all ordinances, rules and regulations have been complied with and the City Clerk is herein authorized to do all things necessary to the full performance of this resolution. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 5392 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated to July 17, 1968 from Harold E. Edwards requesting a renewal of topsoil removal Petition 67-7-5-5 to remove topsoil from Parcel 18D located on the West side of Newburgh Road. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated August 1, 1968 from Joseph Slatkin requesting a one-year extension of Country Homes Estates Subdivision #4 located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a request for a one- year extension of Judson Gardens Subdivision No. 4 located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimous- ly adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned its 196th Regular Meeting held on August 13, 1968, at approximately 11: 35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION I Ci=--- 7'l0) 2/2/5'*' / ai. Harry WrIghtman, ircretary ATTEST: t Ch W. !�(/i Walker, Chairman