Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1968-08-27 • 539; . r MINUTES OF THE 247TH SPECIAL MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, August 27, 1968, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 247th Special 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 approxi- mately 8:30 p.m. with approximately 100 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Charles W. Walker Raymond W. Tent Harry tlrightman Donald Heusted Robert Colomina Marvin Miser Members absent: None Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director, Ralph Bakewell, Planner III; David Perry, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-19 by Botsford Realty Company for Joseph and Nann Dudzik requesting to rezone property located south of Norfolk between Farmington and Shadyside in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3.4 to P.S. Mr. William D. Cayo, Broker for Botsford Realty Company, 28266 Grand River, Farmington, Michigan, was present representing the purchaser, Vincent 0. Roy, tre and the sellers, Joseph and Nann Dudzik, and stated that the original use for this property had been R-7 but a moratorium was declared and the use was dis- allowed for an indefinite period of time. The use was then proposed to be transferred to business. Mr. Walker questioned what use the property will be put to. Mr. Cayo stated that the proposed use if not for professional along the lines of a doctor's or dentist's office, but rather for manufacturers' representatives or a similar office use. Mr. Tent questioned if the petition before the Board this evening is speculative on the part of the people who Mr. Cayo represents or does he have an actual client in mind that is willing to lease the building. Mr. Cayo stated that the property has been purchased by Mr. Roy who is a builder. Mr. Tent questioned if he has tenants who will move in there or will he seek tenants. Mr. Cayo stated they wouldn't go along those lines until they had tenants available. Mr. Tent stated the reason for this questioning is that over 50% of the P.S. zoned property is not occupied and that means that a man with a legitimate business comes in with a use and the cost of the property is high. Mr. Cayo stated that unless there is a definite client for a definite piece of property he didn't see how you could have a firm commitment from a person. 5394 Mr. Tent stated that there was a petitioner who came before the Commission and said they had doctors, etc. , for a particular site; then they were given the zoning but it was never developed. Mr. Tent stated he has not heard anything or seen anything yet and what he is looking for are some definite plans. Mr. Cayo stated that according to the requirements as he understands them, this is not required and that he has followed instructions which he believed were acceptable to the Board, the Legal Department and Planning Department and had this been a requirement he is sure he could have drawn up some preliminary plans. Mr. Wrightman stated he believed that what Mr. Tent is trying to get at is not that it is a requirement, but that before the Commission rezones property, in the natural course of the procedure it is the petitioner's burden to prove that he has a better zoning proposition to offer the City than what the particular property is zoned at the present time and if Mr. Cayo does have a proposed development for the P.S. category the Board would like to hear all about it so they can form an opinion as to whether or not to take the proposal o-r leave it at the R-3-A. Mr. Cayo stated that he is not the developer, but merely the broker, and that the original proposal was for multiple construction but at the time the alterL - tion was made to the proposal it was quite indefinite as to whether multiple would be allowed in the future. He stated that if the Board would like to see some more definite plans, he is sure that can be arranged. Mr. Howard Middlewood, 19936 Farmington Road, was present and stated he is opposed to the petition because there is a large amount of professionaly zoned and commercially zoned property in the City and that he does not feel this kir` area is adapted for P.S. use at the present time. He stated there are a. number of old homes in the area which have to be removed and this company had one of them which they have sold to someone else but the City is trying to get the building removed. Mr. Cayo stated that the property on Middlebelt did involve his office but not the prospective purchasers. He stated that multiples will increase the taxes and rezoning is being considered in the area at the present time with multiples facing Farmington with industrial to the rear and referred to difficulties in obtaining mortgaging for multiple dwellings. Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Cayo indicated that FHA or VA mortgages on multiples are not possible on Farmington Road but questioned him regarding conventional mortgages and stated that the biggest percentage of multiples in Livonia go conventional. Mr. Vincent Roy, 14374 Abington, Detroit, was present and stated that he is the purchaser of the property and if granted this P.S. zoning, he would start construction as immediately as he possibly could. He stated that he bought it to actually involve himself not in a landholding deal but in the construction and use of a building. He stated they would have liked to go multiple but now believe it to be a good piece of property for a professional service, and that they intend to have two separate buildings. He stated they also intend to use the private right-of-way and it was through the planners that they drew their outlets as they did. Mr. Roy stated that he wanted the Commission to know that they will bring in their client as fast as construction plans can be drawn. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Roy has an option on this property. 5395 Mr. Roy stated, no, they have bought: it and have closed the deal. Mrs. Bertha Gould, 19915 Farmington Road, stated she is building a house on Farmington Road and that she got the permit to build the house through the ILY Planning Commission in April or May and they told her it would not be professional for at least ten years. She stated she doesn't believe the area is ready for professional use and why would they give her a permit to build a house if they are going to turn it into professional. Mr. Walker advised Mrs. Gould that she acquired her permit through the Building Department and as long as she has a lot that is properly zoned she is able to pick up a permit to build a home on it, but this gives her no guarantee as to what her neighbors will do; they have the right to petition for a use which they desire. Mr. V. C. Reddy, stated he has property east of this on Shadyside and that he wants no part of a veterinary clinic and requested to know what is permitted in the P.S. zone. Mr. Don Hull, Planning Director, read from the Ordinance the uses permitted in this zoning category. Mr. Reddy questioned what the back part of the property is to be used for. Mr. Walker stated the plans show park. Mr. Reddy viewed the plans which had been submitted by the petitioner. kV' There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. [Jrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 63-7-1-30 by Ronald F. Huey, D.D.S. , requesting to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Merriman and Six Mile Roads in the North- east 1/4 of Section 15, from RUFC to P.S. Mr. Walker stated that a letter had been received informing the Commission that because an emergency had come up, he would not be present this evening. Mr. Walker stated that the public hearing on this item will be held and questioned if there was anyone in the audience wishing to be heard regarding it. Mr. Irving Hotchkins, a resident stated that the Council rezoned this area several years ago as strictly residential and that he does not want a profession- al building here because it will lead to commercial in the future. Mr. Walker advised that a map submitted to the Board shows that the building would be 2,280 square feet, located 25' back from Merriman Road right-of-way and 40' back from Six Mile, and separated from the residential to the east and west with park. Mr. M.R. Russell stated that he objects to this petition because of the fact that Six Mile has extremely heavy traffic and he is concerned about additional traffic. Mr. Belin, stated that he felt it would be best to leave this property RUF and not change it to P.S. 5396 Mr. Tent stated that he would like to compliment Mr. Belin on the church at Six Mile and Merriman and the way it is situated on the lot. I Mr. Belie state he believed it was at the suggestion of the Planning Commission that the church was placed as it is. Mr. Ed Berger, Byron-Trerice Realtors, stated that Dr. Huey's intentions are to construct a small office building for his own use; a dental building to serve the residents in the area and he is sure it will enhance the area. He stated that by putting this type of attractive building on the corner it will preclude any type of commercial zoning from going behind the property in the years to come and he thinks this is what the residents want. He stated he felt a man is not about to build a home on this corner so he feels RUF is not right for this property. He stated P.S. zoning will preclude a use such as a gas station. Mr. Walker stated for the record that the Planning Board is proud of the fact that they were able to protect this corner when they obtained the church con- struction. He stated that at the present time we are working with a devbloper that will come in with one-half acre lots on the northeast corner and we will have a high-class development on the property. He stated that the Commission is proud of the large lots and trees at this intersection and that the thing he would be most afraid of would not be the fact of rezoning this one corner, but the direction that the Commission would encourage whereby the neighbors would want to change the zoning and rightfully he should have that right. A neighbor should be able to get a high value out of his property. He stated he believed this is a good corner for a real good home and that is what he wants to see on that corner and he believes a man will some day build one. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-21 by Bond, Pollick and ?Martell, Attorneys for J.J.Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Osmus in the East 1/2 of Section 3, from RUFB to P.S. Mr. Pollick, Attorney for the petitioner, was present and stated that lot 245 is presently zoned RUF and it is his purpose to petition this body to change the zoning to P.S. He stated that this property has been owned by Mr. Stone who has sought to develop it several different ways and has never had a residential inquiry for it, but there have been inquiries regarding office buildings or businesses. He stated that according to a survey taken in May of 1968 on traffic, he feels that to insist on residential zoning on this prpperty amounts to a defamation of property as far as he is concerned. He stated that they have had several responsible builders and citizen inquiries as to the availabil- ity of the property for P.S. Mr. Tent questioned why Mr. Pollick feels this property, which is right in a residential neighborhood, is different. He stated that if Mr. Pollick heard what had been told the previous petitioner for P.S. zoning, there is good P.S. areas in the City that will eventually be developed, and questioned what makes this piece more desirable. 5397 Mr. Pollick stated he is not saying that this is a more desirable spot than other P.S. locations; all he can do is tell the Commission what he has been told by a realtor who has had this property for a length of time. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Pollick has a tenant for the building. Mr. Pollick stated he has more than one. Mr. Sherman Jerome, stated he lives in Spring Valley Subdivision and was hired by Mr. Stone in the sale of the property which he has had for eight months. He stated he has tried to sell it on a residential basis but has had offers for professional type uses such as accounting, attorneys, medical, etc. He stated that as of this date they have been unable to procure a sale of the property for residential use. Mr. Tent stated there is quite a bit of P.S. zoning in that area and as Mr. Jerome can see by the Master Plan, we are progressing in that area with the sewers coming and in order to give it a fair chance he doesn't believe it be- hooves the Commission to make this decision at this time. Mr. Jerome stated that he understands the church is going to build some time this fall and that they have no objection to the P.S. zoning and he believes this property is desirable for P.S. because quite frankly he believes Seven Mile Road location would mean a lot to a professional office; it is easily accessible and Seven Mile Road is not an ordinary residential street, it is a well-traveled busy street. Mr. Colomina questioned what Mr. Jerome would say the valuation of the property would be changing it from RUF to P.S. L Mr. Jerome stated that as residential he thought it has no value, and what its value is at P.S. he would have to leave to the professionals. Mr. Pollick stated he is not interested in making a profit on this. He stated he lives in Spring Valley Subdivision and that particular area has been develop- ed except for the back lots. Lot 245 being this size on Seven Mile does not have the advantage of others in not being able to put the homes back on the road. Mr. Moser stated it is probably true that the property does not have particular value but it becomes more and more valuable for residential purposes. If all the land on Seven Mile were turned into P.S. , we would run out of land for individual homes and people will be looking for this land for residential property not too far in the future. Mr. Wrightman stated that in regard to Mr. Pollick's philosophy of traffic on mile roads, we have made several studies and he doesn't agree that thorough- fares that are heavily traveled are not suited for homes and he would want to leave the zoning as it is. Mr. Stone stated they have obtained a petition containing signatures of 100 people in the area who do not object to this rezoning. Mr. Walker stated that in looking at the petition very quickly he notes that it is the first time he has seen a blanket approval of everything the petitioner wants; they approve of the two P.S. zonings and the corner for a gas station and other parcels for retail stores. Mr. Walker stated there is another petition of people in the area who object to the petition and that the thing 5398 that attracts him is how they can be so mixed up that we have two different petitions. He stated that a lot of the people most opposed to it are closest to it and effected by it. Mr. Pollick stated that he is sure the Commission is not inferring these are not the signatures they are proposed to be; they are signatures of residents i of Spring Valley Subdivision who signed of their own free will because they were not opposed to the various zoning changes we are requesting. Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of people in the audience who are opposed to the petitioner. There were thirty-five. Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of people in the audience who are not opposed to the petition. Mr. Tent stated that actually you would have to look at the petition of the people most effected; Spring Valley is a big subdivision and the petitioner has picked signatures of people who live way on the other side and this is the thing that would be of prime interest. Mr. Emery Jacques, representing Jacob Breitenback, 31750 Seven Mile, stated that when the City Planning Commission was concerned with the approval of Spring Valley Subdivision a setback line was established to the agreement of the Commission and residents to the east and west which was a diagrammatic line of the existing homes on the east and west. Mr. Jacques read from the minutes of the 76th Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission regarding this agreement. Mr. Jacques stated that in 1961 the establishment of the synogog came before the Commission and the minutes of that meeting reflect the recog- nition, approval and adherence to the setback as originally agreed upon by the property owners and the proprietor of the plat. In may of 1963 Mr. Jacques stated the owners of the outlots decided to ask for a variance so that additional lots could be put in and at that time established agreement was recognized and the setback upheld. In ,Dune of 1963 the established setback was recognized once more, this line being a line on the west and traveling in northeasterly direction ending at the Breitenbach house. The agreement was made and was valid in the past because the residents were concerned at the time of the plat approval in 1957 that there should be residential development from lot 270 in a southerly direction all the way to Seven Mile, and Mr. Jacques stated, that it was valid then, it is valid today and that no building is to be erected on Seven Mile Road except in accordance with the agreement which had been made in the very beginning. Mr. Urightman questioned if the agreement on the diagrammatic frontage line makes it impossible to develop any lots facing Seven Mile Road. Mr. Jacques stated there presently are lots occupied by the school. Mr. Wrightman questioned if the agreement was made before the school was built or after. Mr. Jacques replied, before. Mr. Wrightman asked if the school would be in violation. Mr. Jacques stated yes, but as far as the school is concerned, it is not a residence. 5399 Mrs. Breitenbach stated there was a protest made and the school was put back. Mr. Wrightman questioned if it meets the agreement in its entirety. Mrs. Breitenback stated that she was told there was nothing that could be done about it because it is a school. Mr. ?lrightman questioned if the builder agreed then that he was not going to use these lots for anything. Mr. Jacques stated he agreed to abide by the setback lines as established at the: former public hearing and these buildings proposed tonight would be in violation of these setback lines. Mr. Wrightman questioned how the land is maintained at this time. Mr. Jacques stated tha; land is vacant but apparently the weeds appear to be cut Mr. Wrightman stated he is concerned that we have a piece of property that someone must be paying taxes on and can't be used because of an agreement and wonders who maintains the property to make it attractive and protecting the homeowners as well. Mr. Jacques stated he doesn't think the residents are as concerned about the weeds as any construction in violation of the original agreement and if it is true that it cannot be built upon he imagined the assessment on the property ought to reflect that. Mr. Walker questioned Mr. Pollick regarding the date of ownership. I Mr. Pollick stated he (Mr. Stone) has had an interest in it for several years. and has been paying the taxes on it. Mr. Walker stated that the statements made by the previous gentlemen are true because he was a member of this Board at that time and a setback was designate' because that is what the people in the area wanted. He said that at the time the owner was here and agreed that this was o.k. with him provided he had his subdivision approved, which the Commission did, and the condition was agreed upon by both parties. Mr. Walker stated he has to respect this because he was a part of it, and questioned if Mr. Stone was aware of this at the time he bought the property. Mr. Pollick stated he does not know that but he does know he has been paying taxes for a long time. Mr. Fred Kellman, (lot 270) stated he objects to the petition because it will detract from the character of the neighborhood. He stated he does not object to the weeds somebody cuts them. Mr. Keliman said it was stated that this area is not suitable for residential homes but there are homes on Seven Mile Road which are very desirable and there is no commercial property along the road. Mr. Norman St. Aubin, a resident stated the developer made promises which never materialized and that the people who signed the petition thought this would be better than a gas station or something. He stated he is opposed because he does not want any more traffic. 5400 Mr. t•Walker questioned if he would be agreeable to residential on the property and requested a show of hands of people in the audience who were agreeable to that. There were twenty-two.. Mr. George Burmeister, 31670 West Seven Mile Road questioned if there is any type of agreement on setback to the east of those lots as there is to the west of them. Mr. Walker stated, no. Mr. Siegal, 19200 Auburndale, stated this is the entrance to a subdivision which is today a beautiful subdivision and he compliments the Commission on its decisions in the past because those decisions have been true and everybody is proud of it. A resident, 19176 Auburndale stated he opposes this rezoning because there is sufficient P.S. property available and he prefers to keep it residential. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-22 by Bonk, Pollick, & Wartell, Attorneys for J. J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Osmus in the East 1/2 of Section 3, from RUFB to P.S. Mr. Pollick, representing the petitioner, stated that he would not question the accuracy of Mr. Jacque's notes, but he would question the legality of them. He stated that because of the traffic situation on Seven Mile, this property in their opinion is not suitable to residential building and it is respect- fully requested that the zoning be changed to P.S. Mrs. Gordon Grant, a resident stated her objections to the petition because two streets, Fairfax and Auburndale open onto Seven Mile Road and the traffic here is bad and also the residents are concerned because the children always cross Osmus and Auburndale to go to school. '.rightmanqucstioned if Mrs. Grant would be willing to have a home there. Mrs. Grant stated, yes, a single home. Mr. Jacques stated that when you are talking about construction, residential or professional, it would violate the setback line, and he again voices the same objection as before. Mr. Moser questioned if Mrs. Breitenback is against a residential home going in on either of these lots. Mr. Jacques replied not on 272. Mr. Moser stated he understands there is one going in on the rear and there will not be enough left in the front to build another. Mr. Jacques stated if any building would be in violation of the setback they would object. 5401 Mr. Walker stated for the matter of record, the plans we have would be in 110/ violation of the diagrammatic line. 4 A resident. Lot 270, stated he is opposed. Mr. Berman, 31700 West Seven Mile Road, stated he is opposed to the rezoning. There was no one else 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 68-6-1-23 by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J. J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3 from RUFB to C-2. Mr. Pollick stated that they propose to take approximately a 150' x 210' piece of the northwest corner of this intersection and erect a gas station, and to keep the property as residential would be a deprivation to the owners. He stated that a gas station survey taken by the City of Livonia this year and it was noted with some interest that all of the larger thoroughfares in Livonia, Seven Mile has less stations than any other and from Five to Eight Mile on Merriman there are no stations at all. Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Pollick made an indication about the absence of stations on Seven Mile Road and said that is because we got mad; we looked and saw all the gas stations in Livonia and decided to do something about it and that was to keep them out of the areas where we have an abundance. He ' stated that we have areas where stations have changed hands four or five times. Mr. Pollick stated that he believes Seven Mile Road has seven stations. He said you can go a mile all the way around this intersection without a gas station being present. Mr. Pollick informed the Commission that the people from Boron Oil Company are present tonight for discussion. Mr. Walker stated that since the question here is zoning the Commission would not want to meet with the oil people tonight. Mr. Ernest Pritchard, 19012 Merriman, stated that several months ago there was a question of a rezoning on the southeast corner and the Commission re- jected it and after that a petition was made up of signatures of 58 neighbors from Seven Mile all the way down to Curtis in protest of any change of zoning on that particular corner. The petitioner, at that time, amended his petition to P.S. but that was turned down also and the rezoning of the other corner was turned down by the Council. Mr. Pritchard stated they are very concerned because there are property owners on one side of Seven Mile just waiting for something to happen on the other side. He stated there are fourteen gas stations in that area from Grand River; six or seven professional buildings and they believe this area should be kept as it is. Mr. Jacques, representing Mrs. Breitenbach, stated that this rezoning request IL in his judgment, is a request for a spot zoning in the truest sense of the word. He stated that he is certain the Planning Commission and Council spent a good deal of time and funds in having a master plan developed and adopted and that this rezoning would be in opposition to the plan as adopted and be- lieves it should be denied. 5402 Mr. Burmeister, a resident stated that while Seven Mile is a heavily traveled road, he would like to point out that within about a two-mile area there have been a minimum of three stations •which have gone out of business and it perturbs him that oil companies open stations on one corner and close them on another corner. Mrs. Virginia Seacot, 31540 West Seven Mile, questioned what would happen to her property which totals about 5-1/2 acres to the north of this site if there is a station erected here. Mr. Wrightman questioned if Mr. Stone owns all of this property, does he just want to develop this one corner of it. Mr. Pollick stated, no, there is another petition on the agenda where he is requesting that the balance be developed as C-1. Mr. Tent questioned if he has purchased that property within the last two or three years and with all the agreements made on the property when he bought it he should have checked into instead of just going ahead and putting this in when he realized that there had been agreements made. Mr. Tent stated fur:.' ther that if he bought it just recently and was not made aware of these facts the seller may be in trouble. Mr. Walker questioned what type of work Mr. Stone is in. Mr. Pollick stated he is comptroller and has had quite a bit of experience in land developing. Mrs. Rose Aurie, (lot DD4) stated they had an offer from a firm that said they would use our lot for a parking lot and wanted to put up apartments. Mr. Walker questioned if Mr. Pollick had stated that Mr. Stone owns the property. Mr. Pollick stated, yes. 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 68-6-1-24 by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J. J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, West of Merriman Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, from BUFB & R-1 to C-1. Mr. Pollick explained that his is the balance of the parcel just looked at and they are requesting C-1 and have prepared and attached to their petition a proposed site plan of the development. For the benefit of people in the audience who were not familiar with uses allowed in zoning categories, Mr. Walker explained the commercial categories and the reasons for a waiver use approval of some C-2 uses. Mr. Berman, a resident, questioned if this goes commercial will it establish precedent for all along Seven Mile Road. Mr. Walker stated that is a difficult question to which he doesn't have an answer. • 5403 Mr. Walker familiarized the audience with the site plan submitted by the petitioner. 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 68-7-2-13 by Chick-N-Joy Systems, Inc. , requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to build a carry-out restaurant on a portion of parcel Cld2 located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn and Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. T•tinney, 4905 Littcott Drive, Lansing, Michigan, representing the petitioner, stated they would like to construct a business similar to Colonel Sander's restaurant, that there will be no eating in the parking lot and 24 seats inside for eating. Mr. Walker questioned Mr. Winney if he has authority on behalf of the property owners. Mr. Winney stated that they are the owners of the property, five acres. Mr. Walker requested to know if Mr. Winney is aware of the fact that there are some discrepancies in the plan which has been laid out. Mr. Wrightman stated he would like to see this go to a study session in order to evaluate the discrepancies before making a final decision. Mr. Moser questioned why they purchased so much land when they need so little. Mr. Winney stated that it was one piece of property purchased by Alto Construction Company and sold to Chick-N-Joy. He stated that Alto is talking with the City of Livonia about putting turnkey housing on the rest of the property. Mr. J. Neuman,..30418 Elmira, questioned what the definition of this particular installation is. Mr. Walker stated it would be a carry-out restaurant. Mr. Neusman stated there seems to be a feeling that this is a drive-in restaurant. Mr. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director, stated that the man said there would be seats; this would classify it as a restaurant. Mr. Neuman stated he objected to the petition because of the noise, fumes, refuse rats, etc. , and feels that since it is considered objectionable he believes it will undercut the value of property in the area. Mr. Winney stated that only 100' x 100' of this parcel will be used for the Chick-N-Joy and that it will be 400' from the residential property. He stated the rest of the property is proposed for a turnkey housing financed by federal funds. Mr. Hull stated that turnkey housing es exactly the same type of development that we have going in for senior citizens but rather than federal funds it comes from private funds under federal regulations. • 5404 Mr. Hiram Draughty, 30518 Elmira, objected to this petition. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. 4 Mr. [Talker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-14 by Super Slide, Inc. , requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to erect a super slide and to maintain and operate the slide on property located couth of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt in Uonderland Center, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Duggan, Attorney, representing Super Slide, Inc, , was present and stated this is a new and exciting concept; a recreational and hearth facility and the safety attested to because it is the only one approved by the National Childrens' Council. It is proposed to be 35' high, 150' long and 30' wide and will be supervised by four to eight men at all times. He stated that a percentage of the gross goes to the division of the safety council so they can continually supervise it. It will be completely surrounded by an 8 x 10' fence; ends up on a carpet and does not drop off. Mr. Duggan stated this is a franchised operation and will continually be maintained and because it is a commercial activity, it will always have supervision. The hours will be basically after school and a half hour after curfew, and is considered a recreational activity for adults as well as children. Mr. Tent questioned if thissuperslide is the same organization as operates the -` ) one at Belle Isle. IL: Mr. Duggan stated it is not. Mr. Taut asked what the cost of a ride will be and if there will be any expansion of this facility. Mr. Duggan stated the cost will be 10or 3 for 25% and will never exceed 15 , and there will be no expansion of the facility. Mr. Urightman questioned if this is a year-round activity. Mr. Colburn, 1752 35th Street, Grand Rapids, business address 2929 Buffalo Speedway, Houston, Texas, stated that it is anticipated that it will be open for at least nine months of the year, twelve months if the weather is nice. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Colburn is affiliated with the shopping center. Mr. Colburn stated they have a ground lease on the property. Mr. Tent questioned if they would be in partnership. Mr. Colburn said they will pay rent. Mr. Tent questioned if they will use their parking facilities. Mr. Colburn stated, yes. Mr. Tent questioned if there is a method for computing parking for this facility. Mr. Hull stated there is none that he knows of. 5405 Mr. Wrightman questioned Mr. Perry as to whether or not this type of business would be required to have sanitary requirements the same as any other type of business. Mr. Perry stated he couldn't really answer that question but he does believe that the facility is more of an amusement device and he would doubt if this would be required. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-15 by Joseph J. Handzlik requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to erect a St. Michael Livonia Federal Credit Union office on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. Mr. Marvin Stempien was present in behalf of the petitioner and stated he believes the Commission is familiar with this petition. Mrs. Esther Lau, 9818 Farmington Road, stated he objects to the petition because she felt it will have an undesirable effect on the value of the residential property on Farmington Road. Mr. Stempien stated this land is already zoned for this use and residents were aware of this when they purchased residential homes there, and all they are ask- ing from this Board is approval of the use. Mrs. Lau stated she feels this use would have an effect also on the traffic situation on Farmington Road. Mr. Walker stated that he believes this would be one of the least objectionable uses for this property under the present zoning and that usually in this type of business there are no more than one or two cars at one time. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. T•7rightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-7-2 by The City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Part V of the Master Plan, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to incorporate property located approximately 300 feet north of Greenwood Farms Subdivision in the East 1/2 of Section 18. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. On amotion duly made by Mr. t 7rightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was i #8-90-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, August 27, 1968 at approximately 11:45 p.m. 5406 Mr. Walker, Chairman, called the 247th Special Meeting to order at approximately 11:46 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the I" Y audience as were present for the public hearing. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-19 by Botsford Realty Company for Joseph and Nann Dudzik requesting to rezone property located south of Norfolk between Farmington and Shadyside in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3-A to P.S. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-1-30 by Ronald F. Huey, D.D.S. , requesting to rezone property located on the southwest corner of Merriman and Six Mile Roads in the North- east 1/4 of Section 15, from RUFC .to P.S. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, Seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-91-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 27, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-30 as submitted by Ronald F. Huey, D.D.S. , requesting to rezone property located on the south- west corner of Merriman and Six Mile Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 15, from RUFC to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-30 be denied for the following reasons: (1) This would adversely effect the stability of the adjacent neighborhood and establish a precedent that could convert the land use pattern of the general area. (2) There are great quantities of vacant land that is zoned properly that could accommodate the intended use. (3) The conversion of this intersection into non-residential use could generate greater volumes of traffic and conflict with the movement of intra- and inter-City traffic. FURTHER RESOLVED that, noticee of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 7, 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, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. • Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-21 by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J.J.Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Osmus in the East 1/2 ofSection 3, from RUFB to P.S. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was 5407 #8-92-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 27, 1968 on Petition 68-6-1-21 as submitted by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Osmus in the East 1/2 of Section 3, from RUFB to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-6-1-21 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The intrusion of nonresidential development in this area could adversely effect the stability of the adjacent residential neighborhood. (2) This petition would truly constitute spot zoning inasmuch as the site is physically small and unrelated to the zoning and land use pattern of the general area. (3) The intrusion of traffic onto the mile road and onto the adjacent residential street could deter the movement of traffic in this sector of the City. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the off icialnewspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 7, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 1[1, Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-22 by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Auburndale in the East 1/2 of Section 3, from RUFB to P.S. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-93-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 27, 1968 on Petition 68-6-1-22 as submitted by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J.J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Auburndale in the east 1/2 of Section 3, from RUFB to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-6-1-22 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The intrusion of nonresidential use in this area could effect the stability of the adjacent residential neighbor- hood. (2) This petition would truly constitute spot zoning inasmuch as the site is physically small and unrelated to the zoning and land use pattern of the general area. (3) The intrusion of traffic onto the mile road and onto the adjacent residential street could deter the movement of traffic in this sector of the City. 5408 FUaTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 7, 1960, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 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 ne::t item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-23 by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J.J.Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFB to C-2. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-94-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 27, 1968 on Petition 68-6-1-23 as submitted by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J.J.Stone, requesting to rezone property 1 located on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Merriman in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFB to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-6-1-23 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The intrusion of commercial zoning with a high intensity of use at this intersection could adversely effect the movement of traffic within this sector of our City. (2) This proposed rezoning would be in conflict with the overall master Commercial Land Use Study of our City. (3) The general character of this sector of the City is residential and the intrusion of nonresidential use could effect the long- term stability of the existing residential neighborhoods. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 7, 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, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-6-1-24 by Bonk, Pollick and Wartell, Attorneys for J.J.Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, 11; west of Merriman Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, from RUFB & R-1 to C-1. On a motion duly made by Mr. Heusted, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was 5409 #9-95-68 RESOLVED that, ursuaht to a public hearing having been held on August 27, 1968 on Petition 68-6-1-24 as submitted by Bonk, Pollick 110 and Wartell, Attorneys for J. J. Stone, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of Merriman Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, from EUFB & R-1 to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-6-1-24 be denied for the following reasons: (1) This quantity of commercial zoning could adversely effect the stability of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. (2) It could generate a large volume of traffic which could adversely effect the movement of inter- and intra-City traffic in this sector of the City. (3) This proposed rezoning is in conflict with the recommendations set forth in the master Commercial Land Use Plan for our City. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 7, 1968 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Mich- igan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-13 by Chick-N-Joy Systems, Inc. , requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to build a carry-out restaurant on a portion of Parcel Cld2 located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Milburn and Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-14 by Super Slide, Inc. , requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to erect a super slide and to maintain and operate the slide on property located south of Plymouth Road, west of Middlebelt in Wonderland Center, in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-15 by Joseph J. Handzlik requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to erect a St. Michael Livonia Federal Credit Union office on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was 5410 #8-96-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 27, 1968 on Petition 68-7-2-15 as submitted by Joseph J. Handzlik requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to erect a St. Michael Livonia Federal Credit Union office on property located on the west side of Farmington Road between Plymouth and Orangelawn in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-2-15 be approved subject to adherence to Site Plan #p-1 dated September 3, 1968 for the following reasons; (1) It is in harmony with the adjacent land uses. (2) It is consistent with the land use and zoning pattern of the area. (3) It is consistent with the commercial and P.S. plan of our City. (4) The site is large enough to accommodate this intended use and its logical expansion. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution 1[0 is adopted. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-7-2 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Part V of the Master Plan, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to incorporate property located approximately 300 feet north of Green- wood Farms Subdivision in the East 1/2 of Section 18. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Urightman, and unanimous):- adopted, it was #9-97-68 RESOLVED THAT, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having duly held a public hearing on August 27, 1968 for the purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled "Master School and Park Plan", the same is hereby amended so as to incorporate property located approximately 300 feet north of Greenwood Farms Subdivision in the East 1/2 of Section 18 as a park site for the following reason: (1) This is a necessary action to effecuate the master develop- ment plan for Section 19. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Cleric, and the City Planning 5411 Commission; and a certified copy shall also be forewarded to the • Register of Deeds for the County of Mayne for recording. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-7-3 by the City Planning on its own motion to amend Part V of the Master Plan, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to delete property located immediately north of Blue Grass Subdivision in the South- east 1/4 of Section 18. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Urightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-98-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having duly held a public hearing on August 27, 1968 for the purpose of amending Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled "Master School and Park Plan", the same is hereby amended so as to delete property located immediately north of Blue Grass Farms Subdivision in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18 for the following reason: (1) This is a necessary action to effectuate the master development plan for Section 19. AND, having given propert notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master School and Park Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk, and the City Planning Commission; and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of [Mayne for recording. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is the final plat approval for Mallon Estates Subdivision (formerly H. E. Mallon Sub. #1) located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-99-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that final plat of Mall Estates Subdivision (formerly H. E. Mallon Sub. #1) located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3, be given final approval for the following reasons: (1) It conforms to the previously approved preliminary plat. (2) All the financial obligations of the City have been met. 5412 AND, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve of the change of the name of Mallon Estates Subdivision, formerly known as H. E. Mallon Subdivision No.1; FURTHER RESOLVED, inas much as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission under Resolution #1-5-68 adopted on January 16, 1968; and it further appearing that said proposed plat to- gether with plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public ¶Yorks, Engineering Division, under date of June 4, 1968; and it further appearing that the financial assurances required in Council Resolution #762-68 adopted on July 17, 1968 have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated August 27, 1968 from Addison U. Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all the conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is the final plat approval for Mallon Subdivision (formerly H. E. Mallon Sub. No. 2) located in the East 1/2 of Section 3. On a motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #8-100-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final plat of Mallon Subdivision (formerly H. E. Mallon Sub. No. 2) located in the East 1/2 of Section 3, be given final approval for the following reasons: (1) It conforms to he previously approved preliminary plat. (2) All the financial obligations of the City have been met. AND that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve of the change of the name of Mallon Subdivision, formerly known as H. E. Mallon Subdivision No.2. FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission under Resolution #1-6-68 adopted on January 16, 1968; and it further appearing that said proposed plat to- gether with plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public Works, Engineer- ing Division, under date of May 13, 1968; and it further appear- ing that the final assurances requied in Council Resolution #618-68 adopted on June 5, 1968 have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated August 27, 1968 from Addision W. Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all the conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. ' 5413 #8-101-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final plat of Gold Manor Subdivision located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8, be approved for the the following reasons: (1) It conforms to the previously approved preliminary plat, (2) All the financial obligations of the City have been met. FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission under Resolution #110164-67 adopted on November 14, 1967; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with plans and specifications for improvements' therein have been approved by the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, under date of February 26, 1968; and it further appearing that the financial assurances required in Council Resolution No. 190-68 adopted on February 28, 1968 have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated August 23, 1968 from Addison W. Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all the conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. On a duly made by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned its 247th Special Meeting held on August 27, 1968, at approximately 12: 00 midnight. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION arry t lri tman, S- retary ATTEST: r w Char es W. ¶'Talker, Chairman -