Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1968-11-12 5455 MINUTES OF THE 199th REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 12, 1968, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 199th 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 70 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Charles U. Ualker Raymond U. Tent Donald Heusted Robert Colomina Harry Wrightman Members absent: Marvin Moser Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner III; Robert Menzief. , Planner III, David Perry, Assistant City Attorney; Daniel Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator; William LaPine, Eldon Raymond and Robert Bennett of the Zoning Board of Appeals, were present. Mr. Urightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-2-21 by Robert N. Gaberman for Marathon Oil Company requesting a waiver of use permit to construct a gasoline service station on property li; located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/t,. of Section 7. Mr. Sam Thomas, 15911 Wyoming, of the Marathon Real Estate Department, was present and presented a picture of the proposed development to the Commission. He stated it would be of contemporary design and landscaped; that the site at present has quite a hill and visibility is extremely poor on Haggerty as you near Seven Mile. He stated this development will clear the hill. Mr, ?Talker questioned if it would be Mr. Thomas' intent to grade off the entire parcel at the time grading is done for the station. Mr. Thomas stated the seller would grade this area and his intent would be to grade the entire area. Mr. Walker questioned how soon he proposes to build. Mr. Max Kedd, Marathon Oil Company, stated that would depend on the development of the freeway but he would guess 1969 or 1970. Mr. Tent questioned if they have an option on the property. Mr. Thomas stated, yes. Mr. Tent questioned if this will be a compnay-operated station or will it be IL leased out. Mr. Thomas stated it will be leased out. 5460 Mr. Tent stated that there are a lot of Marathon stations in the City which are closed and questioned if the Company is going to do anything different here to promote business in the area and what can they do to keep businesses from having to close. Mr. Thomas stated that one of the major reasons for the station at Farmington and Five Mile having problems is that the size is somewhat limited. He stated the size of this proposed site is large enough to put up what. his plot plan shows and this type of structure will generate more business. Mr. Max Kidd stated they would like to have the answers to the problem themselves. He stated that the gentlemen who leased the station on Six Mile Road contracted a skin disease and had to leave on the advise of his doctor. He stated it is their intent specifically in this area to attract the quality of businessman who is capable of making the community proud of his business. Mr. Wrightman stated it is his understanding that Marathon has just been purchased by another concern and questioned how this will effect the situation. Mr. Max Kidd stated Mr. Wrightman's information is erroneous. He stated that there was an article in last week's Wall Street Journal that Cities Service Com- pany and Marathon has entered negotiations regarding the merger of the two com- panies, and what is going to happen and what effect it might have concerning Marathon's future would naturally follow through as a single company composed of the surviving two. Mr. Wrightman stated various conditions were run into when Speedway merged. Mr. Max Kidd stated he believes that Cities Service does not have any reputation to speak of and they recently sold ott to Boron, within the last ninety days, and how this might effect Marathon he can't say. 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 68-10-2-22 by Alfred J. Macksey, Jr. requesting a waiver of use permit to construct a real estate office on property located on the west side of Farmington Road, south of Rayburn Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Walker read a letter from the file from the Inspection Department regarding the change of use from dwelling to real estate office being in violation of the Building Code but that an appeal can be made to the Building Code Board of Appeals. He further stated that a letter was received from the Fire Department concerning conversion of a frame building to a commercial use and the necessity for approval by that Department. Mr. A. J. Macksey, Jr. , 2183 Lost Tree ['lay, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, petitioner, was present and stated the structure is presently being used as single-family residence and it is a relatively old structure. He stated it is contemplated, if approval is obtained, that some modifications would be required in order to meet building codes and fire ordinances, but it is intended not to change the basic exterior of the structure; the modifications would take place primarily on the inside in order to adapt it to their use. Mr. Macksey said he intends to operate a general brokerage business out of the building. 5461 Mr. Walker questioned if this would be the sole business occupying the building. Mr. Macksey stated yes. Mr. Walker questioned what the total amount of employment would be. Mr. Macksey stated he would say about ten to fifteen sales personnel. Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Macksey has an option on the property and if the build- ing structure blends in with the type of business Mr. Macksey has in mind, Mr. Macksey stated he has an option on the property and they feel the present structure is an unusually nice dwelling and believes if it is property renovated, it will be very nice. Mr. Tent questioned the possibility of constructing a new building. Mr. Macksey stated he doesn't say he would have an objection to putting up a new building but it would be more practical to use the existing building. Mr. Tent made reference to an existing structure on Plymouth Road which has been converted and stated that if Mr. Macksey has a prosperous business and is coming into Livonia on a choice piece of property like this, he would think Mr. Macksey would want to construct a nice build -ng, Mr. Macksey stated he thinks a nice job has been done in the community about con- verting businesses and they certainly are attempting to present themselves as a reputable, going concern but they operate within certain budget limitations and their initial objective to to utilize this building. Mr. Tent questioned how many parking spaces are proposed. Mr. Macksey stated that a total of fifteen parking spaces is shown. Mr. Tent questioned if there would be a problem with adequate parking if fifteen employees are proposed. Mr. Macksey stated that they operate an office in Lathrup Village with nineteen employees and it is the exception if there are nineteen spaces filled; they just don' t get every person there at one time. Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Hull if this would be in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Hull stated this plan conforms to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance; the only thing not realized was the quantity of employees they would have. Mr. Hull stated that if he has fifteen employees there at one time, he conceivably will have a problem. Mr. Walker stated that as a planner of the City he feels the question is whether the Commission wants to encourage development on mile roads and the use of present residences for professional and commercial uses, and that the parking is a very minute thing. He said if the Commission allows one such use, they certainly can- not deny the next man who comes along and he believes the City should have better type commercial or professional development which will not be detracting and IL; sttract in the futy. elower type development, because the highest and best use is planned for this area. 5462 Mr. Wrightman stated the Commission has allowed certain types of P.S. uses in established buildings and a precedent has been set and he believes the decision should be made as to how far we want to go with this. He stated that use of older buildings for new uses does not carry out the intent of the Commission for development throughout the City. 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. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary plat approval for Dover Courts Subdivision No. 2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. Mr. B. O'Rourke of Spaulding, DeDecker & Associates, Birmingham, Michigan, was present representing the petitioner. Mr. Tent questioned how soon development of this area is planned. Mr. O'Rourke stated immediately pursuant to the approval of the preliminary plat. Mr. Tent questioned if there are any deficient lots in the subdivision. Mr. Hull stated that all lots conform to the ordinance; there are no discrepancies. Mr. Walker stated he assumes everthing has been worked out except the detail of naming the streets, and questioned if there was some discussion about the 1[040 storm sewer. Mr. Hull stated they have an open storm sewer but in the original proposal the City approved it going through the Subdivision and that the developer will be responsible for this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval for Richter & Lipton Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Schoolcraft, west of Yale, in Section 28. Mr. [Talker read a letter dated November 12, 1968 in the file from the Industrial Development Coordinator regarding treatment of Wayne Road. Mr. Lehner, 22900 Wellington Crescent, Mount Clemens, Michigan, representing the petitioner, was present and stated that at the present time they plan to re- route the Gates Drain along the borderline of the Subdi. ision and drop into the gravel pit. He said they have submitted this to Mayne County Drain Commission who are presently reviewing it. He stated the sanitary sewers will be built by the City of Livonia with the exception of the tap under Schoolcraft Road and the developer will take care of that. Mt. Lehner stated the City has been given an easement for utilities, and this particular division of an overall subdivision is for immediate development and engineering plans are about 95% complete. Mr. Wrightman questioned Mr. Andrew regarding the necessity of aligning the Wayne Road segment into the overpass, 5463 Mr. Andrew stated there would have to be an overpass at Stark Road and one at Yale. He stated this will give us an additional crossover in the mile-and-a- half section. Mr. Wrightman questioned who picks up the cost of the overpass. Mr. Andrew stated this is part of the I-96 project. Mr. Hull stated he believes 90% will be paid by the Federal government, 5% by the State and 5% by the City. Mr. Colomina questioned what provisions will be made to keep the industrial traffic from going through the subdivision. Mr. Andrew stated if it lines up with a residential street, signs will be posted; if there is a traffic problem, corrective measures will be taken. Mr. Tent questioned how many employees are planned for the development. Mr. Andrew stated that about twenty people per acre, or 6,000 people. 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. t•]rightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-1-39 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to a request from the Industrial Development Commission, to rezone property located on the west side of Hartel, north of Plymouth Road in the South- i; west 1/4 of Section 25, from R-1 to M-1. Mr. Walker read a letter from the Industrial Coordinator regarding the Hill Screw Products Company and the discrepancy in the Zoning Map. A citizen from the audience questioned how a plant could have been built in an R-1 zone to start with. Mr. David Perry, Assistant City Attorney, stated there was no Zoning Ordinance until 1955 and prior to that anything could be built. It was questioned if the zoning could be changed on the other lots to M-1. Mr. Walker stated, no, they would have to come in for a public hearing to re- quest a change of zoning. Mr. Tent stated if it is a non-conforming lot, there is no disadvantage in chang- ing the one lot to conform, and questioned what is the existing zoning abutting to the north. Mr. Walker stated the zoning to the north is M-1. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. 5464 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-6-10 by the City Planning Commission, to amend Section 18.50; 18.50A; 18.50D; IL18.50E and 18.50F of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Robert Menzies, Planner III, familiarized the audience with the proposed amendments to the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated he has been working very closely with the Zoning Board of Appeals because it has been necessary for that Board to grant variances on signs. Mr. Wrightman stated he knows how hard Mr. Menzies and the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have worked on this amendment and questioned if zoning cate- gories are still used in computing setbacks on signs. Mr. Menzies stated, yes. Mr. Wrightman expressed a concern about the fact that there are different zoning categories with different requirements for each one and it is his opinion that the thoroughfare should be taken into consideration and a uniform setback established for the buildings and signs. Mr. Tent stated he beleives this is what the Zoning Board of Appeals members are here on and it will be studied in detail. He questioned Mr. Perry if he had reviewed the sign ordinance and if he agrees that legally it has sound basis. Mr. Perry stated it has been reviewed by his office and he believes the pro- visions in this particular amendment are much more reasonable than the existing ordinance; how reasonable will have to be decided by a court if it is ever con- IL -,-,--,7/ , Mr. Tent questioned, then there is nothing to get the Commission into trouble? Mr. Perry stated, not to his knowledge. Mr. Uilliam Lapine, Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, stated that Mr. Robert Bennett will speak for the Zoning Board. Mr. Bennett stated that Mr. Menzies has covered the major changes of the ordinance quite well but they think they see some problem with setback requirements of commercial districts. He stated he thinks the problems can be worked out and still stay within the intent of the amendment. He stated also there are some areas that are not quite as equitable as they thought; as Section 18.50E. Mr. Walker questioned if the Board members have pinned down the changes they are interested in. Mr. Bennett stated there is not complete unanimity on the provisions of certain kinds of signs, but he believes, in general, the philosphy, intent, improvements and logic have been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walker questioned if the Board members have discussed the problem that Mr. Wrightman brought up and have they recognized it as being a problem. Mr. Bennett stated, no, but we have some recognition of the problems of mixing of commercial districts along mile roads without any apparent order but they are faced with a lot of problems that were in existence before Ordinance #543 and the sign ordinance. He stated he thinks the subject is a relevant one but doesn' t think it can be corrected easily. 5465 Mr. Tent questioned if Sections 18.50A, D and F, which the Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed and has no objection on, can be acted on by the Commission 1L; and Section 18.50E be held for study and than brought back later; if so, will it have to be readvertised. Mr. Perry stated that his advice would be to take care of the whole thing. Mr. Bennett stated that if the changes intro-'-iced in Section E do not violate the principles as outlined presently and does change the philosop"y, would that require a complete new hearing. Mr. Perry stated he doesn't think it would require another hearing; that the Commission has held a hearing and he believes probably they have met the require- ment and could act on one park and hold another. Mr. Eldon Raymond, member of the Zoning Board of Appeals, stated that Section 18.50E is the only one of urgency; that every problem presented to the Board of Appeals concerns this particular section. He stated there will never be unanimity on Section 18.50E and that we should get people to know what the 'City wants in signs and not have to look to the Zoning Board of Appeals to circumvent the ordinance. Mr. Raymond stated the one exception in the philosophy is the exception of the sandwich sign and rather than run the risk of striking this portion in its entirety he would consider alternatives in this amendment that could solve the prob' ;m of sandwich signs. Mr. Hull stated it was the opinion of the Department and Commission that this is an alternate ordinance and we are certainly anxious to cooperate with the Zoning Board of Appeals but he stated he would be very much opposed to adopting this ordinance on a piece-meal basis. Mr. Walker stated that if we continue this under advisement he thinks it could be put on an agenda and not held up for more than a week for consideration of the recommendations of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hull stated it could be put on next week's agenda and in an hour's time worked out. Mr. Walker questioned if Mr. Bennett could be at the Commission's study meeting next Tuesday. Mr. Bennett stated he sees no reason why he can' t be there. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item. Mr. Walker stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. ilrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-6-11 by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by deleting Section 4.02(g) relating to church or public building bulletin boards. Mr. Robert Menzies, Planner III, stated that bulletin boards of churches are covered in the R-1 through R-5 district of the ordinance and also in the sign section and that each states a different dimension. He stated it is proposed to delete paragraph (g) completely, which discusses bulletin boards, from the residential district. 5466 Mr. Robert Bennett, Zoning Board of Appeals, stated this is an apparent con- flict and has little to do with the sign ordinance that is proposed. #11-135-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the public hearing held on Tuesday, November 12, 1968 at approximately 10: 05 p.m. **************************** Mr. Walker, Chairman, called the 199th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:25 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the audience as were present for the public hearing. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-2-21 by Robert N. Gaberman for Marathon Oil Company requesting a waiver of use permit to construct a gasoline service station on property located on the southeast corner of Seven Mile Road and Haggerty Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 7. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr.. t lrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-2-22 by Alfred J. Macksey, Jr. requesting a waiver of use permit to construct a real estate office on property located on the west side of Farmington Road, south of Rayburn Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. 100: Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat approval for Dover Courts Subdivision No. 2 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. On a motion dulymade by Mr. Tent, seconded by Mr. Urightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-136-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a :public hearing having been held on November 12, 1968 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Dover Courts Subdivision No. 2, located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is of sufficient design calibre to justify our approval. (2) It conforms to the Zoning Ordinance requirements of the City of Livonia. The open space requirement of Ordinancd 500 and the Subdivision Rules and Regulations has been met in the first portion of this subdivision. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as list- ed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next iters on the agenda is the Preliminary Plat approval for Richter & Lipton Industrial Subdivision proposed 11: to be located on the south side of Schoolcraft, west of Yale, in Section 28. Mr. Walker questioned if there are any stipulations in this approval that the Commission is not aware of. Mr. Hull stated that the name will have to be changed because it was divided and was formerly known as Westside Industrial Subdivision. On a motion duly made by Mr. Heusted, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-137-68 RESOLVED that, pu:suant to a public hearing having been held on November 12, 1968 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Richter & Lipton Industrial Subdivision formerly a part of Westside Industrial Subdivision proposed to be located on the south side of Schoolcraft, west of Yale, in Section 28 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is in conformance to the overall development plan for this sector of the Schoolcraft-Plymouth industrial belt. (2) It is of si:.f:ficient design calibre to justify our approval. (3) It will create industrial site that are totally acceptable ° and desirable for industrial purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as list- ed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Euilding Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire DepLrtnent, Police Department and Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the notion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Urightman,announced the ne:_ _ten on the agenda is Petition 68-9-1-39 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to a request from the Industrial Development Commission, to rezone property on the west side of Hartel , north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, from R-1 to N-i. On a motion duly =de by Mr, ¶lrifh.tean, seconded by Mr. Tent, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-138-63 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 12, 1968 on Petition 68-9-1-39 as submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to a request from the Industrial Development Commission, o rezone property on the west side of Hartel , north of Plymouth Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Suction 25, from R-1 to M-1 , the City Planning Commis- sion does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-9-1-39 be approved for the following reasons: 5468 (1) This is a necessary action to make the zoning and land use consistent. ILI FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of October 23, 1968, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Pc. = Com- pany and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mrs. Margaret Prentiss, 12332 Camden; Mrs, Mae Eddes, 12301 Ca'-den, were present at the meeting and stated that they are not in agreement and do not want this petition approved. Mr. Tent stated that if this zoning was going further in any other area it would be different, but this factory has been here for twenty-seven years and in this case he believes it is legitimate. Mrs. Prentiss stated they object to this because they have seen this piece of property for twenty-seven years. Mr. Walker stated it is not the Commission's intention to have the people think the Commission has taken a dim view of the encroachment into the residential. Mr. Wrightman stated that when tha Zoning Ordinance was changed over this property would have been designated as industrial but it was just not picked up so it is being done now and the error is being orrected, Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-6-10 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.50; 18.50A; 18.50D; 13,50E, and 10,507 of Ordinance i'o. 5/43, the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the n:::t item on the agenda is Petition 68-10-6-11 by the City Planning Cormissi_on to determine whether or not to a_,e ..d Orl'_n cc _do, 543, tha Zoning Ordinance, by deleting Section 4,.02(g) releti_r to church or public building bulletin boards, On a motion duly made by Mr. U?_ightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unani- mously adopted, it ..,a` #11-139-63 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 12, 1960 on Petition 68-10-6-11 as submitted by the City Planning Comaission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance No. 5143, the Zoning Ordinance by deleting Section '!-.02(g) relating to church or public build- in bulletin boards, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 63-10-6-11 be approved for the following reason: 5469 (1) This is a housekeeping chore to make the existing Zoning Ordinance consistent. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of October 23, 1963, and noitce 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. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-7-2-11 by Diane Seaman, Pastor of Unity of West Suburbia Church, requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit to expand 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. Mr. Walker stated the Commission is concerned with the element of time on the proposed plan and that a request was made for a letter covering what was dis- cussed by the Commission and petitioner. Mr. Hull stated two letters had been received and the second letter made reference to the first letter which stated some things that were not included in the second letter. Mr. Walker stated he believed they say they will follow the plan of the Planning Commission. Mr. Maggio, a resident stated he believes the opposers are placed at a disadvantage because they have told everybody their opinions but yet when the Commission has a meeting with people who are supposedly in favor of this petition they don't know what was said and the action of the Commission may be based upon that. A citizen who stated she lived in the second house from the church stated she has no objection and is not a member of the church. Mr. Frank Dziewit, 13214 Mivin, stated that what should be considered are the plans of the church for the future, and that the change in seating plans indicates they may have to add onto the church in the future and acquire more property. He stated this means that the subdivision will be surrounded by conditions of a church that should grow but with no room to grow. Mr. Tent questioned if the church had agreed just to landscape within a year. Mr. Hull stated their intent on landscaping is stated in the previous letter. Mr. Tent stated, but they do not say they plan to build within a year. Mr. Wrightman stated he bel ' .ves three years is adequate time. I Mr. Hull stated he did not understand it that way and apparently they are not willing to adhere to the Commission's request. 5470 Mr. Tent stated that if they want to expand they should seek another site. He stated the Commission has heard both sides of the story; there is nothing wrong with the church but we have no assurance as to when they will build and I: because we can' t come to an agreement on construction to go ahead and expand the existing building, he stated he would be opposed to this petition. Mr. tlrightman stated he thought the people of the church were agreed to the time limit and the approval based on this commitment; but now they do not agree to this commitment and it thro'ar an entirely different light. Mr. Colomina read a traffic count for a twenty-four hour period on a week day. He stated the report was requested because the people complained that on Sunday morning there is a lot of traffic. He said he was lead to believe that all the traffic was on Sunday and not during the week, but this is not true. Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of people who are in favor of this petition. There were five. Mr. Walker requested a show of hands of people who are opposed to this petition There were seven. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unani- mously adopted, it was #11-140-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on ' September 17, 196'2 on Petition 68-7-2-11 as submitted by Diane Seaman, Pastor of Unity of West Suburbia Church, requesting to be granted a waver of use permit to expand 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 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council That Petition 65-7-2-11 be denied for the following reasons: (1) It will adversely effect the stability of the adjacent residential neighborhood. (2) The road improvements in this area are not sufficient to adequately handle the burden of increased traffic from other areas that would make use of the proposed facilities. (3) The high intensity of use proposed on this site could adversely effect the development of the site and the existing adjacent development. (4) The interin use of existing facilities and the lack of a building program in the foreseeable future does not indicate that this proposed. development will be of sufficient calibre and quality to blend with the existing development of the ILarea. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within EGO feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. 5471 Mr. Tent stated that his reason for being in favor of denying this petition is not because of the attitude of the people but because he cannot see an expansion here because it would add problems and if they had a good plan it would be different. He stated that based on what the Commission has seen and that they do not know when this thing would materialize, he is not i^. favor of it. Mr. Colomina stated that he has spent a lot of time on this petition and most of the churches he has visited are not so deep in a residential neighborhood. He stated that presently he does not feel the Commission would be solving any problems by granting this petition, but would be creating them. Mr. Wrightman stated he would have voted in favor of the petition with the stipulation that they build within three yeats but since they can't guarantee the three-year building date, he would have to go along with denying the petition. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-9-5-4 by Seymour D. Finkel & Meyer Korchak requesting to remove topsoil from proprerty located at the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and Haggerty in Section 18. On a motion dulylmade by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-141-68 RESOLVED that, in conformance with Section 18.13B of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition 63-9-5-4- as submitted by Seymour D. Finkel & Meyer Korchak requesting to remove topsoil from property located at the southeast corner of Six Mile Road and Haggerty in Section 18, subject to compliance with conditions set forth by the Engineer- ing, Inspection and Police Departments, for the following reason: (1) The removal of topsoil will not adversely effect any adjacent development and will not adversely effect the industrial development potential of the site. FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant deposit with the City Cleric a corporate surety bond in the amount of $37,000 and a cash bond in the amount of $3,700; such bonds shall be for an indefinite period until relased and discharged by resolution of the City Planning Commission; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant shall apply for obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days .'':om the date of this resolution. Mr. Walker, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 5472 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated 7/17/68 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 in Section 18. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-142-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated 7/17/68 from Harold E. Edwards requesting a renewal of topsoil removal Petition 67-7-5-5 for removal of topsool from Parcel 18D located on the west side of Newburgh Road in Section 18; and the City Planning Commission, in conformance with Section 18.13B of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, having given approval on August 15, 1967 to siad Petition, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to approve the requested renewal subject to the follow- ing condition: (1) This this permit will not be again renewed after it has lapsed. AND, subject to the conditions of the Engineering, Police & Inspec- tion Departments. for the following reason; . (1) It is necessary to remove the piles of topsoil resulting from the previously approved topsoil operation. FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant deposit with the City Clerk a corporate surety bond in the amount of $1,000 and a cash bond in the amount of $100; such bonds shall be for an indefinite period until released and discharged by resolution of the City Planning Commission; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant shall apply for and obtain 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 68-4-1-16, as amended, by Kenneth Morris for E. David Auer requesting to rezone four parcels of property located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from RUF to C-1 and P.S. Mr. Walker stated that the petitioner's amended plan arrived in the Department office this afternoon and the Department has not had an opportunity to review it. He stated for this reason, the Commission will not act on the item tonight and the interested people in the audience will be invited to attend the next meet- ing two weeks from tonight at which time action will be taken. Mr. Walker 1E: invited a representative of the interested people to take the plan and look it over and be prepared to come back in two weeks. 5473 Mr. Morris stated for the people in the audience that the only part under consideration for development is the front section on Wayne Road and that when the petition was first started apartments had also been requested and the whole acreage was proposed for development, but that it is not going to be developed now in its entirety. Mr. 'talker, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is the final plat approval for Gold Manor Subdivision No. 2 located in the West 1/2 of Section 8. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tlrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-143-68 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final plat of Gold Manner Subdivision No. 2, located in the West 1/2 of Section 8, be given final approval for the following reasons: (1) The financial obligations of the City have been met. (2) The final plat is a duplication of the previously approved preliminary plat. 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 #12-173-67 adopted on December 12, 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 April 15, 1968; and it further appearing that the financial assurances have been filed with the City Clerk as required by Council Resolution #531-68 adopted on May 22, 1968 as confirmed by a letter dated November 8, 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. 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 Inlcster, in the South 1/2 of Section 13, and on the south side of Five Mile Road, west of Inkster, in the Northe 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. On a motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Tent, and unanimously adopted, it was 5474 #11-144-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 13, 1968 on Petition 68-7-1-29 as submitted 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, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 68-7-1-29 be approved subject to the following revised legal description: PROPOSED C-1 ZONING That part of the S. E. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Mayne County, Michigan, more properly described as the south 20' of the north 124' of lots #35, 36, 37, 33 & 39 of Parkway Sub- division as recorded in Liber 68, Page 67 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds; the south 20' of the north 60' of Parcel #13P2a; the south 117' of the north 147' of lots #5,6,7 & 8 of Strathcona Gardens Sub- division, as recorded in Liber 69, Page 31 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds; the south 117' of the north 147' of parcels #13M1 , 13M2, 13M4, 13M5, 13M6 and 13M7; the north 47' of parcels #13M3a & l3Mc; the south 70' of parcel 13M3b; and the south 33' of the north 68' of parcels #13M8a, 8b, 9a1, 9bl & 13M8d. and That part of the S.W. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, more properly described as parcels #13K7a, 8al, 8a2 & l37.:Sb c::cept south 1C0' and thei r'.•north 30' . and That part of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E, , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more properly described as the south 30' of the north 240' of parcel #24R; and the north 30' of the south 110' of lots #48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 90, 91 & 92 of Dutch Mill Gardens Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 68, Page 70 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds. and That part of the N. J. 1/4 of Section 24, T. 1 S., R. 9 E, , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more properly described as the north 47.53' of the south 77.53' of lot #1 of Greenmoor Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 70, Page 26 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds. PROPOSED P ZONING That part of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, more properly described as the South 30' of the north 104' of lots #35, 36, 37 of Parkway Subdivision as recorded in Liber 68, Page 67 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds; the south 40' of the north 104' of lots #38 and 39 of Parkway Subdivision as recorded in Liber 68, Page 67 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds; the north 40' of parcel #13P2a, the north 30' of lots #5, 6, 7 & 8 of Strathcona Gardens Sub- division, as recorded in Liber 69, Page 31 of the Wayne County Register 5475 of of Deeds; the north 30' of parcels #13M1 , 13M2, 13M4, 13M5, 13M6 and 13M7; the north 30' of parcel #13M3b; and the north 30' of parcels #13M8a, 8b, 9a1, 9b1 and 13M3d. and That part of the S.W. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Michigan more properly described as the north 30' of parcels #13K7a, Sal, 13K7b, 8a2 and 13K8b. and That part of the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, more properly described as the south 30' of the north 270' of parcel #24R; and the south 30' of lots #43, 49, 50, 51, 52; 90, 91 and 92 of Dutch Mill Gardens Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 68, Page 70 of the Wayne County Register of Deeds. and That part of the N.U. 1/4 of Section 24, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more properly described as the south 30' of lot #1 of Greenmoor Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 70, Page 26 of the Mayne County Register of Deeds. PROPOSED P-S ZONING That part of the S.E. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan more particularly described as lots #1, 2, & 3, except their north 30' , of Strathcona Gardens Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 69, Page 31, of the Wayhe County Register of Deeds. for the following reasons: )1) This additional rezoning will more closely parallel lot lines and not bisect the existing ownerships with two zoning categories. (2) The increased depth will ma_:e the commercial zoning in this area more acceptable and encourage a higher calibre of development. 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, 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. 5476 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated September 25, 1968 from Alto Building Company requesting a one-year extension on the preliminary plat for Tiffany Park Subdivision No. 4. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Tent, and unanimously adopted, it was #11-145-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated September 25, 1968 from Alto Building Company requesting a one-year extension on the preliminary plat for Tiffany Park Subdivision No. 4 located in the West 1/2 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request subject to all the conditions previously imposed on the development, for the following reason: (1) The plat has not been changed in design or concept. Section 6.07 (2) Subdivision Rules and Regulations states "The tentative approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year only from the date of the approving resolution unless the subdivider applies and obtains an extension of such period." Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the preliminary plat IL: approval for Bai-Lyn Subdivision No. 3 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimous- ly adopted, it was #11-146-68 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a p'..blic hearing having been held on Septee'= 17, 1968 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Bai-Lyn Subdivision No. 0 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the development in this sector of the City. (2) It is of sufficient design calibre to justify our approval, (3) It conforms to all the ordinance requirements of the City. FURTP_ER EESOLV LLD, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and ts; Recreatioc Department. Mr. Tent stated this ties in with the new Ordinance which allows us to have a 5477 variance on lots and questioned which lots are in questions. I Mr. Hull stated, lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are less in depth. Mr. Tent stated this matter was previously tabled because of the matter of the Ordinance and questioned if this has been resolved and has the Council approved the Ordinance amendment. Mr. Walker stated, yes. Mr. Walker, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the forego ng resolution is adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. t Jrightman, and unanimous- ly adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned its 199th Regular Meeting held on November 12, 1968, at approximately 11: 15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Harry Uri tman, S:0 etary ATTESTED: ( 54E)1,42) Z.O. alee-ided Charhls W. Walker, Chairman