HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-04-01 5555
MINUTES OF THE 0414th REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
Oh Tuesday, April 1, 1969, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia,
held its 204th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall,
33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Raymond W. Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately
8:30 p.m. which approximately 60 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Raymond W. Tent Charles W. Walker Harry Wrightman
Marvin Moser Donald Heusted Joel LaBo.
Robert Colomina
Members absent: Frank Santo
Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director;
Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner III; Robert Menzies, Planner III; Harry Tatigian,
City Attorney, and Daniel Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator, were pre-
sent.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-2 by
Groesbeck Corporation requesting to rezone property located on
the west side of Middlebelt between St. Martins and Bretton Road
in Section 2, from RUF to C-2.
1 Mr. Tent stated that letters in the file indicate there are no problems regard-
ing this petition at this time, but the plan is in violation of the Livonia
Mall Master Plan.
Mr. Charles Fox, 1020 Buhl Building, representing Groesbeck Corporation, stated
this rezoning is being requested in order for a tire company to erect a service
center and retail store on this site.
Mr. Floyd Yaki, Regional Sales Manager for General Tire & Rubber Company,
explained the proposal to erect a 20,000 square-foot building, half of which is
to be used for car service such as brake religning and wheel balancing and half
of which is to be used for sales.
Plans of the proposed development were presented to the Commissioners showing
elevations on Middlebelt and on St. Martins and also rental space for small
businesses.
Mr. Tent questioned what type of business are they considering for the small
businesses.
Mr. Yaki stated they can't define them as yet other than possibly architects or
some business of that sort. He stated they do not have •anything lined up as yet.
Mr. Tent questioned if they are contemplating commercial there and asked if
General Tire owns the property.
ILV Mr. Yaki stated they are purchasing the property subject to the rezoning.
Mr. Colomina questioned how another tire station can be justified when there are
three in the neighborhood now.
5556
Mr. Yaki stated the accumulation of businesses in the area gives citizens the
opportunity to shop. He said this station will have about 95% of what service
stations do not have including complete auto care under the car.
Mr. Tent questioned how he proposes to handle storage.
Mr. Fox stated there will be no outdoor displays and only indoor storage because
there is a larger area devoted toward storage than they usually put in.
Mr. Tent questioned how the advertising sign will be handled.
Mr. Yaki stated the sign will probably be about 12' x 8' square feet.
Mr. Tent asked how this compares with the ordinance.
Mr. Hull stated it looks like there might be a conflict.
Mr. Fox stated this could be reduced to whatever the ordinance dictates.
Mr. Walker stated that he is not convinced that the type of rental office space
the petitioner is speaking of would be compatible to the other use and he feels
the two should be completely separate. Also, he stated .there is an abundance of
stations in the City and enough to take care of the City's needs.
Harold Mashburn, 20505 Milburn, Chairman of Board of Trustees of Kenwood Church,
stated that some two years ago it was decided that the church would move out of
this location because it was going commercial. He stated they purchased a piece
of property on Merriman Road and put this property up for sale and have come to
an agreement with the petitioners which to the church is an advantage.
Mr. Tent stated that the Master Plan for this area shows and the Commission
believes that the best use for this area is commercial and now it has to be
determined if this is the best commercial use for the site.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. 'Trightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-3 by
David A. Perry, Attorney for Douglas E. and Rosalind D. Winfield,
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Farmington and Hubbard in Section 27, from C-2 to M-1.
Mr. Tent stated there are letters in the file from the Industrial Coordinator,
Consumers Power Company and Engineering Division stated they have no objections
in connection with this petition, but the Planning Commission has detected an
ordinance violation regarding setback.
Mr. David A. Perry, Attorney representing the petitioners, stated that Mr. William
Hume, Contract Purchaser, has lost his lease and facilities for Gulf Oil Company
and the property he has acquired is a house on Plymouth Road. He stated that
when the plans were drafted last fall the builder was not aware of the ordinance
requirements regarding setbacks, but they intend to go to the Zoning Board of
Appeals to allow a swing into the doors on the side yard. Mr. Perry stated the
business will be a frame and axle business and there will be an office in the
front with low windows.
5557
Mr. Tent requested to see the plans.
Mr. Perry stated they didn' t get the Department's letters until too late to
submit more drawings.
Mr. Nagy stated that one drawing was submitted and it is on the display board.
Mr. Perry explained the drawing to the Commission and stated there will be no
sale of gasoline.
Mr. LaBo questioned what their plans are for landscaping.
Mr. Perry stated there are no plans yet for landscaping but he has discussed this
with his client and he is now aware of the interests of the City.
Mr. Tent stated the Commission cannot authorize anything that is in conflict
with the Ordinance regarding setback.
Mr. Perry stated if the Zoning Board sees fit to grant a variance it will save
the petitioner expensive landscaping and allow more parking and he can' t do
anything now except say that he will agree to the 100' se back but he still
intends to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals on the setback.
Mr. Tent questioned what would happen now if the zoning waiver was denied for
the side lot restriction also.
Mr. Perry stated this building can be put on this lot and would comply with every
detail, but it would be more convenient with a variance. He stated he will
comply with whatever the Zoning Board wants so long as they get the zoning.
Mr. Urightman stated this would have to comply with all the ordinance require-
ments when it leaves here.
Mr. Perry stated he realizes that but he doesn't want the Commission to think
they intend to put the building some place where they don't intend to put it.
Mr. LaBo stated all he is interested in is getting a compromise that these people
intend to landscape the site.
Mr. Perry stated their landscaping will be better than other landscaping in the
area and the auto dealers in the area have indicated they would like Mr. Hume
there.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-4 by
Melvin Sachs requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Ann Arbor Trail east of Hix Road in Section 31, from R-1
to R-7.
Mr. Tent stated there are letters in the file from the Engineering Division,
Consumers Power Company and Wayne County stating they have no objection to this
petition.
5558
Mr. Melvin Sachs, 23630 Southfield, Lathrup Village, was present and stated
this request is actually an extension of an earlier request for rezoning which
was approved by the Commission and Council but vetoed by the Mayor. He stated
the petition tonight is not for the P.S. portion, but only for R-7, and the
quality of the development is exactly the same as before; the number of units
is the same but the balcony has been eliminated; it conforms to the setbacks,
parks requirement and other ordinances of the City. Mr. Sachs said this small
strip of property is absolutely impossible to develop under the zoning that
exists on it today and to include it with the existing R-7 is the only logical
use for the property.
Mr. Tent raised a question regarding the sizes of the units and a discussion
was held between Mr. Sachs and the Commission regarding this.
Mr. Tent stated a work sheet indicating the units and showing the square footage
is included as part of the file.
Mr. Urightman questioned if Mr. Sachs is asking for the rezoning of 51' because
it is part of his land.
Mr. Sachs stated it is part of his land but not developable.
Mr. t]rightman asked why it was not taken in at the time of the original rezoning.
Mr. Sachs stated he did not know.
Mr. L.^_Bo questior:::d if the 51' was purchased when Mr. Sachs purchased the
original site.
Mr. Sachs stated yes, it was purchased as one piece.
Mr. J. Murray, 38040 Richland, questioned where the parking will be.
Mr. Sachs stated there will be no parking in the front and there will be two
entrances coming onto the Trail.
Mr. Sam Knight, 38023 Richland questioned how many one and two bedroom units
are proposed and stated that he believes this will lower the market value of
his house.
Mr. Sachs stated there will be 26 two-bedroom units and 24 one-bedroom units.
He said he disagrees regarding the lowering of valuations; that these develop-
ments will be built exactly as shown on the plan and they have a building across
from the Livonia Mall that is one of the masterpieces of Livonia.
Mr. Tent stated there are many ordinance restrictions which these people will
have to adhere to which insures that this development will be a high-class
development.
Mr. Moser questioned if complaints had been received from the people directly
to the east.
Mr. Hull stated that Mr. Wira who lives immediately adjacent has sent a letter
objecting to this rezoning.
Mr. James P. Massey, 9750 Bassett Drive, questioned where the children living
here will go to school.
5559
Mr. Sachs stated it is not their intent to rent to children; there will be an
age limitation to college-age children, if any. He stated this development will
be FHA financed and in conformance with the ordinances of the City.
Mr. Urightman stated there is a-7 in the area now and could be developed now,
and that the amount of land here is only 51' which has very little bearing on
whether or not the apartments go up because they could go up now without
approval of the 51' . He stated the determination tonight is whether the extra
51' will greatly increase the density; Mr. Sachs says they will add six more
units.
Mr. Hull stated this would conform to the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Sachs stated the right-of-way has also been taken care of and has not been
used in the calculation.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-5 by
John E. Pakkala requesting to rezone property located on the
north side of Pembroke Avenue between Oporto and Melvin Avenues
in Section 2, from RUF to R-3.
Mr. Pakkala, 19831 Melvin, petitioner, was present and stated he would like to
have this rezoning to R-3 so he may use it for residential.
Cor Mr. Wrightman questioned how many more lots he expects to get.
Mr. Pakkala stated two 80' lots.
Mr. Tent stated that if he kept to a two instead of three, he will conform to the
other lots in the area.
Mr. Tent stated this would mean an R-5 category rather than R-3.
Mr. Pakkala stated he agrees to that.
Mr. Tent stated if the petition is amended to R-5 the zoning would be compatible
to the existing zoning.
Mr. Hull stated if he divides in half he would conform to the R-5.
Mr. Wrightman questioned how the dedication effects this petition.
Mr. Hull stated the Master Thoroughfare Plan should be re-evaluated; it calls for
86' for Pembroke which seems almost incongruous in this area.
Mr. Hull stated he sees no problems with the R-5 except for amending the Master
Thoroughfare Plan.
Nr. Tent questioned if Mr. Pakkala would be agreeable to amending and making two
lots instead of three.
Mr. Pakkala stated yes, he will agree to that.
5560
A resident, 19844 Doris, stated his objection to this split because Pembroke
is a street which has inadequate drainage and the yards in the area flood
continuously. Also, he stated one-half acre lots are desirable and he sees no
reason to split this property, and Oporto is not a road, it is a creek and there
will be no access to this property.
Mr. Hull stated that the rezoning does not automatically allow him to get a
building permit - he will have to conform to the City's ordinances regarding
access to the extent necessary so that he can obtain a building permit. All
these details will have to be resolved before he could get the permit.
Mr. Hull stated this would be exactly the same as the two lots to the west and
the two lots to the east.
Mr. William Berry, 30316 Navin, stated the water is backing up because the
culvert is too small .
Mr. Hull stated we have been informed that Drain #10 which is under way will
alleviate the problem in this area.
Mr. LaBo stated that if Mr. Berry has a drainage problem he should take it up
with the Council ; this is not the correct Board.
Mr. Pakkala submitted a letter to the Commission requesting that his petition
be amended so as to request a change of zoning to the R-5 category rather than
the R-3.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this petition.
Mr. Tent, Chair :an, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-2-5 by
John Kazanowski requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit
to construct a Class "C" liquor and restaurant establishment on
property located on the east side of Farmington Road south of
Schoolcraft in Section 27.
Mr. Tent stated that a review of the files indicates there are no engineering
problems but that the petitioner will be required to hook up to the storm sewer.
Mr. J. Kazanowski, 436 N. Vernon, Dearborn, stated he is being displaced by the
1-96 Freeway and wishes to relocate his bar on this site.
Mr. Wrightman questioned if Mr. Kazanowski is aware of the sewer connection.
Mr. Kazanowski stated this is the first he has heard of that.
Mr. Hull stated that MMr. Kazanowski has been sent a copy of the Engineering
Department's letter regarding this.
Mr. Walker questioned what size the remaining C-2 property will be after the
freeway goes in.
Mr. Hull stated he believes that after the taken line it will be about 100' in
IL, width,
Mr. Wrightman questioned if the remaining property will conform to the require-
ments of the ordinance,
5561
Mr. Hull stated yes, it will be a piece of land that would be acceptable.
Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Kazanowski has agreed to the landscape plan and there
are also some lighting requirements.
Mr. Kazanowski stated they are on the plan.
Mr. Walker questioned if Mr. Kazanowski will have a particular type of food in
his new place..,
Mr. Kazanowski stated he is going to try to have a place similar to what he
has now.
Mr. M. Katz, 19132 Appleton, Detroit, questioned if there are deed restrictions.
on this building.
Mr. Hull stated that as far as the restrictions that are levied by the City,
the gentleman has a full right to use his property for a commercial use and the
reason he is before the Commission tonight is that the Zoning Ordinance requires
special permission for the use he is requesting. He stated that deed restrictions
are levied by private people on the land and the City has no knowledge of these;
these restrictions will have to be taken up with the people and are a separate
matter.
Mr. Katz questioned if this will help him to break the restrictions on his
property.
Mr. Tatigian, City Attorney, stated that deed restrictions are matters of private
contract and not a matter for a governmental body. However, he stated, the fact
that this property may be zoned for C-2 purposes and deed restrictions limit it
to residential has bearing as to whether deed restrictions are broken or not; and
one way to break a deed restriction is simply to go and build something, or
another way is to take the case to court. Mr. Tatigian stated he chooses not to
render an opinion in this case because it is strictly a private concern.
Mr. Walker questioned if the reason for Mr. Katz' question is because his parcel
was up for sale and failed to sell because of the deed restrictions.
Mr. Katz stated yes, he tried to build and sell; also, he is paying commercial
taxes on it, and only wanted to know if the restrictions are broken for this
piece of property, are they broken for the whole subdivision.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-2-6 by
Ply-Van Corporation requesting to be granted a waiver of use
permit to construct and operate a gas station on property located
on the northwest corner of Plymouth and Levan Road in Section 29.
Mr. Tent stated there appear to be no problems with this petition other than
the fact that a sanitary sewer will have to be extended southerly according
to a letter from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer.
I
5562
Mr. Lester Burton, representing the petitioner, was present and stated they have
a plan to finish up this industrial development with three different buildings,
each of approximately 25,000 square feet. He said they wish to erect a service
1:0" station and the arrangement is not to sell this corner but lease it. He stated
they anticipate that 3,000 people will be employed in the development and the
Shell station will be built to receive sophisticated electronic equipment to
analyze automobile problems. He stated they do not know who will lease the
three buildings.
Mr. Tent stated Mr. Burton indicated that they would own the property and the
station and questioned if the Shell Oil Company would give him that much latitude
to operate the etati on as he r...,
Mr. Burton stated they are not. going to operate it; they will retain ownership
of the land so they will have something to say about how the station is maintained,
and it will be a ten-year lease.
Mr. Walker stated he believed Mr. Burton would build a fine station but he does
not believe this is a good location for it because of the fact that Levan Road
does not go through and because of the letting out of the shifts of Ford Motor
Company this intersection is highly dangerous. He stated he would rather see
Levan ';oad widened to its maximum width before such a high intensity use is put
in.
Mr. Burton stated this land has already been dedicated to widen Levan so that
when it is widened the land is there, and their layout provides access from the
property so the traffic situation will be alleviated to a considerable extent.
Mr. Walker stated that the traffic caused by the changing of the shifts cannot
be avoided no matter how the plans are.
Mr. Burton stated they anticipate 3,000 employees in this development who will
probably leave their cars here during the day and it is felt that a service
station here is a necessity to administer the needs to the cars and that it is a
convenience that will be welcome to the people working here.
Mr. Wrightman questioned if there was supposed to be a bank in here?
Mr. Burton stated they looked into that and there seems to be enough banks in the
area, but they did get a medical clinic. He stated the need for commercial was
overestimated and that is why they returned to industrial.
Mr. Daniel Andrew, Indestrial Development Coordinator, stated that Mr. Burton
and his comp : zy have cooperated 100% with the City in the development of the
industrial park. He said he is concerned basically because the traffic at ]Levan
and Plymouth could create a problem but if we do not permit him to build a gas
station here, what use could the land be put to.
Mr. Hull questioned the possibility of incorporating the area for industrial
purposes.
Mr. Tent stated the study on gas stations shows there are three in the area. He
stated that Mr. Burton is to be commended on this development but the Commission
feels additional stations are not helping the City, and the Commission's question
is also, what :e the )est use for the land. He questioned if perhaps Mr. Burton's
industrial could be revamped to incorporate the entire area.
5563
Mr. Burton stated that commercial-industrial is good planning even if there are
others with opinions to the contrary. He stated this would be the one station
of the three that really would administer to the needs of a car.
1::
Mr. Tent questioned if it is Mr. Burton's feeling that he could not economically
replot the area to use the land as has been indicated?
Mr. Burton stated that is his opinion.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-2 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Ordinance
No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding Article XXX, titled Site
Plan Review and Approval.
Mr. Robert Menzies, Planner III, familiarized the Commission with the proposed
amendment and stated that it will include review of commercial and industrial
developments.
Mr. D. Andrew stated he would like to suggest that Section .02(c) be amended to
include RUF zoning districts and that a clause be inserted excluding industrial
properties located in Sections 25 through 30 because this is the industrial belt
of the City of Livonia and is recognized as such and has been so designated on
the Master Plan. He stated he would be very strongly opposed to a site plan
review in this section of the community. Mr. Andrew stated that Section .03
should be expanded to include a time limitation as to how long City departments
have to act on a site plan and he would recommend this be a maximum of 15 days.
Mr. Andrew stated that one of the basic problems years ago was when an industrial
firm purchased property wanting to move in rapidly, a rezoning of the entire
industrial belt was executed. By this amendment, we are reverting to the point
of several years ago.
Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Andrew presently reviews the proposals and plans
with the staff.
Mr. Andrew stated, to a degree.
Mr. Hull stated he has no objection to what Mr. Andrew said and that the City has
not had growth problems in the industrial belt, but one of the areas the
Commission is concerned about is Eight Mile Road. Mr. Hull stated the City is
interested in making that development as compatible as possible to the existing
residential and his request would not in any way alter that -- it would only
alter the land in the Plymouth-Schoolcraft belt. He stated there is a high degree
of cooperating between the Industrial Department and Planning Department and if
they need advise to make development more compatible it can be worked out.
Mr. Tent stated, then Mr. Andrew has no objection if Section 25 through 30 is not
included.
Mr. Colomina stated there is residential across Schoolcraft that the Commission
1LW has an obligation to.
5564
Mr. (Talker stated he believed this is an honorable request but at the same time
the Commission has to consider that the fact that one industry for example, on
Merriman Road will come in and landscape and make a nice looking plan and a
neighbor won't. He stated the City has had complaints from industries as to why
something can' t be done about this, and the concern of the Planning Commission
is who in the City has control over how landscaping and finishing up an
industrial development is done.
Mr. Andrew stated it was his belief that the Inspection Bureau has done a
reasonable job in forcing landscaping of front yards and at one time the City
attempted by ordinance that the Parks & Recreation were to have a "shot" at the
landscaping of industrial buildings but this was denied by the Council
Mr. Walker questioned what happened to the buildings on Levan Road between the
railroad track and Plymouth Road? He said a businessman wanted to move out
because of the conditions there.
Mr. Andrew stated Mr. Walker is referring to the buildings and he would have to
agree with him.
Mr. Tent stated he would suggest that this item be taken back to a study and
Mr. Andrew's recommendations reviewed and the Commission would be happy to have
Mr. Andrew attend the session.
Mr. Andrew questioned the fact that there is no reference made in the way as to
Council's having a shot at this.
Mr. Hull stated they have the right to make that change in the ordinance but what
the Commission is trying here is to make administration as easy as possible and
to male it a technical process rather than a legislative process.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman stated the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-3 by the
City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 8.03
of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding a maximum
building height limitation for all buildings in the R-7 district
regulations.
Mr. Menzies outlined the proposed amendment and stated it was a correction in the
oversight of height limitations in the R-7 ordinance.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. idrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-4 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section
22.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify the
difference between a zoning compliance permit and a building permit.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
5565
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-5 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section
22.09 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to simplify the
procedure for obtaining a temporary certificate of occupancy.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-6 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section
2.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding para-
graph 19 to define the term "landscaping".
Mr. Menzies explained that this is a request by Mr. Andrew and and the staff
recommends that this definition of landscaping be added to the ordinance
specifying that the area between the sidewalk and curb in all industrial and
commercial districts be maintained by the property owner,
Mr. t7rightman questioned Mr. Tatigian as to whether the City would have any legal
ground to do this--to force a property owner to maintain publicly owned land.
Mr. Tatigian stated there are things presently done such as shoveling sidewalks
which is a consideration we may or may not have. He suggested the matter be
taken under advisement until the language can be studied.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
1.; Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. t•Trightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-7 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section
18.47 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify the
Planning Commission's control of the area and proposed buildings
in the Civic center vicinity.
Mr. Menzies explained that this is an amendment specifying the area under which
the Planning Commission has control by clarifying what is meant by "vicinity"
of the civic center and also to conform to Plan A which is the plan that was
approved in general by the City Council.
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Talker, seconded by Mr. Urightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-40-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the public hearing held on Tuesday, April 1, 1969, at approximately
10:40 p.m.
5566
Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 204th Regular Meeting to order at approximately
11:00 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 69-2-1-2 by
Groesbeck Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the
west side of Middlebelt between St. Martins and Bretton Road in
Section 2, from RUF to C-2.
Mr. Yaki, petitioner, stated the blue prints could be redesigned to show two
separate buildings.
Mr. Walker stated the Commission doesn' t know whether the land will stand that
intensity of use and if there are two separate buildings there is no way of
knowing what the other will be so how can the parking requirements be determined
and if the parcel could meet all the r^luirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Urilihtman questioned if the parking requirements for this type of business
has been established by ordinance.
Mr. Nagy stated this business has been classified as a service use and requires
one parking space for 500 square feet of useable floor area.
Mr. Walker questioned the advisability of . tal:ing the matter under advisement until
it is determined what the petitioner is talking about.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-41-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-1-2 as submitted by Groesbeck
Corporation requesting to rezone property located on the west
side of Middlebelt between St. Martins and Bretton Road in
Section 2, from RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-2-1-2 be
denied for the following reasons:
(1) This zoning is in conflict with the previously approved
master plan of the area.
(2) C-2 zoning in this area could adversely effect the possibility
of eccectuating the previously approved Livonia Mall Master
Plan which is in the best interests of the City And the area.
(3) This general area is already highly saturated with commercial
development and there is no need to increase the quantity of
this type of development in this area.
(4) The intended use specified in the rezoning petition has already
been duplicated several times in this general area and there
is no need to add an additional facility of this type.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
IL, published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of M .rch 16, 1969, 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.
5567
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-3
by David A. Perry, Attorney for Douglas E. and Rosalind D.
Winfield requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Hubbard in
Section 27, from C-2 to M-1.
Mr. Colomina questioned if the Commission has any concern regarding land-
scaping on this item.
Mr. Tent stated, no, this petition is in violation of Ordinance No. 543 regard-
ing front and side yard restrictions and if the Commission cannot be satisfied
that the building will be situated on the site legally then any action taken
to approve it will mean problems because of the violations. He stated the
Commission must have satisfaction that the petitioner complies with Ordinance
No. 543 or they have no reason to approve it.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Moser, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-1-3 as submitted by David
A. Perry, Attorney for Douglas E. and Rosalind D. Winfield
requesting to rezone property located on the northside of
Plymouth Road between Farmington and Hubbard in Section 27,
from C-2 to M-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recom-
mend to the City Council that Petition 69-2-1-3 be approved
for the following reasons:
(1) The intended use would not adversely effect adjacent
development.
(2) This is a relocation of existing facility within the
City to a more advantageous location where it can be
properly developed.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of March 12, 1969, 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: LaBo, Moser, Wrightman
NAYS: Colomina, Walker, Heusted, Tent
ABSENT: Santo
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the motion fails for lack of support.
Mr. Colomina stated he. would like the petitioner to show some plans showing
landscaping and what he is going to do before going to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mr. Tent questioned the City Attorney regarding the legality of tabling the matter.
•
•
5563
Mr. Tatigian stated that the motion was lost due to lack of support and
the Commission would have to have some positive action before transmitting it to
the Council, and insofar as tabling this matter, this is something a Commission
could do on its own motion or extend the courtesyto the
petitoner to see if he
agrees to that.
Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Perry if he would be willing.
Mr. Perry stated he has no objection with reservation--could it be acted on prior
to the Commission's next meeting? He stated his client is in a bind time-wise
and they would be able to bring in a plan which shows the landscaping-and what —
they would hope to do with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Perry questioned if
there would be an objection for the Commission to convene a special meeting after
they have studied the matter..
Mr. Tent stated there would be no meeting next week but one is scheduled for two
weeks.
Mr. Perry questioned his client regarding this and stated they have no objection
to that. ,
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-4 by
Melvin Sachs requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Ann Arbor Trail east of Nix Road in Section 31, from R-1 to
R-7.
•i
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-1-5 by
John E. Pakkala requesting to rezone property located on the north
side of Pembroke Avenue between Oporto and Melvin Avenues in Section
2, from RUF to R-3.
On a motion duly Made by Mr. talker, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-42-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated April 1, 1969 from John E.
Pakkala, petitioner, requesting to amend Petition 69-2-1-5, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to allow the petitioner to
amend his petition to reflect a change in zoning from the RUF category
. to the R-5 category, rather than the R-3 category.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
•
5569
#4-43-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-1-5 as submitted by John E. Pakkala
requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Pembroke
Avenue between Oporto and Melvin Avenues in Section 2, from RUF to
R-3; said petition having been amended to request a change of zoning
from RUF to R-5 pursuant to a letter dated April 1, 1969 from John
E. Pakkala, petitioner, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-2-1-5 as amended, be
approved for the following reasons:
(1) The reduction in zoning would only allow the creation of an
additional lot. The size of the two lots would be consistent
with the other lots throughout the general area.
(2) It is reasonable to allow the petitioner to divide his property
into two lots which are consistent with the land use pattern
of the area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of March 12, 1969, 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. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-2-5 by
John ICazanowski requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit
to construct and operate a Class "C" liquor and restaurant estab-
lishment on property located on the east side of Farmington Road
south of Schoolcraft in Section 25.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Tlrightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-44-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-2-5 as submitted by John Kazanowski
requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit to construct and
operate a Class "C" liquor and restaurant establishment on property
located on the east side of Farmington Road south of Schoolcraft in
Section 27, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 69-2-2-5 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) The petitioner has proper zoning and his development conforms
to all the requirements of the applicable ordinances.
(2) The development proposal is of sufficient calibre to justify the
Commission's approval.
IrL; (3) This is a proposal to replace an existing business that will
be demolished by the freeway and will not increase the number
of Class "C" liquor and restaurant establishments within our
City.
• 5570
subject to the following condition:
(1) That th.:. a;-eh_te,tural site and landscape plan, as approved
by :Lc Ca=__sz.on, he adhered to,
FURT I. 2ESCL ED, that .Lotice of the above public hearing was sent
to property o or7, within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments
as 1:'.st Proof of Service,
Mr. Tent, Chairma:,, de elerc_.d the otion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted,
Mr. Urightman anrounced t._:: n :::c. item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-2-6 by
Ply-Van Corporat_;n requesting to be granted a waiver of use permit
to construct a: d operate e gas station on property located on the
northwest carr:::- of ly7outh and Levan 'Roads in Section 29.
On a motion duly :':d: Ly ii_ Colo::i_na, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-45-69 RPSC'IJVEI that, ;,iI'_-suar.t to a public hearing having been held
on April 1, i969 on 1'^cic or. 69-2-2-6 as submitted by Ply-Van
Corporation :-r-7que ;ting to be granted a waiver of use permit
to constr:,ct ant or e.rate a gas station on property located on
the northwest corer of ilyraouth and Levan Roads in Section 29,
the Cit,' nn _'.n . Coeni7;sion does hereby recommend to the City
Council th_, c C9-2-2-6 be denied for the following reasons:
(l) Th_: p:-or,-ee :: would not be in harmony and appropriate
with thhe o7dcrl: development of the surrounding area.
(2) The -lea sic n and a_.ze of the proposed use, the nature and
i ntena iry c= h-: -_. .tcinal use and accessory uses, the
cite '_ayou : :L't i2 relation-hip to streets giving access,
shall he such ha he traffic to and from the use and
a.i sE'."'Ul f pa: in conjunction with the use, will be
ha a:_: o is _._.or..-_ ei:.pt to the area and will unduly
conflict with ti.•: normal traffic of the area.
(3) The proble:.1 Lffic at the intersection of Levan and
__i:_ cely hazardous and a use of this
typo l cC .: :1:ithe existing problem.
(Li-) There a. : _ieh similar type uses in very close
pro:-i ai . ,. to t..._ nits petitioned for, therefore, the
coed for eae type of service provided by this facility
h_--3 _ e ly been cj.pnlied
(5) c: _ 1'i`5 6 there were 22 service stations
loeatel head within the City of Livonia
and '!- adtition2l sere_re stations that have been closed
or co..ve_'-mac 1, i_t is rcadil an1,areet~that the
need for Ly.,-,;e oh facility has already adequately
`)c:,n tie . alarg this thoroughfare within the City.
5571
(6) The spirit and intent of the City in rezoning this land
for commercial use was to provide for industrially oriented
commercial development. We do not believe that the addition
of a service station is consistent with this intent,
(7) The concept of providing 3 gas stations at one intersection
is in violation of the spirit and intent of the Master Plan
of the City of Livonia.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of July 3, 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. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-2 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Ordinance
No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding Article XXX, titled Site
Plan Review and Approval.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-3 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section
8.03 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding a
maximum building height limitation for all buildings in the R-7
district,regulations.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-46-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-6-3 as submitted by the City Plan-
ning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to
amend Ordinance #543 (the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance) as
amended, by adding a maximum building height limitation for all
buildings in the R-7 District Regulations, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
69-2-6-3 be approved for the following reason:
(1) This is a necessary tool to regulate the orderly growth
and development of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of March 16, 1969, 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
ti; Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
5572
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-4 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section
1:
22.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify the
difference between a zoning compliance permit and a building permit.
,
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-47-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-6-4 as submitted by the Planning
Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend
Section 22,G. of the Ordinance No. 543, (Zoning Ordinance), to
clarify the difference between a zoning compliance permit and a
building permit, the City Planning Commission does hereby recom-
mend to the City Council that Petition 69-2-6-4 be approved for
the following reason:
(1) This is a necessary tool to regulate the orderly growth
and development of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of March 16, 1960, and notice of such hearing was sent to
the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company,
Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Consumers Power Company,
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the •notion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-4 by
the City Planning Commission on its own notion to amend Section 22.09
of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to simplify the procedure
for obtaining a temporary certificate of occupancy, .
On a motion duly made by ids. L Lo, seconded by Mr, Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-48-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-6-5 by the City Planning Commission
on its e:7n moti n to anend Faction 22.00 of Ordinance #543, the
Zoning Ordinance_, to nt_mrlify the procedure for obtaining a temporary
certificate of occuyInc , the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the Civ Council that ''etition 69-2-6-5 be approved for
the followingr^ason:
(1) This is a necass.nry tool to regulate the orderly growth
and de"aloor.r n.t the City.
FURTHER RESOI_;J?D, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the o i_cial newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of March 16, 1969, and notice of such hearing was sent to
the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company,
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company, and
IL City Departr_r::nts as listed in the Proof of Service.
5573
Mr. Tent, Chairman, dec' --~ed the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announcdd the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-6 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 2.10
I of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding paragraph
19 to define the term "landscaping".
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-7 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 18.47
of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify the Planning
Commission's control of the area and proposed buildings in the civic
center vicinity.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-49-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-6-7 as submitted by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 18.47
of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify the
Planning Commission's control of the area and proposed buildings
in the Civic Center vicinity, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-2-6-7 be
approved for the following reason:
(1) This is a necessary tool to regulate the orderly growth
IL
and development of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of March 16, 1969, 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, Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-12-8-3
(revised) requesting site plan approval for multi-family dwellings
to be located on Ann Arbor Trail, west of Wayne Road, in the
southeast1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Tent referred to letters contained in the file stating there is no objection
to this petition but in the Commission's study session there were several prob-
lems brought up.
Mr. B. Remer, 2313 Twelve Mile Road, Berkley, Michigan, was present and stated
their proposal is to construct four individual buildings of exterior masonry
brick with basements; that they will be two-story contemporary design with
to basements. There will be a total of 72 apartments, 40 two-bedroom units and 32
one-bedroom units with parking as shown on the plan. He also stated there is a
one-to-one carport ratio,
5574
Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Reiner is agreeable to supplying detailed landscaping plan
within six months after approval which will be as indicated and installed within
a year-and-a-half after building permit is applied for.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-50-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
8.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
having reviewed Revised Site Plan #69-61 -dated February 28, 1969,
for a multi-family development proposed to be constructed on Ann
Arbor Trai, west of Wayne Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32,
does hereby grant approval to Petition 68-12-8-3 (as revised) subject
to the following conditions:
(1) That a detailed landscaped plan be approved by the Commission
within six months after site plan approval is granted.
(2) That landscaping be installed as indicated on the approved
revised plan within one-and-one-half years after a building
permit has been applied for.
for the following reasons:
(1) It is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval.
(2) It conforms to all the ordinance requirements of the City
of Livonia.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-3-5-1 by
Jack B. Anglin requesting to remove topsoil from property located
at the northeast ccrner of Six Mile and Newburgh Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated there are letters in the file from the Engineering
and Police Division regarding this permit and making recommendations.
Mr. Wrightman questioned how long Mr. Anglin proposes to take soil out.
Mr. Anglin, petitioner, stated he believed he could get it out in six months but
would like the permit until November 15, 1969.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted., it was
#4-41-69 RESOLVED that, in conformance with Section 18.13D of Ordinance No. 543,
the Zoning Ordinance, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Petition 69-3-5-1 by Jack B. Anglin requesting to remove topsoil
from property located at the northeast corner of Six Mile and Newburgh
Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, subject to compliance with
regulations of the Engineering Division and Police Department, until
November 15, 1969, for the following reasons:
5575
(1) It is necessary for the additional time so the petitioner
may consummate his topsoil operation in this area.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant shall have deposited '
with the City Clerk a corporate surety bond in an amount
not less than $20,000 and a cash bond in an amount not less
than $2,000; such bonds shall be for an indefinite period
until released and discharged by resolution of the City
Planning Commission; and further that the applicant shall
apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within
thirty (30) days from the date of this letter.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated
March 11, 1969 from David N. Hoffman requesting an extension
of waiver use (Petition 68-3-2-4) approval to erect a new
church on property located on the northside of Seven Mile
Road, west of Osmus, in Section 3.
On a motion duly made by Mr. [Talker, seconded by Mr. T?rightman, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-52-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated March 11 , 1969 from
David Hoffman for Jehovah Witness Church requesting an extension
of waiver use (Petition 68-3-2-4) approval to erect a new church
on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, approx-
imately 120 feet west of Osmus in Section 3, the City Planning
Commission does hereby determine to grant an extension for a
period of one year, such approval to expire on April 1, 1970,
for the following reason:
(1) The conditions relating to the original approval of
this petition have not changed and there is no logical
reason to deny it.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated March 1,
1969 from Willard E. Lockwood requesting an extension of waiver use
approval, Petition #66-4-2-9 requesting to perate a fruit market
on the west 1/2 of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7 of Horton's Newburgh
Subdivision located on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh Road and Horton Avenue in Section 31.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
adopted, it was
5576
#4-53-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated March 1, 1969 from
Willard E. Lockwood requesting an extension of his waiver use
(Petition 66-4-2-9) approval to operate a fruit market on the
west 1/2 of Lot 6 and all of Lot 7 of Horton's Newburgh Sub-
division situated on the north side of Ann Arbor Trail between
Newburgh Road and Horton Avenue in Section 31 , the City Plan-
ning Commission does hereby determine to grant an extension
for a period of one year, such approval to expire on June 20,
1970, for the following reason:
(1) This is a good logical inter .m use for the commercially
zoned property
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the final plat
approval for Kenwood Park Subdivision proposed to be located on the
south side of Plymouth Road, west of Yale, in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 32.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-54-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the final plat for Kenwood Park Subdivision
located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32, be given final plat
approval for the following reasons:
I
(1) All the financial obligations of the City have been met.
(2) It conforms to 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 on October 10, 1967; and it further appear-
ing 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 29,
1968; and it further appearing that the financial assurances as
required in Council Resoltuion #530-68 adopted on May 22, 1968
and #209-69 adopted on February 26, 1969, have been filed with
the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated March 20, 1969
from Addision W. Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear
that all conditions necessary to the release of building permits
have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the final plat
approval for Judson Gardens Subdivision #3 proposed to be
located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously
adopted, it was
5577
#4-55-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the final plat for Judson Gardens Sub-
division #4, located in the Northeast l/4 of Section 17, be given
final plat approval for the following reasons:
(1) All the financial obligations of the City have been met.
(2) It conforms to 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 on July 2, 1963; and it further appearing
that said proposed plat together with plans and specifications
for improvements therein have been approved by the Department
of Public ?forks, Engineering Division, under date of January 14,
1969; and it further appearing that the financial assurances as
required in Council Resolution #77-69 adopted on January 22, 1969,
have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated
March 5, 1969 from Addision U. Bacon, City Clerk, it would there-
fore appear that all conditions necessary to the release of build-
ing permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby
so notified.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
is adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-3-8-1
requesting site plan approval for K-Mart development proposed
(ito be located immediately adjacent to Wonderland Shopping Center
in Section 35.
Mr. Tent questioned if the itemsthat were discussed have been complied with.
Mr. Hull stated the Department has reviewed the site plan and as far as they
are concerned it is totally and completely adequate and satisfactory but the
suggestion was made to resolve a problem to grant a degree of flexibility so
that the building could be moved back if necessary.
Mr. Tent questioned if the parking requirement is satisfied.
Mr. Hull stated yes, they had an excess on the original plan; now they have
less but sufficient spaces to conform to the Ordinance; that is the prupose
for the flexibility in moving the structure back.
Mr. LaBo questioned if the 5' greenbelt has been taken care of.
Mr. Hull stated, yes.
Mr. Tent raised a question regarding the right-of-way.
Mr. Hull stated the City does not have that and the Deeds are in the file. He
stated the petitioner's do not own the right-of-way; it is still in the owner-
ship of the original landowner.
Mr. Tent asked how it could be resolved.
5578
Mr. Hull stated it would be difficult to resolve it with the people we are
dealing with but there is a landowner here tonight. (Mr. Hull indicated Mr.
s
Goodman).
Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Goodman regarding the dedication on Plymouth Road.
Mr. Goodman stated he cannot mane a statement but will carry this information
back to the principals involved and get back to the Commission as soon as he
can.
Mr. Tent questioned how the retaining wall can be resolved.
Mr. Daniel Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator, stated that has been
taken care of; in 1968 the County made a split on the property and there is no
need for the wall and it will be the obligation of Wonderland if they ever t
develop that property.
Mr. Hull added that this site is 350' north of that line.
Mr. Walker requested to know then if we have landlocked a large parcel of land
and stated it is his feeling that it is the obligation of the property owner
to tell the Commission what his future plans are for this land.
Mr. Andrew stated this land is not landlocked; there is ingress and egress to
it from the east.
Mr. Tent questioned if Wonderland could use that property for anything such as
storage.
Mr. Nagy stated, not outside storage.
Mr. Tent questioned if they would be obligated to put up a wall between them
and K-Mart.
Mr. Nagy stated they would be required to build a wall on any portion of their
lot abutting residentially zoned land.
Mr. Walker stated that if the future use of this land is proposed for commercial
the citizens in back of it deserve some consideration.
Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Hull as to the thoughts of the Department.
Mr. Hull stated it is his belief that this is a logical adjunct to Wonderland
Shopping Center and he doesn't think it would be used for residential purposes.
He stated if it is developed, access should come from the commercial land.
Mr. Walker requested to know if it could be conceived that a successful business
could go in on a piece of property that is completely surrounded.
Mr. Hull stated that some types of commercial or office developments would not
need :visual impact and he would be surprised if it were developed for anything
but commercial or professional.
Mr. Goodman stated the property is owned by H. Alper and A. Greene and he felt
that it certainly would be commercially developed.
r
5579
Mr. George Walley, 9951 Oporto, President of Devonnaire Civic Association,
stated he objects to the petition. He said the streets are not suited
for a K-Mart; Henry Ruff is not a through street and the residents do not
want it to go through.
Mr. Wittbold, Gershenshen Corporation, stated they purschased this property
from A. Greene Associates and are in for approval of a site plan on property
which they own, and the property has been divided and he doesn' t see where
the talk of the wall is germaine to this petition.
Discussion was also held regarding dedication of right-of-way.
Mr. Wittbold questioned if it is possible to approve the site plan conditioned
upon receipt of dedication.
Mr. Tatigian stated the Commission has done this in the past and he thinks this
is a reasonable request.
Lengthy discussion was held regarding the wall Mr. Walker stated he would like
Mr. Hull to take a good look at this to determine what the Department could do
to find out from the owners what their future use for this property is and
what can be done about the wall.
Mr. Hull stated the commission might ask Mr. Goodman to sit in at a study
session to dicuss this.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightmarl, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted it was
#4-56-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 11.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance,
as amended, does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-3-8-1 requesting site plan approval for a K-Mart
development proposed to be located immediately adjacent to
Wonderland Shopping Center in Section 35, be approved subject
to adherence to Site Plan A-4a and dedication of a thirty-three
(33) foot right-of-way on Plymouth Road to the City of Livonia,
for the following reasons:
(1) It is of sufficient calibre to justify Commission approval.
(2) It conforms to all the applicable ordinances of the City.
Mr. Tent, at this time, gave the Quit Claim Deeds for above mentioned dedication
to Mr. Goodman.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#4-57-69 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meeting held by the City Planning
Commission on February 4, 1969 are hereby approved.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
5580
On a motion duly made by Mr. ?rightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimous-
ly adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned their 204th Regular Meeting
held on April 1, 1969, at approximately 12:34 a.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Harry t)righ =n, Secrc Try
ATTESTED:
ja. //eZe-
Raymo Ul. Tent, Chairman