HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-08-12 5658
MINUTES OF THE 208th REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, August 12, 1969, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 208th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall,
Mr. Raymond Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately
8:20 p.m. with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience.
Members Present: Raymond W. Tent Robert Colomina
Harry Urightman Donald Heusted
Frank Santo Charles Walker
Members Absent: Marvin Moser H. Dow Tunis
Joel LaBo
Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director
and Robert Menzies of the City Planning Department; Harry C. Tatigian, City Attorney
and Dan Andrew, Industrial Coordinator were present.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-21 by
William Ponder, attorney for Leonard J. Hyman, requesting to rezone
property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Middle-
belt in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 12 from RUF to C-2.
1[1'4044
Mr. Tent stated that a letter dated July 2, from Mr. Strasser advises that the
petition, as submitted, contains an incorrect legal description and that a substan-
t
ial portion of the area involved is the Tarabusi Flood Plain. On July 3rd, Mr.
Hull wrote to Mr. Ponder advising him that the petition was in error and a new
legal description was needed; also that the rear 1/2 of the areain the petition
lies in the Tarabusi flood plain, further suggesting a revised site plan was need-
ed and should be submitted with the petition. The file shows that on July 11th
the petition was amended, to show a new description, but as far as a site plan and
the Tarabusi problem, this remained unanswered. A letter from the Wayne County
Road Commission, dated July 30th, 1969, advised that no right-of-ways are needed.
Mr. Tent asked if petitioner was present.
Mr. Ponder was present in behalf of the petitioner, who is the Memorial Park Rest
Haven, Inc.
Mr. Tent asked if this is a new corporation who has purchased the cemetery.
Mr. Ponder replied, yes. He explained the petition; that the property in question
is at Six Mile on the south and Middlebelt on the west, being the northeast corner.
He stated that the corporation owns the entire cemetery property which is 67 acres,
the petition only covers approximately 20 acres. He went on to discuss the history
of the property; i. e. the cemetery is 45 years old; at the time it was set down
as such all areas around were farmlands. He added that because of the expansion
of the City over the years he feels that this is no longer the best use for the
land, its best use would be for commercial purposes. He advised that there have
101.
been no burials in this area. Mr. Ponder stated that if successful in this zoning
petition, petitioner has been negotiating with several commercial business enter-
prises of general nature„ as well as offices, etc. ; however, added that no one
has been tied down to a firm commitment.
5659
Mr. Ponder stated, in answer to Mr. Strasser's letter, regarding the Tarabusi
drain that this is one of the older drains, part of the Master Storm Drainage
Plan of the City; he further advised that petitioner realizes the problem and
IL: would work out a solution to the drain, i. e. it could be tiled, re-routed, etc.
In any event he assured the Commission it would be taken care of.
Mr. Tent asked if the new owner has had the property for approximately 1 to 2 years
Mr. Ponder replied, yes; the property was in litigation several times but this
was with the prior owners and not the petitioner.
Mr. Tent stated that the area is a swamp area; there is a tremendous drainage and
flood plain problem. He added that the Tarabusi drains out the entire subdivision
area. He stated that the area cannot be completely filled, petitioner will need
a revised plan. He further stated that petitioner has suggested methods to handle
the problem but advised that you do not build on flood plain land.
Mr. Ponder advised the Commission that the Livonia Mall was rezoned and the City
tiled the drain; again stating that the drain problem would be resolved probably
by tiling it in.
Mr. Tent asked if a gas station was in the plan for the corner; went on to discuss
the problems created in this petition.
Mr. Ponder stated that petitioner could not build even if the zoning is passed.
Mr. Tent wanted Mr. Ponder to know that this drainage is of concern to everyone
in the area; that the Commission is aware of this and wanted petitioner to also
be aware of it.
Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner is interested in continuing the cemetery in the
north portion of their land and will they continue to bury in the north?
Mr. Ponder advised that the map shows the border line to the north. He stated
that north of the line would be cemetery; no cemetery to the south of the line.
Mr. Ponder and the Commission had a discussion regarding the ise of the land
immediately north of that set out in the petition.
Mr. Wrightman stated he was sure that when petitioner purchased the land they knew
it was designated as a cemetery; that something has attracted them to change the
use of the property and he would like to know what and why?
Mr. Ponder stated that when the land was purchased nothing was said to the effect
that the entire parcel had to be used as a cemetery, again advising that the best
use for the City and his client is as requested in the petition.
Mr. Wrightman asked what is needed more; cemetery space or business - adding that
its present use is necessary to the City.
Mr. Tent stated that you cannot build on this type of land; he discussed Wonder-
land, the Livonia Mall and other shopping centers - adding that petitioner has
omitted too much from the site plan. He asked if the petitioner had a market
survey which shows that the City needs this use.
Mr. Ponder again stated that they feel that for the City and the petitioner the
zoning as requested is the best use of the property; the land is not taxable at
present and would bring in high taxes if rezoned.
5660
Mr. Walker asked what the actual acreage is. On the legend of the plan it states
15.7 acres; Mr. Ponder is talking about 20 acres.
Mr. Ponder stated that is as shown on the site plan; 15.7 acres.
Mr. Walker continued that Mr. Ponder stated that the entire cemetery parcel is
67 acres and a portion is not going to be further developed as cemetery. He
asked if the exact acreage could be determined so the Commission can figure what
exactly is to be used as commercial acreage.
Mr. Ponder advised that he thinks about-35 acres; they want to develop all of the
property, not as a cemetery - their thinking is a cemetery to the north, apartments
in the middle and the shopping center to the south.
Mr. Wrightman stated that the Commission in order to make a decision must determine
the boundary lines between remaining cemetery property and what the petitioner
proposes to use for a different purpose; if there is a question of not using
flood plain area petitioner has overdeveloped and his plan would have to be
reduced if the problem could not be resolved with the Engineering Department;
he felt that these matters have to be worked out before the Commission can give
the petitioner an answer._on the zoning - adding that they are talking about
approximately 1/3 of the property lying in the flood plain. He added that he wants
to know just what is to be taken from the cemetery.
Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Ponder had seen the site plan presented prior to the meeting
adding that with Mr. Ponder's experience before the Commission and with the City
he could not believe he would present such an incomplete plan.
Mr. Ponder replied, yes - he had seen the plan, further stating that they had
thought the problems discussed were problems to be taken care of outside of the
zoning petition, that the Commission has brought them in as part of the petition.
Mr. Wrightman stated if they are looking at the zoning they should look into the
entire amount of land they are desirous of changing so the Commission can make
an intelligent decision on the petition. .
Mr. Ponder said he would like to hear from the Planning Department on any require-
ments, etc.
Mr. W. R. White, a resident across the road stated that he has paid taxes for 37
years on his vacant land; pro-ratio of the taxes were questioned if the zoning
change is passed. He added that Mr. Ponder was referring to the creek passing
under the Livonia Mall being the same as that in the property in question. Mr.
White advised that the creek does not pass under the Mall - it is further west of
that land. He stated that in the Spring it is 30' wide and sometimes it rises
to the bottom of the bridge in the area. He objected to the petition, adding
that if cemetery land cannot be taken for a highway, how can you take it for
commercial purposes.
Mr. Tent asked Mr. Hull, as land now stands, is petitioner paying any taxes.
Mr. Hull replied, no.
Mr. Ponder stated that under the law, petitioner does not have to.
Mr. Hull stated it has to do with the status of the land not the zoning; it is
designated a cemetery.
5661
Mr. Wrightman asked Mr. White what his land is zoned.
Mr. White replied, farmland.
There was a short discussion of the history of the lands and the zoning, taxes,
etc. Mr. Walker advised Mr. Wh..te that he should know that the Commission is fully
aware of the taxation question, that petitioner does not pay same, and this has
been taken into consideration.
A resident who lives directly opposite the area on Six Mile, stated that the
Tarabusi goes directly through her property. Her husband wanted to fill the land
in and were denied their request because it is a flood plain and were told it
could never be done because of what would happen to all the people along the drain
area.
Mr. Tent assured her that the Commission is concerned about the petition and all
suggestions and remarks are taken into consideration. He stated this matter
would not be acted on tonight as there is too much to be worked out on the petition.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-1-22 by
Joseph and Shirley Donnini requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Plymouth Road, west of Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4
of Section 13, from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter dated July 15, 1969 in the file from Mr. Strasser
stating that additional parking would be required and that no drainage is available
for such parking area. Further, there is the necessity of a right of way for
t widening Plymouth Road.
Mr. Tent asked if petitioner was present.
Mr. Donnini stated that the drainage is in the back and that the 27' easement has
already been given and is in the hands of the County.
Mr. Tent stated they would need a quit claim deed.
Mr. Donnini and the Commission had a short discussion about prospective renters
changing their minds due to the fact the property is zoned Cµ1 instead of C-2.
Mr. Tent stated that a site plan is needed.
Mr. Donnini advised the buildings are already on the land; one rented as a party
store, the other as a Quick Printing operation.
Mr. Tent stated the area is zoned C-i; to zone to C-2 the petitioner would have to
show a definite need, i.e. for a specific type of business. The Commission must
know why.
Mr. Wrightman stated petitioner has buildings on the property; must be aware of
what is allowed in C+41.
Petitioner referred to a prospective future restaurant as an example.
i
5662
Mr. Donnini stated he now has two units, 25 x 65, and they are rented as aforesaid
but .he wants greater flexibility in finding renters when his stores are vacant.
Mr. Urightman advised petitioner what he is requesting is spot-zoning. He went
on to discuss the location of the buildings, the parking that exists, the fact
that the present tenants come under C-1 zoning and asked if petitioner would
have enough area to sustain the parking requirement under C-2?
Petitioner replied, yes.
it
Mr. Tent asked if petitioner had C-2 what he would use/for, also stating that for
his present use C-1 is sufficient. He stated for a zoning change petitioner must
show the Commission what he will use the land for and how it will be developed.
Mr. Hull advised the Commission that originally, this petitioner went before the
Zoning Board of Appeals as he was contemplating a lithographing operation, which
would need C-2. He added that now the use is nothing more than a duplicating
process which would call for only C-1.
Mr. Tent advised petitioner that the matter stands at this meeting there is no
problem they can see, both stores are occupied and there is no need for a change.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-1-23 by
John F. Dooley, attorney for Gil Investment Company, Inc., requesting
to rezone property located on the north side of Schoolcraft Road,
east of levan, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20, from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent advised there is a letter in the file dated July 21, 1969 stating there
are no problems except developer will be required to extend the storm sewer and
Sanitary sewer.
Mr. Dooley, representing petitioner, stated that the extension of the sewers
would be no problem, petitioner would take care of this. He stated that it was
their intention to build a gasoline station on the corner and were only asking that
150' x 160' be rezoned. He showed the Commission a sketch of the proposed gasoline
station; advised that any modification requested by the Planning Department would
be met, petitioner has adequate land to readjust, the design so it is compatible
with the adjacent neighborhood.
Mr. Tent advised that the Commission receives many requests for stations as well
as for permission to have 'side lines'" with the gas stations such as trailers
and other equipment stored for rent, etc. because the gas station business alone
is not enough to survive. He asked if petitioner intended to sell gasoline solely.
Mr. Dooley stated that there are two oil companies that stick to selling gasoline,
Boron (Standard Oil of Ohio) and Standard Oil.
Mr. Tent advised Mr. Dooley that the station at Farmington and Plymouth Road is
a Citron Station; that it is covered with trailers, etc.
Mr. Dooley advised Mr. Tent that Citron is only a distributor for Standard Oil.
That Mr. Tent will not find Standard or Boron stations selling anything but gas
oline.
5663
Mr. Wrightman stated he is not interested so much in whether or not the corner
is suitable, he is concerned about the outlot which is not developed; what will
become of that if this petition is approved.
Mr. Dooley advised that the rest of the land is C-1 and will be used by Gil
Investment Company, the owner, for C-1 purposes or they may consider coming before
the Commission and turn it into P.S. He assured the Commission petitioner would
not ask for C-2, it would be either C-1 or P.S.
Mr. Wrightman stated that the residents are the ones who suffer when outlots are
developed improperly, they can have a deteriorating effect on the adjacent area.
Mr. Walker agreed with Mr. Wrightman's thinking stating that when a cornier such
as this is developed, if it is not a high class development it would/compliment
the high priced homes in the area. He asked if a gas station would encourage
development around it.
Mr. Dooley stated the southwest corner of Six Mile and Farmington..is an example
of this type complex.
Mr. Santo advised Mr. Dooley that this is a poor example - the architect was
to build a beautiful building there because of the Burton Hollow Subdivision
which is adjacent thereto, it being one of the better residential sections of the
City. He stated that nothing was done to improve the neighborhood, it was the
complete opposite; it has not been kept up, weeds and debris etc. have been allowed
to get worse and worse. He advised Mr. Dooley that this was a very poor example
if this is the type development he has in mind.
Mr. Dooley stated that no one has ever come up with an idea for the property in
question. He added they are only talking about 150' x 160' and if the Commission
grants this petition he guarantees he will bring in a development plan for the
rest for C-1, unless the Commission prefers P.S. adding that if the Commission will
give him some indication of what they will do on this petition he will bring in
plans for the balance of the land.
Mr. Tent stated the question is, is the gas station a compatible use for this land.
Mr. Tent asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard on this petition.
Mrs. Norman, 35998 Milburn, stated that they fought apartments and would like this
property to remain as is.
Mr. Walter Juras, 36039 Scone, stated that the traffic load is high at this corner;
called the attention of the Commission to the fact that I-96 would have its last
access off the freeway at this point before Six Mile Road. He discussed the
surrounding developments, i.e. college, Chevrolet Parts, etc. He stated this will
be prime road because of the left turn arteries the traffic should be observed
after completion of the 1-96. Then the Commission should consider what can be
done with the corner. He further suggested that at that time the Commission
should get the complete thinking of petitioner instead of just "one cut of the pie`.
Mr. Tent advised the audience that petitoner is entitled to petition for a change
at any time, it is his right. It is then up to the Commission to decide.
Mr. Jerry Wilson, President of Meadowview Civic Association, speaking for 6 Civic
Associations in the area, stated that the general concensus of the people is they
are against the gas station. They agree the corner should be developed but do
5664
not feel a gas station is the answer. If the Commission deems it necessary, they
will petition against any gas station.
Mr. Richard Kukula, a resident discussed the expressway and the service drive
and its effect on the setback; where it would put the proposed gas station; etc.
Mr. Tent advised him that these are the problems the Commission must evaluate.
Mr. Dooley asked to be heard again. He stated he does not agree with the gentle-
man (Mr. Kukula) about the petition interfering with the service drive adding
that if it does he can move it back, again stating that if the matter is taken
under consideration he will come back with a proposal for the entire parcel.
Mr. Tent advised Mr. Dooley that he did not want to encourage him to go along
with the gas station; that Mr. Dooley has heard the wishes of the people and
the objections; however, if he has other plans to bring for, he may do so.
Mr. Tent asked if anyone else in the audience wished to be heard on this petition.
There was no one else.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-3-4
by Joseph C. Desiato requesting the vacation of an alley located
parallel with Seven Mile Road from Harrison to Deering, in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 12.
Mr. Tent stated that a letter in the file from Detroit Edison stated they would
not object to vacation of the alley but would like a 20' wide easement retained
11:
to protect their equipment in the area. He also stated there is a letter dated
July 17, 1969 from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer objecting to the petition and to
vacating the alley, until the Seven Mile Road right-of-way requirements have been
satisfied.
Petitioner was present and advised the Commission that because of the alley he
cannot erect the type of building he needs. He discussed his needs with the
Commission.
Mr. Wrightman advised him that because of the 20' easement he could not build on
the alley even if it were vacated.
Mr. Tent stated that the Commissioners had walked and checked out the area. He
said that Seven Mile Road has traffic congestion; there is inadequate parking to
service buildings at the front.
Petitioner stated that there is no alley there now - only telephone poles.
Mr. Damuth, who has a real estate office next to petitioner, 28221 Seven Mile,
stated there is no easement or poles along there - the poles go north and south.
Mr. Tent again..stated the letter from Edison Company requires the 20' easement
There was a short discussion about the requirements of a right of way and the
remaining depth of the lot.
Mr. Damuth stated his garage is right on the alley and has been for many years.
He was advised that he is in violation.
5665
Mr. Robert Dowdy, owner of Lot 19, stated that he needs the alley for access to
the back of his building; parks 4 cars - he cannot park in the front; further
stating that the alley is used by trash commercial pick-ups. He objected to the
petition.
A resident who is owner of Lots 20, 21 and 22, agreed with Mr. Dowdy that she
would not have access to the back of her property.
Mr. Colomina asked what type of building petitioner would require.
Mr. Desiato stated he is an optician and wanted an office.
Mr. Tent asked what real estate office Mr. Damuth was with.
Mr. Damuth replied, Hallmark.
Mrs. Grant, who stated she has a home on Gilman, stated there is an alley but
you cannot see it; does not see why it is needed. She added that Edison has never
come into the alley.
There being no one else to be heard, Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would
be taken under advisement.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-2-13 by
Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association requesting a
waiver use permit to erect an office building on property located
on the west side of Middlebelt between Wentworth:. and Five Mile
Goad in Section 14.
Mr. Tent advised there is a letter dated June 11, 1969 from Mr. Strasser in the
file advising there is no storm sewer available for surface drainage, the owner
must extend 200' of storm sewer. He stated the Site Plan conforms to the zoning
ordinance and there are no other problems.
Mr. Tom O'Connor, an employee of Lindhout Associates was present to represent
petitioner. He advised the building would serve as headquarters for the admini-
strative staff, and advised the Commission what the staff is comprised of. He
added the building is maintenance free and advised the commission the material
it would contain. He stated this type of operation has very little traffic; the
most would be a board meeting which means 20 members at maximum and parking is
adequate for this.
Mr. Tent stated this is the same petitioner and parcel which came before the
Commissioner a few weeks ago for P.S. zoning and they are now requesting the
waiver use permit. Mr. Tent asked if the site plan shown tonite is the same
which was presented before.
Mr. Hull answered yes adding that this petition should be held up and coordinated
with the zoning petition, to go through Council at the same time. Zoning changes
generally take approximately 6 months and waiver use permits 3 months.
Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner is aware of requirements for storm drainage.
Mr. O'Connor answered, yes. He stated they had started with a larger building
and have cut it down to handle the matter.
Mr. Tent asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard on this petition.
There was no one.
5666
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-2-16
by the Cheyenne Building Company requesting to be granted a waiver
use permit to erect a restaurant on property located on the north
side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge in Section 14.
Mr. Tent stated that the file disclosed no engineering problems, however, there
are several zoning violations, i.e. insufficient parking, no masonry wall on the
north side of the building, etc.
Mr. Robert Coops, attorney for petitioner, stated that petitioner wants to install
a restaurant in one of the three buildings to be erected. He stated that with
regard to the masonry wall, petitioner will erect same. He added that there have
been several conferences with Mr. Hull and petitioner, stating that petitioner is
desirious of cooperating with the City.
Mr. Tent advised Mr. Coops that as a resident of Livonia himself he must be
concerned as is the Commission with shopping centers and their development and
maintenance.
Mr. Coops agreed with Mr. Tent and stated they want to go along with the City and
meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance; there was a discussion regarding
the landscaping of the present shopping center, as well as the proposed; he was
advised by Mr. Tent that nothing appeared on the site plan which has been sub-
mitted by the petitioner i_nthe way of landscaping.
Mr. Coops stated that petitioner is not adverse to beautifying this area; that
this is not a run-down area, nor is it the same type of shopping center as Seven
Mile and Middlebelt as they are limited in funds.
4
Mr. Tent reminded Mr. Coops that taxes had been reduced; Mr. Coops in reply stated
that they were reduced because the land was over-assessed, not because it was run
down. Mr. Coops stated that petitioner had agreed to put in trees and shrubbery
as well as the wall (masonry) in the back; a wall of trees had been suggested
for the rear but petitioner feels this would be difficulat with the present wall
situation.
Mr. Tent asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to be heard on this
petition.
Mr. Richard Aaron representing the home owners association in the area, stated
they felt the shopping center is a mess; they are not against the restaurant or
three buildings if it will improve the shopping center but if they put in land-
scaping as requested and do not maintain same it would just be a problem.
Mr. Coops agreed with the Président of the Civic Association that the development
would be an improvement over the existing weeds in that area.
At this point in the meeting Mr. Tent had the Planning Department show slides
taken of the area in question. They were taken of all areas, showing debris,
partial walls, weeds, etc.
•
5667
Mr. Coops stated he could only say his clients are not the tidiest in the world.
He had seen the .shopping center from west to east through the parking lot and
advised the Commission they had certainly done a more thorough job. He stated
the area would be cleaned of debris, petitioner would take care of the landscaping
and wished to continue with the City on the beautification. He added, however,
that some of the tenants themselves the petitioner has little control over.
Mr. Tent stated that petitioner owns the property and they should take care of the
area or see that it is done.
Mr. Coops stated they will complain and if tenants fail to clean it up, the
petitioner will do 100% of the landscaping of the area; they will take care of
this; they will get together with the City Planning Department on this.
The City Planning Department showed petitioner a mounted print of what is suggested
by the City Planning Department, together with estimated costs, etc.
Mrd Santo stated that it is the desire of the Commission to beautify the City
and use whatever means which comes to their department to enable them to do so.
In this case the desire to erect a restaurant in an area which has been allowed to
run down.
Mr. Tatigian stated he is interested in Mr. Santo's remarks, due to a misunder-
standing on the part of petitioner as well as other people. One time he was asked
what the posf .:ion of his office would be insofar as any additions to a shopping
center is concerned, He was under the impression that the particular shopping
center was in u11 compliance with the zoning ordinance. Just to clear the
air, as far as his office is concerned, and he has advised the Bureau of Inspec-
tion, if not in compliance it would be a non-complying use; that is, while the
use is permitted, if there are violations that exist without obtaining a waiver
from the Zoning Board of Appeals they would not be permitted to add to or extend
that shopping center; in addition, with respect to the restaurant, that is a waiver
use requiring the approval of this body as well as the City Council. One addition-
al point, Mr, Tatigian advised, is that so long as there are violations of the
zoning ordinance neither this group nor the City Council has the right to grant
a w-iver use, This is the position of the City Attorney's office.
Mr. Tent asked petitioner what type of restaurant would be erected.
Mr. Coops stated, Chinese.
Mr. Tent asked what the building would look like.
Mr. Jops stated it will blend in with the existing buildings.
Mr. Tent asked if petitioner did not agree to staggering the buildings as shown on
the mounted print.
Mr. Coops replied that they objected to it. He congratulated the Commission on
its work in behalf of the City.
Mr. Spoon explained that the elevation will be similar to that which is in the
shopping center now, not the full height of the bulding of the origianl shopping
center; there will be a canopy over the front to cover the walk; the existing
barber shop and Pizza Parlor will be raised 3' to conform with the new building
t as well as a new facing to blend.
5668
Mr. Walker spoke to Mr. Spoon with regard to all the improvements the City has
made abutting his property; i.e. the widening of Five Mile Road - spoke about
having attended 4 meetings in the prior two weeks, all concerning this shopping
center; he advised him that many people in the City are concerned and there is no
reason why this Center cannot be maintained better, the green belt kept up, broken
glass removed, the garbage dumped in the rear removed. He stated that there must
have been 600 empty cups lying around the area when he walked through and stated
that unless all these things, general maintenance, are taken care of they will be
under violation.
Mr. Wrightman discussed the wall behind the barber shop, 5' from the lot line and
asked if that can be iegally elminated, this wall had been required at the time
petitioner built the building with the Pizza Parlor and Barber Shop - it is only
20' in length.
Mr. Tatigian stated they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals to do
this. He stated that the petitioner does not have a vested right to continue the
operation of a non-complying use, they do not have the right to expand against the
zoning ordinance. With respect to the elimination of the wall, the wall require-
ment for the entire shopping center to be waived - must be passed on by the Zoning
Board of Appeals, the City can expect all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance to
be complied with.
Mr. Coops agreed with Mr. Urightman about eliminating the wall in the rear of the
barber shop and pizza parlor.
Mr. Tent asked if there were any persons in the audience wishing to be heard on
this petition. There was no one.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-2-17 by
Telford and Doolen, Inc. requesting a waiver use permit to use existing
building on property located on the south side of Capitol Avenue between
Farmington and Mayfield in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27 for the
purpose of selling servicing road construction equipment.
Mr. Tent stated there are no engineering problems; there has been an ordinance
violation relative to fence and landscaping. A letter dated August 6, indicated
a site and landscape plan to which petitioner has agreed to conform.
Mr. Hull advised the plan submitted by the petitioner will meet the ordinance
requirements.
Mr. Dick Telford, petitioner, explained the petition was for the purpose of
storing equipment, new or used on the property.
Mrs. Newman, 35998 Middleboro, stated she works in a building adjacent to this
property and asked what the parking plan would be.
Mr. Telford advised her that the sides of the building would be used for employee
parking and the rear area for storage of equipment.
Mr. Hull discussed 50% of the set back of industial districts be landscaped,
and a fence is required around the storage area.
5669
Mr. Seymour Weissman of the Dale Investment Company stated his firm is selling
this property to Mr. Telford. He stated he has no objectiontlhe use, that he
has the same use across the street in his line of work.
There being no one else to be heard on this petition, Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated
the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary plat approval
for Livonia Industrial Park Subdivision #2 located east of Farmington
Road between Plymouth Road and the C & 0 Railway in the South 1/2 of
Section 27.
Mr. Tent advised there are no engineering problems; other than the right-of-way
line for the cul-de-sac be increased to provide a 75' radius and that Capital
Avenue be extended easterly to the east limits of the plat; the plan has been
revised to include same.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter from Lt. Thorne of the Police Department object-
ing to a cul-de-sac of 60' radius; and setting out 4 points in his letter to
which he objects.
A letter from the Fire Department refers to problems from fire protection stand-
point which have been resolved by revision of the plan; i.e. increase of water
main which is an engineering detail and will be taken care of, etc.
Letter in the file from Mr. Kerby, Building Inspector, which shows no objections.
A letter in the file from Mr. Dan Andrew, dated July 12, objected to the letter
from Lt. Thorne.
Mr. Seymour Weissman stated this was the second step, or Subdivision #2 for
buildings for next year, he is desirious of getting the utilities and pavement
in before the winter or early spring; he advised these are done without the help
of City funds; this is a continuation of the development just completed. He
stated they retain ownership of most of the buildings.
Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner objects to the 70' right-of-way.
Mr. Weissman stated the City has two 5' easements on each side of the 60' right-
of-way, making an effective width of 70 feet.
Mr. Andrew stated the petitioner is objecting to a 70' dedication; stating that
they are providing a 60' right-of-way with 5' easement on each side; he added he
can see no reason for 70' right-of-way. This is contrary to the Subdivision Rules
and Regulations. He went on to discuss Lt. Thorne's letter with regard to
installation of concrete sidewalk pavement, etc. Mr. Andrew stated there is no
pedestrian traffic in a development of this type and it is not encouraged because
of security reasons.
Mr. Hull discussed the radius, stating that the actual paved area is what is
dimensioned on this plan. He stated 120' is the standard cul-de-sac and that they
have added 30' of diameter because of traffic and large vehicles and this should
be adequate.
7
5670
Mr. Walker agreed with Mr. Andrew's remarks and it was suggested by Mr. Tent
that a copy of Mr. Andrew's letter be sent to Lt. Thorne. Mr. Walker stated
that the Commission must respect all thoughts on these matters and would like
to convince Lt. Thorne where he is wrong.
Mr. Tent stated this also hold's true for the Fire Marshal; they too have the
City in mind. After a short discussion it was suggested that a meeting be
arranged with all parties and the Planning Department set up guide lines of
how the Commission feels, there should be a meeting of the minds in these matters.
He pointed out that Lt. Thorne's letter suggested 150' lots instead of 130' ,
adding that these details should all be discussed at a meeting.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat approval
for Taubman Industrial Subdivision located on the north side of Plymouth
Road between Merriman and Middlebelt in the South 1/2 of Section 26.
Mr. Tent stated that the file showed no objections except in letters from the
Fire Department and the Police Department bringing up the same points as were
just discussed in conjunction with Livonia Industrial Park. Subdivision #2; it
was again determined that a meeting should be held.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. I7rightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-13 by
the City Planning Commission to amend Section 19.03 and Section 23.03 of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to more adequately cover the City's
cost of processing waiver of use applications and zoning amendment
applications.
10;
Mr. Robert Menzies of the Planning Staff advised the Commission that this is the
proposed amendment as submitted and reviewed at the study session which the
Commission agreed to accept, the recommendation was to double ordinance fee
schedules already written up in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Walker stated that the Commission should give serious thought with regard to
churches and payment of fees, in the suggested fee schedule they are excluded; he
feels, however, they are big investors and serious consideration should be given .
to this and he cannot see why they should escape the filing fee.
Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Walker's comments have merit.
Mr. Jrightman also agreed with these thoutihts, stating he is in favor of a
nominal fee for all types of churches and religious orders, or any other bodies
that may become exempt from the filing fee because of the nature of their busi-
ness. He added that everyone should pay some of the cost of processing petitions
and the ordinance should be amended.
Mr. Tent asked, if the Commission were to amend the ordinance in this way would
this be underwritten by some other body.
Mr. Tatigian stated that the only reason churches are tax exempt is due to the
fact that State Statutes so provide - which, of course, are presently under
attack in the courts - this will be resolved in the next few years by the
1:4 Supreme Court. He added that insofar as charging a fee, and this he advised is
not an opinion, he feels it could legally be done without any problem.
5671
Mr. Tent asked if this were sent back to a study session would this then take
another public hearing to be satisfied.
Mr. Tatigian stated he would have to look at the notice; he stated that a
moderate approach is taken to these things; so long as the section has been
adequately noticed in the newspapers that there is a proposed amendment, and a
reasonable statement as to the content of it. The purposes of having a public
hearing is to determine based on what you hear at the public hearing and where
you determine to make changes; he stated he would not think it necessary to
readvertise or have a public hearing again but would have to look into it. He
added one point, that the fees being discussed are not money makers in a legal
sense, they should only be sufficient to cover the Commission's costs.
There was a short discussion as to what should be done, whether to re-advertise
and have another public hearing; prepare a new amendment - Mr. 'talker suggested
that this is a drastic change and the church would have a legal point if they
could prove the Commission's action to be illegally misrepresented in the news-
paper.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-7-8 by the
City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the
City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to delete
Parcel D-12 located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west of
Osmus Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3.
Mr. Nagy explained that the purpose of deleting the small portion of Parcel D-12
I
from the Park Plan is to allow for the extension of Parker Avenue.
There being no one wishing to be heard on this petition, Mr. Tent, Chairman,
stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-112-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the public hearing held on Tuesday, August 12, 1969, at approximately
11:20 p.m.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
5672
Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 208th Regular Meeting to order at approximately
11:30 p.m. with approximately 15 interested persons in the audience.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-1-22 by
Joseph and Shirley Donnini requesting to rezone property located
on the south side of Plymouth Road, west of Laurel Avenue, in the
northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Santo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-113-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-7-1-22 as submitted by Joseph and
Shirley Donnini requesting to rezone property located on the
south side of Plymouth Road, west of Laurel Avenue, in the North-
west 1/4 of Section 33, from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-7-1-22
be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the land is presently occupied by a commercial structure
that is compatible with the use specified in the C-1
District; there is no need to expand the permitted uses
within the existing structure;
(2) the general character of the area has been established and
developed under C-1 zoning; increasing the intensity of use
on this site will only facilitate the change of use on adjacent
land; it is in the best interest of the City not to substantially
increase the intensity of use along Plymouth Road because of
the existing congestion and the difficultycf handling traffic;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of July 23, 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
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-3-4 by
Joseph C. Desiato requesting the vacation of an alley located parallel
with Seven Mile Road from Harrison to Deering in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 12.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-114-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-5-3-4 as submitted by Joseph
C. Desiato requesting the vacation of an alley located parallel
with Seven Mile Road from Harrison to Deering, in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 12, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-5-3-4 be denied
for the following reasons:
5673
(1) the vacation of the alley could encourage the expansion
of commercial development that would adversely effect the
adjacent residential property;
I (2) the vacation of this alley could encourage development
that would not be logical and orderly and would not conform
to a logical development pattern;
(3) a public utility easement would have to be retained so the
vacation of the alley would not help the petitioner;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer
under date of July 23, 1969, and notice of such hearing was
sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway 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
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-2-13
by Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association request-
ing a waiver use permit to erect an office building on property
located on the west side of Middlebelt between Wentworth and
Five Mile Road in Section 14.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement. The
purpose of this is so the Zoning Petition and the Waiver use permit may be put
through at approximately the same time.
IL
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-2-16 by
the Cheyenne Building Company requesting to be granted a waiver
use permit to erect a restaurant on property located on the north
side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge in Section
14.
Mr. Tent, Chairman stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-2-17
by Telford & Doolen, Inc. requesting a waiver use permit to
use existing building on property located on the south side of
Capitol Avenue between Farmington and Mayfield in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 27, for the purpose of selling and servicing road
construction equipment.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Santo and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-115-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-7-2-17 submitted by Telford
& Doolen, Inc., requesting a waiver use permit to use existing
building on property located on the south side of Capitol Avenue
between Farmington and Mayfield cp the Southwest 1/4 of Section
27, for the purpose of sellingYservicing road construction equip-
ment, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
L City Council that Petition 69-7-2-17 be approved subject to the
following conditions:
5674
(1) that the landscape plan, as submitted, be adhered to and
the plant material be installed within six months of the
date of approval ;
1rW: (2) that the entire area be adequately fenced to enclose the
service yard area;
for the following reason:
(1) it is a compatible use within an industrial area and
will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent development;
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was sent
to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Depart-
ments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the Preliminary plat
approval for Livonia Industrial Park Subdivision #2 located east
of Farmington Road between Plymouth Road the C & 0 Railway in
the South 1/2 of Section 27.
On a motion duly.made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-116-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
August 12, 1969 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Livonia Industrial
Park Subdivision #2 located east of Farmington Road between Ply-
mouth Road and C & 0 Railway in the South 1/2 of Section 27, be
approved for the following reasons:
(1) it is of sufficient design calibre to justify our approval;
(2) it is a logical link in the development of the industrial
belt and will enable additional development to take place
within this area;
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the
Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notice
have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of
Schools, Fire Department, Police Department and Parks and Recrea-
tion Department.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the preliminary plat
approval for Taubman Industrial Subdivision located on the north
side of Plymouth Road between Merriman and Middlebelt in the
South 1/2 of Section 26.
5675
On a motion by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Santo, and unanimously carried,
it was
#8-117-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on August 12, 1969 the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of
Taubman Industrial Subdivision, located on the north side of
Plymouth Road between Merriman and Middlebelt in the South 1/2
of Section 26, be approved for the following reasons:
(1) it is of sufficient design calibre to justify our approval;
(2) it is a logical link in the development of the industrial
belt and will enable additional development to take place
within this area;
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the
abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed
in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with
notice have been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent
of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and Parks and
Recreation Department.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. tlrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-13
by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 19.03 and Section
23.03 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to more adequately
cover the City's cost of processing waiver of use applications
and zoning amendment applications.
Mr. Walker stated that with regard to Section 19.03 they should vote on the
amendment but not including, the portion which begins "except that petitions
filed by a church " He stated that Mr. Tatigian and Mr. Hull would then
prepare an amendment for the remainder as discussed at the public hearing,
for advertising and a new public hearing.
The provision covering church fees in the amendment to Section 23.03 also to
be handled in the same way.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. tlrightman, and unanimously
carried, for the proposed amendment with portions deleted as discussed, it was
#8-118-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-6-6-13 submitted by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or
not to amend Sections 19.03 and Sections 23.03 of Ordinance #543,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-6-6-13 be approved for the following reasons:
(1) it is a necessary step toward maintaining an adequate
planning program that can efficiently process current
work applications;
3
5676
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of July 23, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent to
the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company,
Michigan Bell .ThlCphone Company and Consumers Power Company,
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-7-8 by
the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan
of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to
delete Parcle D-12 located on the north side of Seven Mile Road,
west of Osmus Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 3.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-6-7-8 as submitted by the City
Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the
City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, so as to delete
Parcel D-12 located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, west
of Osmus Avenue, in the southeast 1/4 of Section 3, the City
Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this matter
for the following reason:
(1) the Schools and City are presently attempting to purchase
all the land in the area covered by Spring Valley Subdivision
No. 3.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is a letter from Mr.
John V. Clark dated 7/17/69 requesting extension on Waiver
use petition 67-12-2-22 to construct a church on the south side
of Five Mile Road between Yale and Country Club Drive in the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 20.
Mr. Tent asked petitioner why he is asking for this extension.
Mr. Clark advised Commission that he applied for a building permit and found
that because of the length of time that has passed he needs an extension. He
stated they are ready to go on construction.
Mr. Hull advised there are no problems.
Mr. Tent asked if a one-year extension will help.
Mr. Clark replied, yes.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
adopted, it was
5677
#8-119-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated July 17, 1969 from
John V. Clark requesting an extension of his waiver use (Petition
67-12-2-22) approval to construct a church on the south side of
Five Mile Road between Yale and Country Club Drive in the Northeast
1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to grant an extension for a period of one year, such approval to
expire on August 12, 1970, for the following reason:
(1) it is logical to extend this permit for one year so that the
church may continue their building program.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced that the next item on the agenda is a letter dated
July 18, 1969 from Hyman Gold, Gold Construction Company, requesting
final plat approval for Gold Manor Subdivision #3 located in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
Mr. Hull advised that everything is in order; all financial obligations have been
met and the plat conforms.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Heusted, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-120-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the final plat of Gold Manor Subdivision
#3 located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 be given final approval
for the following reasons:
(1) the plat substantially conforms to the previously approved
preliminary plat;
(2) all the financial obligations of the City have been met;
FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that
tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City
Planning Commission udder Resolution #3-28-68 adopted on March 19,
1968; 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 November 20, 1968; and it further appearing that the
financial assurances required in Council Resolution #1325-68 adopted
on November 27, 1968 have been filed with the City Clerk, as confirmed
by letter date August 7, 1969 from Addison Bacon, City Cleric, 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
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-8-3 by
by Schostak Brothers requesting site plan approval of multi-
family development to be located on the west side of Farmington
Road north of Seven Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4.
5678
Mr. Tent stated there were no problems in the file,
Mr. Hull stated there are four conditions consistent with the approval, stating
that the petitioner should be informed of same.
Mr. Tent read the four conditions.
Petitioner was present and stated they are in agreement.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, for approval with the conditions, and
seconded by Mr. Santo, and unanimously carried, it was
#8-121-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
8.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
having reviewed Site Plan #532, presented in connection with
Petition 68-4-1-11 approved by City Planning Commission Resolution
#5-58-68 adopted on June 18, 1969 and the City Council by Resolution
#1320-68 adopted on October 30, 1968, does hereby approve Petition
69-6-8-3 requesting site plan approval for the multi-family develop-
ment to be located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of
Seven Mile Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 subject to the
following conditions;
(1) that all the landscaping be installed as indicated on the
approved plat within one year after the building permit has
been applied for;
(2) that the partial basements be constructed under each unit
as indicated on the approved plan;
(3) that the carports be installed as indicated on the plan;
(4) that the architectural motif as indicated on the plans
submitted to the Commission be adhered to;
for the following reason:
(1) it is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval.
MR. Tent, Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-8-4 by
Austin Oil Company requesting Landscape Plan approval for gas
station site to be located at the southwest corner of Levan and
Plymouth Roads in Section 32.
Mr. Nagy showed a copy of the landscape plan, the original of which has been
signed and approved.
Mr. Santo suggested that pictures be taken of the property now, before the
landscaping is started.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted and unanimously
carried, it was
d
5679
#8-122-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 11.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance,
as amended, having reviewed the Landscape Plan in connection
with Petition 69-7-8-4 as submitted by Austin Oil Company
requesting Landscape Plan approval for gas station site to
be located at the southwest corner of Levan and Plymouth .
Roads in Section 32, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to approve Petition 69-7-8-4 subject to the following
condition:
(1) that all the site improvements indicated on the landscape
plan be installed within six months of the date of approval;
for the following reason:
(1) it is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-12-8-3a
by Bernard Remer, Architect, requesting Landscape Plan approval
for Parkway Apartments to be located on Ann Arbor Trail, west
of Wayne Road, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Hull stated that this approval should be subject to the condition that the
plant material on the approved plan be installed within one year from the date
of approval.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-123-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section
8.02 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, having
reviewed the landscape plan presented for approval in connection
with Petition 68-12-8-3a by Bernard Remer, Architect, for Parkway
Apartments to be located on Ann Arbor Trail, west of Mayne Road,
in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to approve the Landscape Plan subject to the
following condition:
(1) that the plant material and site development indicated on the
approved plan be installed within one year from the date of
approval;
for the following reason:
(1) it is of sufficient calibre to justify our approval.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval
for Tiffany Park Subdivision #4 located in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 19.
5680
Mr. Hull stated there are no problems here; the quit claim deed is being held
in escrow.
There was a discussion, brought up by Mr. Colomina, as to the size of the park
area, and the location of future park areas in subdivision of this type, where
there is a succession of subdivisions by the same builder.
On a motion duly made by Mr. `'lrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-124-69 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the final plat of Tiffany Park Subdivision
#4, located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 19, be given final
approval for the following reasons:
(1) it conforms to the previously approved preliminary plat;
(2) all the financial obligations of the City have been met;
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 #11-145-68 adopted on
November 12, 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 Works
Engineering Division, under date of April 30, 1969; and it
further appearing that the financial assurances required in
Council Resolution #521-69 adopted on May 14, 1969 have been
filed with the City Clerk, as confirmed by letter dated July 30,
1969 from Addison 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
adopted.
Mr. Wrighttan announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-19
by Livonia Masonic Temple Association requesting to rezone property
located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Deering
and Goff Streets in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, from C-1 to C-2.
Mr. Tent asked if the requested quit claim deed and letter of intent had been
received.
Mr. Hull stated they had all been taken care of.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Heusted and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-125-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
July 15, 1969, on Petition 69-6-1-19 as submitted by Livonia
Masonic Temple Association requesting to rezone property located
on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Deering and Goff
to.%\ Streets in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, from C-1 to C-2, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City council
that Petition 69-6-1-19 be approved for the following reasons:
5681
(1) it is a logical zoning for this general area of the City;
(2) it will not adversely effect the adjacent development;
fis:
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of June 25, 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
adopted.
On a motion made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Heusted and unanimously
carried, it was
#8-126-69 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the June 10, 1969 and July 15, 1969
meetings of the City Planning Commission be approved as amended.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On .a motion made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Ilrightman, and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned their 208th Regular Meeting held
on August 12, 1969 at approximately 12:20 A.M.
t4if
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
246iek
arry Un man, Se etary
Attest:
Ray u•nd W. Tent, Chairman