HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-09-16 5682
MINUTES OF THE 209th REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, September 16, 1969 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 209th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall.
Mr. Robert Colomina, Acting Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at
approximately 8:20 p.m. with approximately 300 interested persons in the audience.
Members Present: Harry Wrightman Donald Heusted Joel LaBo
Robert Colomina Charles Walker H. Dow Tunis
Frank Santo Marvin Moser
Members Absent: Raymond W. Tent
Messrs Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director
and Robert Menzies of the City Planning Department; and Harry C. Tatigian, City
Attorney, were present.
Mr. Colomina stated the Commission overwhelmed by the audience response on
Petition 69-8-6-18 regarding the storage and parking of trailers in certain
residential districts. He explained the reason this has come up is a certain
couple in the City have received violation after violation and finally approached
the City Council with their problem who in turn asked the Planning Commission to
prepare a proposed ordinance to relieve and still control the situation. He
stated the hearing being held at this time is to hear pros and cons with regard
to the proposed ordinance but informed the audience that they too must realize
that everyone cannot be satisfied; he added that action would not be taken at this
hearing, it is only a public hearing.
Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-6-18 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #399-69,
to amend Section 4.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, per-
taining to the storage and parking of trailers in the R-1 through
R-5 Districts.
Mr. Robert Menzies read the proposed amendment and explained its intent. He
explained that the Council has had several complaints and had asked the Commission
to come up with reasonable control of trailers in residential zones; the size of
trailers is involved here; the fact that travel, vacation type trailers are the
only type allowed in rear yards for parking, without utility hook-ups; that certain
restrictions were added with regard to parking in the front and side driveway for
long periods of time, which is the common complaint in the City (the present
existing ordinance, he stated, prohibits this type of parking).
Mr. Colomina stated that at the Study Session the suggestion had been for reference
to "trailer users" rather than "trailer owners" in the ordinance, covering those
who rent trailers as well as owners.
Mr. Menzies stated the change could be made from to user or owner at this time.
Mr. Wrightman referred to the suggested change that at no time shall trailers
be attached to or connected up with any utilities. He feels this sould be changed
so they are permitted use water hook ups to clean out the trailers, as well as the
filling of storage tanks; also electric hook ups are necessary for making repairs
as well as charging batteries and such for vacation preparations. He feels the
5683
intent is that in no way would this lead to a "second house", temporary usage
of the utilities for such repairs and preparation should be allowed. Other than
this, he is in agreement with the ordinance. He suggested to Mr. Menzies that
these changes be worked into the amendment.
' Mr. Uilliam Garpow, Assistant Executive Director of Michigan Mobile Home &
Recreational Vehicle Institute addressed the Commission, distributing the
suggested ordinance of his organization, together with other booklets published
by them. He informed the Commission that he was not of the opinion that no
ordinance is a good ordinance, that there is a need for good restrictive ordinances.
He stated that where the City's proposed amendment refers to a 25' limitation in
length of trailers, making reference to the Recreational Vehicle Yearbook already
distributed to the Commission, it is not enough, the average unit being 32' long,
explaining that that is NOT a mobile home but trailers as those being discussed
here. He advised the Commission that Mr. Howard Munsen and Keith Crawford, two
Board members of his organization, were also present.
Mr. Colomina stated that the restrictions are for vehicles to be parked in back
yards, not what can be driven behind a car.
Mr. Garpow stated that if the vehicle is designed as a vacational vehicle the
footage should not be limited. He also objected to restriction #2 set out in the
proposed ordinance by the City stating that it does not take into consideration
all conditions that may arise. At this point he proceeded to have discussion
with the Commission with reference to the possibility of two corner lots, with
rear yards adjoining, as one exception to the proposed amendment.
Mr. Colomina felt that if garages on side yards had to be built in fifteen feet,
a trailer should have such restrictions as well.
Mr. Frank Evans, of 9815 Denne, stated he is not against trailers but he lives
in a community which is kept beautiful and wants it to remain that way. He felt
that Mr. Garpow did not explain his exceptions to the side driveway parking
properly. He stated the problem is that the trailers oh the side should park as
the house i built.
Mr. Keith Crawford, an associate offMr. Garpow, stated that persons with attached
garages cannot park in the rear; he stated that basically the Planning Commission
should be congratulated on its efforts to design a good ordinance; he stated that
if the Commission must set up a length limitation it should be 35' instead of 25'
as most popular brands are built that long. He agreed with Mr. Wrightman with
regard to water and utility hook-ups for repairs and preparation. He stated that
if they specify the hook-up for service and not occupying the trailer, his
organization would be for it.
Mrs_. Shirley Blaisdell, 9848 Denne, read a protest she had prepared with reference
to the various points brought out at the meeting on restrictions of trailers; i.e.
many trailers are kept much cleaner than some of the homes; that certain council-
men in the city also own trailers; that 6' fences are allowed to property lines
on the side, why not trailers; that restrictions should be made more lenient, etc.
She gave her prepared protest letter to the Commission for their file on this
petit ion.
Mrs. Jones, also from Denne, stated she objected to trailers not parking in the
back.
5684
Mr. Leonard Green, a resident referred to the proposed length of trailers stating
the average vehicle is 20' and most are more than 25' .
it: Mr. LaBo asked if he agreed with the 35' as recommended earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Green answered, yes, at the present time; however, in ten years they may be
as long as 50' .'
Mr. Wrightman stated the length of the trailers would have to be limited to
permit their movement in and out of driveways and rear yards.
Mr. T. Brynn, 32317 Washington, stated that he is the person who wrote the
letter to Council stating this whole situation. He stated he has a 25' trailer
and has received several violations and was told to approach the Council on the
matter, who in turn wrote the Commission. He wanted to thank the Council, Police
and the Commission for their interest.
Mr. Schwartzberg of 19602 Antago, stated he does not understand the 48 hour
restriction and asked how it effects the piggy-back after 48 hours. He stated
with regard to the restrictions in rear yard parking, if kids are allowed to put
up tents and sleep in them thy are trailers owners' children to be cut off from
sleeping in the trailer with their friends overnight.
Mr. Colomina stated this is what the proposed ordinance is for - to air all the
problems and set up restrictions.
Mr. Norman Fellander, 19389 Antago, stated he lives on a corner, has a small lot,
house, large garage and very little yard - asked how he can park in the rear of
the house when he could not even put a pool there.
treMr. Colomina asked what the minimunside yard set back is on 40' lots.
Mr. Hull stated this varies from lot to lot - because 40' lots probably required
set back variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. The R-1 District
requires a 15' side yard restriction. He stated there are storage places in the
Industrial zone for trailer owners to use with problems such as Mr. Fellander's
but agreed with the inconvenience and expense this adds.
Mr. Fellander added that he has seven gates to get in and out of his yard.
After this last statement, Mr. Wrightman asked Mr. Fellander to make a sketch of
his property, home, garage, etc. for the Commission to review.
Mr. William Wright, 8993 Oporto, stated he has a trailer and does not know where
to put it. He drives it back and forth to work and like others has a side drive.
Mr. Wrightman stated he realizes that there are other problems and sections to
be added with regard to other types of trailers but explained that they are
covering pigs back trailers at this time, that he has never heard any complaints
against truck-type camping equipment up to this point in time. The problem
now is with hook-up trailers. He said perhaps in the future there would be a
need for a section to take care of other types of equipment.
Mr. Colomina stated that basically the Commission has heard all the ideas of those
in the audience, their problems and feelings and felt the matter should be taken
1E: under advisement and returned to a study session for further consideration.
He added that any questions the audience has should be submitted to Mr. Garpow
and Mr. Crawford and they..should attend the Study Session, bringing such problems
with them.
•
5625
IIr. Urightman felt that a cross section of the people in the audience with the
actual problems should be invited to the study sessions. He felt that Mr. Brynn
should be present also, as well as Mr. Garpow.
Mr. ?Talker wanted to tale a moment to thank and congratulate the group in the
audience on this matter. He stated they are about the most courteous group
that has ever attended a meeting in the City Hall to date and he wanted them
to leave with a feeling of encouragement. He also is an owner of a travel
trailer and, like so many, is very interested in the matter before them. The
City has developed, he added, to a point where further regulations are needed,
he explained the fact that new developers were being encouraged to create storage
areas in the industrial zone for this type of use; that corner lots are a problem.
There are other problems that have been brought up and discussed. He stated this
is a serious matter and tonight's proposed ordinance was a rule of thumb to
start with. The corner lot will have to be better described; and as Mr. '7rightman
stated the hook-up of utilities is a necessary thing for repair and preparation
and must be incorporated as well. He asked that they leave assured that the
Commission will do everything possible to satisfy everyone's needs and hoped that
the Commission will come up with an ordinance that other communities can copy
from.
Mr. Colomina also thanked the audience for their cooperation, and as Acting
Chairman stated the matter would be taken under advisement, to be returned for
further study.
Mr. Brightman stated the next item on the agenda is Petition 6:-O-1-24 by
Aram and Catherine Kevorkian to rezone property located on the
• north side of Schoolcraft east of Fairway Avenue in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 20, from aUF to a-2.
Mr. Colomina stated there were letters in the file; one from Consumers Power
stating they had no objection; a letter from Mr. Strasser stating there is no
sanitary sewer lead available and it is the obligation of the owners to install
leads to the two lots before construction.
Mr. Colomina asked if there was anyone in the audience on this matter - there was
no one.
Mr. Urightman asked what :-2 can do that aUF cannot do.
Mr. Hull stated to create 2 70' residential lots which would be consistent with
the land in the area immediately north of the property.
Mr. Colomina, Acting Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement,.
Mr. tlrightman stated the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-0-1-25 by T'illiam
N. Ponder, attorney for Bob Evans Farms, Inc., ro rezone property
located on the southwest corner of Plymouth :oad and Laurel in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, from C-1 to C-2.
Mr..Ponder approached the Commission, representing the owners of the property,
He stated the property is 125' in width and 600' in depth; the present owners
purchased same five years ago and used it for an office and transfer point for
their products. There was a brick building on the property (a house) which they
used as their office, as at that time they did not know if their product would
be successful. . The Board of Appeals gave them permission, which permission was
extended twice. The Board of Appeals has given them until the extension expires
5686
to appear before the Commission in an attempt to rezone as the Board of Appeals
stated they would have to make a definite move. He stated they are asking for
a change from C-1 to C-2; that all Plymouth Road is C-2 across the City with
460 the exception of a few parcels.
Mr. tlrightman asked if the petitioner will tear down the residence and build a
new office building.
Mr. Ponder stated that is the purpose.
Mr. tlrightman asked if this is for other purposes than office use.
Mr. Ponder stated it has always been used for other purposes than office, i.e.
a transfer point.
Mr. ¶Trightman asked if there will be anymanufacturing.
Mr. Ponder replied, there will be no manufacturing. They are expanding the
business of Bob Evans' products - sausage products - Bob Evans brings the product
in from the farm in a big truck and it is transferred to small trucks for local
delivery.
Mr. Colomina asked if this is done in a building or from truck to truck.
Mr. Ponder replied trucks. He stated it was just his thinking and would not like
to be held to it that the front half of the property might be used for some sort
of restaurant or office for their purposes or even to rent to some other persons.
Mr. Hull stated that Mr. Ponder's petition does not set forth the logic as he has
stated here. In the petition there is no specific use in mind.
I
Mr. Ponder stated he is just giving them the benefit of his thinkingand does not
want to be held to these thoughts.
Mr. Colomina brought up the necessity of right-of-way for the City at Plymouth
Road and Laurel - 60' on Plymouth and 30' on Laurel.
Mr. Hull stated that they have not been dedicated and quit claim deeds are on.'file.
The City may have had a walking easement but not a full dedication. At this
point Mr. Ponder and the Commission had a short discussion about the right-of-
way,
Mr. Ualker asked Mr. Ponder if the petitioner actually needs the zoning, he stated
the Board needs the facts as to what it is for before they can act.
Mr. Ponder stated they will have to do something as the Board of Appeals has
given them an extension with the instructions that they come before the Planning
Commission for a change of zoning.
Mr. Ualker asked if C-1 would not permit the office.
Mr. Ponder answered, yes; but that they might want to build a restaurant for
which they would need C-2 zoning; he stated they filed the petition because they
promised the Board of Appeals they would take steps to change the zoning.
Mr. Ponder stated there was a question with regard to a "Depot" if the building
is torn down; he said he doesn't know if the transfer can be made under C-1.
• 5687
Mr. Santo asked if petitioners have any restaurants in the United States.
Mr. Ponder replied, yes, they have a few across the country and this is a part of
I!: their thinking, that they might want to put one on this property.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-1-26 by
Hilliam N. Ponder, attorney for Best Block Company to rezone property
located south of Five Mile Road, east of Bainbridge Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, from RUF to M-1.
Mr. Ponder, representing the petitioner, explained the present plant of the
petitioner and the need for the extension of his property for a turn-around for
their trucks which is the reason for the requested change of zoning from RUF to
M-1, adding that the property is only 100' wide and 300' in length, and abuts the
rear of the present plant property. He stated the business has expanded and a
portion of this property is already being used as a turn around for trucks (for
which the Building Department has given them a violation). He stated that in.
search of a solution they agreed to come before this Commission to make a change
of zoning. He added that the petitioner has been in business for 25 years and
is only asking to square off the property in the rear so they can make use of
same. The property in question, he stated, is worthless for residential.
Mr. Wrightman asked what type of use the petitioner intends to put in this particu-
lar piece of land if it were zoned M-l; will part of the plant be transferred and
manufacturing take place there or would it be to store trucks.
IL: Mr. Ponder stated the plant would not be enlarged, there would be no manufacturing;
it would mostly be for truck use and storage; there would be no buildings.
Mr. Wrightman, stated he was concerned with the expansion of the building due to
the need for their product and it might not be too long and they would want to
expand again. He suggested that the petitioner might be better off at a larger
located where expansion would not be a problem. He felt that the favorable action
on this petition might satisfy now for a limited amount of future progress and
that later on petitioner would come in for more.
Mr. Ponder assured the Commission that the basic plant operation will not expand
at this point, reminding them that the property is only 100' x 300' so no building
could be done on it anyway.
Mr. LaBo asked if petitioner would be satisfied with only that portion of the
strip of land in question which lies immediately to the rear of their present
M-1 making the piece approximately 150' x 100' to be zoned M-1.
Mr. Colomina stated that although Mr. Ponder states the property is worthless as
residential, should this zoning change be granted it might encourage other persons
with property to the south to come before the Commission for the same zoning
change.
Mr. Hull stated that the Planning Department study of this section of the City
recommended no expansion of non-residential use in the area.
Mrs. Geneva Lauzon, 15220 Bainbrdige, stated she has lived on Bainbridge since
1941 and is tired of the mud and fighting with trucks; she stated every window in
her home has been cracked. She stated Best Block bought the property from French
5688
and she would like to see them park the trucks in the rear; however, if zoned M-1
it should be only for parking and drainage of the land as the way it is now she is
ILO drowning. She wanted some assurance that the land would be properly drained and
used only for parking if the zoning is changed.
Mr. Wrightman advised Mr. Ponder that should this be granted he would have to wall
the property in.
Mr. Ponder stated he knew this and they would do it in compliance with the ordi-
nance.
Mr. Moser stated that if zoned M-1 petitioner could build on the property in the
future and the Commission would have no control. He stated that if this is for
parking purposes why must it be zoned M-1 and agreed with Mr. Colomina that if
granted it would start a stream of persons asking for the same change to the
south.
Mr. LaBo and Mr. Moser had a discussion as to whether a split as previously
proposed by Mr. LaBo might not be acceptable and it was Mr. Moser's feeling that
he could not see a change to M-1 under any condition. The fact that petitioner
owns all the commercial property to Bainbridge was brought out, as well as the
fact that French had sold the property to petitioner which brought about the
petition.
Mr. Santo asked if this property is such an eye sore why the Industrial Commission
could not find petitioner a piece of land - could there be an exchange of property.
Mr. Hull stated this was looked into 1 1/2 to 2 years ago when the question was
raised before. He stated this is very difficult to work out on an individual
basis with the City and existing property owners because of the dollars involved.
He stated they had even tried to get federal funds to make the situation more
feasible and equitable but there was no applicable federal program.
Mr. Wrightman stated that he worked on the matter with the Commission at that
time and there is just no solution as far as dollars and cents, etc. is concerned.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-3-6 by
Lionel E. and Leonella E. LeMay requesting to vacate a portion of
Parkdale Avenue located south of Plymouth Road west of Raleigh
Avenue, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32.
Mr. Nagy stated that a departmental review had been made and the department felt
there was justification for vacating this portion of land. He stated that the
owner of the roller rink owns lots 11, 12, 13, and 26 and 25. However, he stated
that a cul-de-sac had been proposed into lots 12 and 13 for a turn-about for
traffic.
Mr. Colomina stated that a letter in the file from Consumers Power had no objection
a letter from Mr. Strasser, dated July 30, 1969, recommends the cul-de-sac and
also recommended assistance in obtaining legal descriptions for rights-of-way
needed. He stated that letters in the file from the Police and Fire Departments
also suggested the cul-de-sac.
Mr. James McCarthy, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. LeMay, stated that the petitioners
had maintained the whole street (Parkdale), plowed snow, etc. He stated that to
5689
give up property for the cul-de-sac would mean to give up approximately 3 rows of
parking area. He stated the property ini;question is a lover's lane with no
ILO policing he would like to clean that up and use it for additional parking. If he
is forced to give up property for the cul-de-sac, he feels petitioner would have
to pave lots 25 and 26 now, which was not the intention. Mr. McCarthy stated a
wall would be put up between the parking area and the (Hines Park Motel). The
petitioners, he added, have been there for 25 years, they have maintained the
road, repaired it. He stated the property would be put back on the tax roll,
petitioner would be better able to utilize the property; and once a year the
parking lot would be closed off.
Mr. Walker asked Mr. Hull if a right-of-way was dedicated.
Mr Hull stated all the area is presently a dedicated street but it is not paved;
the City owns it. This would give them land not presently owned by them, yet the
petitioner feels it unreasonable for the City to ask for a cul-de-sac.
Mr. McCarthy stated it is a dedicated street on the plat but never used.
Mr. Hull reminded the Commission there are some improvements already there.
Mr. McCarthy stated they would be maintained, which would alleviate the City's
job which the LeMays have already been doing. •
Mr. Walker stated he recognizes the benefit to the City as the owner runs the
business and maintains the property but he must realize that he still gets the
bargain by the City vacating this as he can utilize the land which is not his and
the City is only asking for a cul-de-sac for a safety measure to the City. He
stated that he cannot see how the Commission can go against the City's Police and
Fire Departments' recommendations for the cul-de-sac.
I
Mr. Urightman stated that if petitioner were to build on 25 and 26 he would be
requested to pave the road.
Mr. Santo asked if petitioner would not be more reasonable to say he is prepared
to make it a parking area knowing he will gain more parking area than he is asked
to give.
There was a short discussion between the attorney for petitioner and the Com-
mission regarding the ingress and egress of fire trucks, the comparison of land
to be given to the City compared to what the petitioners would gain.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. McCarthy added the stement that the City is using the area for a cul-de-sac
as a turn around now.
Mr. Urightman stated that this proves the Commission's point - the City needs it.
Mr. '1rightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-3-5 by
Julian A. Arden requesting to vacate portions of South Drive located
on South Drive between Alois Avenue and Jarvis Avenue in the South-
east 1/4 of Section 30.
1
5690
Mr. Colomina stated there was no objection from the Police Department, provided
there is a cul-de-sac for a turn around; the Fire Department also wants the turn-
around. He stated that Mr. Strasser recommended only a certain portion be
vacated for a turn around, also recommending that a 60' easement over the area
to be maintained.
There was no one to be heard on this petition in the audience.
Mr. Wrightman questioned why this petition had been made.
Mr. Hull stated he did not know the reason; it might be that they want additional
land accrued to the adjacent lots.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-7-9 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Part V of
the Master Plan, the Master School and Park Plan, to delete property
located south of Pembroke Avenue between Merriman Court and Sunset
Boulevard in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2.
Mr. Nagy explained the petition and the area surrounding the land in question.
He stated the reason for the amendment is that the Livonia Mall Estates Subdivision
provides for an extension of a street south to Seven Mile Road, which subdivision
plan is presently before the Commission for approval. The City intends to purchase
Outlot A for park purposes. The removal of 180 feet of park land would allow the
Commission to extend the street to the interior property. The balance of the park
land would be adequate to take care of the park needs for this area.
I
At this point, Mr. Tatigian had a discussion with the Commission with regard to
the recommended action on this petition, specifically with the reason "the elimi-
nation of this park land from the Master Park Plan will more expeditiously
facilitate the purchase of the remaining park lands in this area". He stated that
is familiar with this parcel and since it is the function of his department to
negotiate with regard to the acquisition of park lands he is puzzled as the land
owner, through Mr. Kropf, his attorney, has been at an impass with the City for
three months on this matter, Mr. Kropf, in behalf of the owner, had offered to
sell the land to the City at their cost, which happens to be almost double what
the appraisers think the property is worth. He advised the Commission that at
present the Parks and Recreation Department and Department of Law have an application
for assistance pending on this land. He stated that where the City intends to
purchase park lands, he would like to be kept informed of any steps taken.
Mr. Hull stated the last he knew there was no difficulty between Mr. Koppy (the
owner) and the City and felt that if the problem referred to by Mr. Tatigian
exists it would be reasonable to cooperate with him. If there is a problem between
the City and Mr. Koppy, Mr Hull added, he is not conversant with it.
Mr. Moser asked if this matter should be held pending Mr. Tatigian's negotiations
with Mr. Koppy.
Mr. Tatigian stated if there is no great urgency in amending the Master Plan at this
time he would like whatever help he can have.
}
Mr. Colomina, acting chairman, stated this matter would be taken under aa}visement.
5691
Mr. Wrightman announced the _.next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-6-19 by
the City Planning Commission on its own motion, to amend Section
19.03 and Section 23.03 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance,
pertaining to payment of filing fees by churches.
Mr. Menzies explained this petition in relation to one recently passed by the
Commission with respect to all other filing fees, that this petition is concerned
only with the language giving exception to churches and church related facilities
for paying fees for waiver uses - this petition proposes the deletion of this
exception.
Mr. Tatigian expressed his views that this petition can be acted upon by a simple
resolution merely deleting a portion of the section of the ordinance and so
stating it rather than setting it out in full, and the Department of Law will
set up the amendment proposed by this petition and the prior petition re-filing
fees at one time after the Council acts on this petition.
Mr, t7rightman asked Mr. Menzies if there weren' t other organizations to be
mentioned in this amendment.
Mr. Menzies stated the only exception existing in the ordinance is churches and
their facilities - all other organizations pay fees.
Mr. Colomina, acting chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Moser and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-127-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the
public hearing held on Tuesday, September 16, 1969 at approximately
10:45 p.m.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, called the 209th Regular Meeting to order at
approximately 11:00 p.m. with approximately 15 interested persons in the audience.
Mr. Urightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-1-24
by Aram and Catherine Kevorkian to rezone property located on the
north side of Schoolcraft east of Fairway Avenue, in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 20 from RUF to R-2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously
adopted, it was
#9-128-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 16, 1969 on Petition 69-8-1-24 as submitted by Aram
and Catherine Kevorkian to rezone property located on the north side of
Schoolcraft east of Fairway Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20,
from RUF to R-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 69-8-1-24 be approved for the
following reasons:
5692
(1) the proposed zoning will create only two additional
lots that are consistent with the land use pattern of the
area;
4
(2) this rezoning will not adversely effect the stability of
the adjacent residential neighborhood;
FURT 1 R RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of August 27, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sant to
the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company,
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-1-25
by \7illiamoN. Ponder, attorney for Bob Evans Farms, Inc. , to
rezone property located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road
and Laurel in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33, from C-1 to C-2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-129-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on .
September 16, 1969 on Petition 69-8-1-25 as submitted by William
N. Ponder, attorney for Bob Evans Farms, Inc. to rezone property
located on the southwest corner of Plymouth Road and Laurel in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planner
ing Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-8-1-25 by denied for the following reasons:
(1) it is not in the best interests of the City to intensify
the use along Plymouth Road so that additional traffic
congestion will be created and impede the movement of
traffic;
(2) the land is presently in the C-1 zoning category which
permits a broad range of uses and offers ample opportunity
for development;
(3) intensifying the use on this parcel of land could adversely
effect adjacent development;
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of August 27, 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. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
5693
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-1-26
by William N. Ponder, attorney for Best Block Company, to rezone
property located south of Five Mile Road, east of Bainbridge Ave-
nue, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, from RUF to M-1.
f
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-130-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
been held on September 16, 1969 on Petition 69-8-1-26 as submitted
by William N. Ponder, attorney for Best Block Company, to rezone
property located south of Five Mile Road east of Bainbridge Avenue
in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23 from RUF to M-1 , the City Plan-
ning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 69-8-1-26 be denied for the following reasons:
(1) the existing industrial development in this area adversely
effects the adjacent area; to allow additional industrial
zoning would only compound the problem;
(2) additional M-1 zoning would seriously effect the stability
of the adjacent residential neighborhoods and could tend
to blight this sector of the City;
(3) the proposed industrial zoning does not fit into any logical
physical pattern and could be best utilized in a residential
rather than industrial category;
(4) the overall Master Plan of the Area prepared by the Plan-
ning Departm?"..t recommends that this land be used for
4 residential purposes rather than industrial ;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of August 27, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent to
the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company,
Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Colomina, Acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-3-6 by
Lionel E. and Leonella E. LeMay requesting to vacate a portion of
Parkdale Avenue located south of Plymouth Road west of Raleigh
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-131-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
September 16, 1969 on Petition 69-6-3-6 as submitted by Lionel E.
and Leonella E. LeMay requesting to vacate a portion of Parkdale
Avenue located south of Plymouth Road west of Raleigh Avenue in
the Northwest 1/4 of Section 32, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-3-6 be
IL:
denied for the following reasons:
5694
(1) it is imperative that a cul-de-sac be provided to adequately
service this area with fire trucks, snow plows and other
emergency vehicles. The petitioner will not make provision
for an adequate cul-de-sac.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under
date of August 27, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent to
the Detroit Edison Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and Consumers Power Company,
and City Departments and Petitioner as listed in the Proof of
Service.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted and asked Mr. Hull to transmit a letter explaining the cul-de-
sac to the Council.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-3-5 by
Julian A. Arden requesting to vacate portions of South Drive located
on South Drive between Alois Avenue and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 30.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously carried,
it was
#9-132-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
September 16, 1969 on Petition 69-6-3-5 as submitted by Julian A.
Arden requesting to vacate portions of South Drive located on
tie South Drive between Alois Avenue and Jarvis Avenue in the Southeast
1/4 of Section 30, the City Planning Commission does hereby recom-
mend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-3-5 be denied for the
following reasons:
(1) from a practical standpoint it is unwise to have long dead-
end streets without cul-de-sacs or an adequate means of
circulation;
(2) the Planning Commission's Subdivision Rules and Regulations
specifically prohibit subdivision plats with excessively long
streets which are not looped or cul-de-sac'd. These requirements
are stated in Section 9.01 (g) and (o) ;
(3) the elimination of South Drive could effect the logical division
of adjacent lands;
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published
in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of August
27, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison
Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
Company, Consumers Power Company, City Departments, and Petitioner
as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
• 5695
Mr, Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-7-7-9
by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend
Part V of the Master Plan, the Master School and Park Plan,
to delete property located south of Pembroke Avenue between
Merriman Court and Sunset Boulevard in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 2.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advise-
ment.
Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-6-18 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution
#399-69, to amend Section 4.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance, pertaining to the storage and parking of trailers
in the P.-i through R-5 districts.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement.
Mr. Wright man announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-6-19 by
the City Planning Commission, on its own motion, to amend Section
19.03 and Section 23.03 of Ordinance No. 543, . the Zoning Ordinance
pertaining to payment of filing fees by churches.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Santo, it was
#9-133-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
September 16, 1969 on Petition 69-8-6-19 as submitted by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion, to determine whether or not
to amend Sections 19.03 and 23.03 of Ordinance #543 (the City of
Livonia Zoning Ordinance), as amended, to delete therefrom all waiver
of use and rezoning filing fee exemptions for church or church school
petitions, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council that Petition 69-8-6-18 be approved for the following
reasons:
(1) it is unreasonable for the taxpayers of the City to bear
the burden of paying the cost of advertising and processing
waiver use petitions for churches.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under
date of August 31, 1969 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.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walker, Urightman, Heusted, Santo, Tunis
NAYS: Moser, Colomina, LaBo
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
5696
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
#543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding Article XXX, titled Site
14, Plan Review and Approval.
A motion:.was made by Mr. LaBo to deny this petiton but the motion failed due
to the lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, it was
#9-134-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on
April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-6-2 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 Article XXX entitled Site Plan Review and Approval, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition 69-2-6-2 be approved for the following reason:
(1) it is a necessary tool to regulate the orderly growth
and development of our City;
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 and Consumers Power Company,
City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walker, Wrightman, Heusted, Santo, Tunis, Moser, Colomina
NAYS: LaBo
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman stated the next item on the agenda is a Letter dated June 27, 1969
from Standard Oil Company, requesting an extension on Petition
68-2-2-2 to erect a gas station at the northeast corner of Haggerty
Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-135-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated June 27, 1969 from
Standard Oil Company, requesting an extension of its waiver use
(Petition 68-2-2-2) approval to erect a gas station at the north-
east corner of Haggerty Road and Six Mile Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 7, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine
to grant an extension for a period of one year, such approval to
expire on September 16, 1970, subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the same conditions of approval affixed to the original
petition be adhered to;
I
5697
for the following reason:
(1) the concept is still valid and has not changed.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a letter dated
August 25, 1969 from Kenwood Church of Christ requesting an extension
of Petition 67-6-2-11 requesting waiver use permit to construct a
church on property located on the east side of Merriman Road,
north of Fargo, in Section 2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-136-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request dated August 25, 1969 from
Kenwood Church of Christ, requesting an extension of Petition 67-6-2-11
requesting waiver use permit to construct a church on property
located on the east side of Merriman Road north of Fargo, in Section 2,
the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to grant an
extension for a period of one year, such approval to expire September
16, 1970 subject to the following conditions:
(1) that an adequate landscape plan be submitted to the Planning
Commission for their approval within six months after the
building permit has been applied for;
(2) that all plant material and landscaping called for on the
approved plan be installed within 1 1/2 calendar years
after plan approval has been obtained;
for the following reason:
(1) the concept has not changed and it is still valid.
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for
Bai-lyn Subdivision #8 located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23.
On a motion duly made by Mr. 1Trightman, seconded by Mr. LaBo and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-137-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that the final plat of Bai-Lyn Subdivision #8
located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 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;
a
i
5698
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 11-146-68 adopted on
November 12, 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 February 26, 1969 and it
further appearing that the financial assurances required in
Council Resolution #947-69 adopted on September 3, 1969 have
been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by letter dated
September 10; 1959 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. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat approval for
Bai-Lyn Subdivision #9 (formerly a part of Bai-Lyn Subdivision #8)
located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously
carried, it was
#9-138-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Ca :ncil that the final plat of Bai-Lyn Subdivision #9
(formerly a part of Dni-Lyn Subdivision #8) located on the South-
west 1/; of Section 23 be given final approval for the following
I
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 #11-146-68 adopted on
November 12, 1968 and it further appearing that said proposed
plat together with plans and specifications for improvements
therein have. beer. cpproved by the Department of Public Works,
Engineering Division, under date of February 26, 1969 and it
further appearing thee t financial assurances required in
Council Resolution #9 ;-7-59 adopted on September 3, 1969 have
been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated
September 10. 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. Colomina, actino Chni_rn n . rie.e'r,rea the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted„
5699
Mr. [Irightman announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of
Planning Commission minutes for the meeting held August 12, 1969.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Heusted, it was
#9-139-69 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the August 12, 1969 meeting of the
City Planning Commission be approved as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Walker, Wrightman, Heusted, Colomina, Santo
NAYS: None
ABSTAINED: Moser, LaBo, Tunis
ABSENT: Tent
Mr. Colomina, acting Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing
resolution adopted.
Mr. Santo requested the Planning Department to direct a letter to the Board of
Education to ask why and when they propose to landscape Stevenson High School
adding that the reply will probably be that they do not have the millage; however,
Mr. Santo added, this is part of the bond issue.
On a motion by Mr. Walker, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, the
City Planning Commission adjourned their 209th Regular Meeting held on September
16, 1969 at approximately 11: 20 p.m.
II; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/
Hy t]righ ��'.n, Secret y
Attest:
Robert Colomina, Acting Chairman