HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1971-01-26 9048
MINUTES OF THE 254th SPECIAL MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
4
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, January 26, 1971, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 254th Special Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City
Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order At approxi-
mately 8:30 p.m. with approximately twenty interested persons in the audience.
•
Members present: Daniel Andrew Francis Harid Charles Pinto
p
H. Dow Tunis
Joseph Talbot Joseph Falk
Raymond Tent Rolbert Colomina Marvin Moser
Members absent: None
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph e H.
aBakewell,
so present.
Planner III; and
Robert Feinberg , Assistant City Attorney,
Mr. Hand announced the first item
211 70eenda is Petition 71-1-1-1 to Section 23.01(a) ofinitiated
by Council Resolution #1 pursuantof Livonia, f
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City
amended, as
to oondne property
Milelocated
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of of
FarmingtonarmRoadadand
a
Section 4, from C-2 to P.S.
Mr. Andrew announced for the benefit of those present that any petition which
petition of rezoning is simply acted upon by the Planning Commission in
is a approval or denial to the
a recommending sense since the Commission recommends a P approves or deniesh
City Councilg whreqconducts a public hearing uest; the authority rests with thed sCouncilyofpthe City of
the rezoning request;
Livonia.
Mr. Andrew stated the file contains no correspondence from any department in
the City regarding this petition, and that although the City of Livonia is the
petitioner in this situation he is certain that Mr. Schostak or a representative
would like to speak on the petition.
Mr. Jerome Schostak, Schostak Brothers, was present and stated they are the
in question and they object to the rezoning for
or7anumber
reasons. totalling
owners of the property in the y
of He stated they purchased this property
approximately 68 acres at Seven Mile and Farmington. During the next following
several years meetings were held with City officials, the Planningmmessionnda-
and the City Council, resulting in the Planning Commission's making
tion for five separate zoning parcels within the 68 acres. These were: the C-2
of approximately 13 acres; two parcels of three acres each for P.S. , ;
10 acres
of R-7 and 30 odd acres of ML. recommending toThe requests rthezCouncilethetrezoningin eof
Planning Commission unanimously part of their objections is based on the
each of those parcels. He stated that rived and which
plan of today is what the Commission app and at
fact that the proposed ymade b the City,
was in ecohe with the Northwest
Stud ereceivedant tacituapproval of the Council. Nothing
eat timehdee Northwest y
has changed. Mr. Schostak stated they object furthereconsideration ofthere was athe gCe2t
that right-of-way on Seven Mile be given to the City in
zoning and this was done. The Tarabusi iaskedruns
andrthey grantdand eded cation,
acres of property. The Planning Commission
1
9049
IL which they did for the rezoning. Then, Mr. Schostak said, the Planning Com-
mission's recommendation went to Council; Council rezoned the four parcels;
the ML was not rezoned and remains RUF today. He stated they have submitted a
site plan for the C-2 property for a K-Mart which site plan is completely eif init
accord with the criteria used the
City
discussbuildings
matterf this
said it is his
is not in accord they will
be happy to
understanding
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, stated that he would like to confine this discussion to
the rezoning and not the site plan.
Mr. Schostak continued that the property is being put to the use approved by
the Commission and ratified by the Council.
Mr. Tent stated he would like to backtrack on some of Mr. Schostak's comments.
He said the Commission championed Mr. Schostak's cause to get this area rezoned
because they were interested at that time in the planned unit development. He
said Mr. Schostak had indicated in his comments that what is proposed here is
what was approved by the Planning Commission,oand discussed.is planned Mr. edtnow otais he
completely in accord with what was p s
would like to remind them that on the C-2 zoning on Seven Mile the big discussion
was regarding a discount store and asked if Mr. Schostak recalled that.
Mr. Schostak stated he recalls that.
Mr. Andrew stated his wish that statements be confined along the lines of zoning.
Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Schostak objects to the rezoning of that property from
the C-2 category and questioned him regarding his intended use for that
particular corner.
Mr. Schostak stated to erect a K-Mart on the site.
Mr. Tent stated that if he may go back to his original question -- at that
particular time, he asked, was there any discussion regarding not having that
corner for a discount store.
Mr. Schostak stated yes, there was discussion and as a matter of fact, Mr. Tent
asked if it would be used for a discount store. He stated he recalls his
response as "well, tell me what a discount store is" and that there was con-
siderable discussion about the J. L. Hudson Company at that time regarding
their advertising to the effect that "they would not be undersold". Mr.
Schostak stated that at that time he told Mr. Tent he did not know what a dis-
count store was and that he told Mr. Tent at that time there was no contemplated
use for that site; that the C-2 was part of the overall plan which plan had
received tacit approval of the Council.
Theng to
e heard
arding
is item
nd
Mr. e wrnhne else present irman, declared theipublicbhearing ongPetiti Petition aclosed.
Mr. Andrew, Chairman,
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#1-17-71 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on
January 26, 1971 at approximately 9:45 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9050
1;,
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, called the 254th Special Meeting to order at approximately
9.45 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the
audience as were present for the public hearing.
Mr. Hand announced the first iteth on the agenda is Petition71-1-1-1
of by Council Resolution #1211-70 pursuant to Section 71.1
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to rezone property located on the northwest corner of
Farmington Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4,
from C-2 to P.S.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Pinto, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been heldl d on
January 26, 1971 on Petition 71-1-1-1 as initiated by
Cou
Resolution #1211-70 pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington
on
Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4,
C-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 71-1-1-1 be denied.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Talbot, Pinto, Hand, Andrew
NAYS: Colomina, Falk, Moser, Tent, Tunis
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, stated the resolution fails for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
January 26, 1971 on Petition 71-1-1-1 as initiated by Council
Resolution #1211-70 pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington
Road and Seven Nile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, from
C-2 to P.S. , the City atapetitionm lslilnldoes
approvedrecommend
to the City Council ttl
Mr. Tent advised those present the reasons for approving this petition. They
were:
(1) It is in the best interest of the City to lessen the
intensity of use at this critical intersection within
our City because the commercial categories generate
largevolumes of traffic trafficthat could along SevenoMilect Roadtand the
flow l o�•� o ff transient
Farmington Road.
'
(2) The professional service is more compatible to the
lopment and could
nhance the
adjacent ewhereas commercialtdevelopmentsc uldity
offthishisarea
adversely effect it.
i
i
9051
11:/ (3) There is an excessive amount of unused C-2 zoned
property within the immediate area of the inter-
section of Seven Tile and Farmington Roads.
(4) The needs of the area are presently adequately serviced
by the existing commercial facilities. There is no
present need to expand commercial development at the
intensity of use permitted under C-2 zoning to satisfy
the needs of Livonia's residents in this sector of the
City.
Mr. Colomina stated he believes this has been discussed before and the Commission
is voting strictly to satisfy the resolution sent to it by the Council..
Mr. Andrew stated the Commission is not voting on that; simply on the question
of whether or not the property should be rezoned to P.S.
Mr. Colomina stated the Commission has no alternative; they could not initiate
a C-1 zoning without another public hearing.
Mr. Andrew stated, that is correct. He stated he intends to vote nay on the
resolution and would like to explain his action: #1, he stated in his ri inion,
12-1/2 acres or 13 acres of P.S. zoning in this sector of the City and of#2it
compatible to the master plan of the northwest sector of then the west half
certainly create an over-supply of P.S. zoned propertyitwill
of the City of Livonia and he feels this is poor planning and for those reasons
he does not intend to support the resolution.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Falk, Tent, Moser
NAYS: Colomina, Talbot, Pinto, Tunis, Hand, Andrew
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails for lack of support.
Mr. Colomina made a motion to hold a public hearing on thequestionof rezoning
this property from C-2 to C-1 to which there was no support.
Mr. Pinto stated he doesn't tioneat handCommission
doesn'tcthinketherethat
cansbeutwo
but must dispose of the ques
petitions on the same piece of property, both going in different directions.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent, and seconded by Mr. Colomina, it was
RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having beCoun ncil
held onlu-
January 26 , 1971 on Petition 71-1-1-1 initiated by
tion #1211-70 pursuant to Section
Li23.0 Livonia, )asOrinance #543,rez3the
Zoning Ordinance of the Cityamended,
le property located on the northwest corner of Farmington Road
an P.S. ,
Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section4, from to tableC-2 this
to
the City Planning Commission does herebydetermine •
petition for further consideration regarding denial of the P.S.
zoning and rezoning of the property to C-1.
9052
Mr. Pinto stated as he understands
it,
petitionfirst
initiatedtbyntheaCity Counciland re
is presently before the Commassinn a
asking the Commission to forward to them a recommendation as to whetheror
ot
the property should be rezoned to P.S. , and the first two resolutions, having
failed, that petition involving that parcel is still open for consideration.
Mr. Colomina proposed to initiate a second petition involving the same parcel
on the Commission's own Tread done bytion to ider the Councilgandat thatrmotion failedcel to a eandt
classification to that already
a resolution to the Council was not made either way.
Mr. Andrew requested clarification from the Assistant City Attorney.
Mr. Feinberg asked for an explanation of the reference made to "it is still
open".
Mr. Pinto stated he means the Council's request for a recommendation is still
before the Commission because the two resolutions failed to pass.
Mr. Feinberg stated he agrees with Mr. Pinto; the matter is still open.
Mr. Pinto questioned if, as ofo his momen , haslthe Comte missio71made- a,a resolution
which makes a recommendation
the1-1
A
Mr. Feinberg stated, no.
A roll call vote was begun with Mr. Tunis and Mr. Moser voicing a vote of
abstinence.
Mr. Pinto requested to know if an abstinence vote means a yes vote as is the
Council's procedure.
A recess was called at 9:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Law Department to
prepare an opinion regarding the meaning of a vote cast to "abstain".
The 254th Special Meeting was reopened at 9:10 p.m. with all Commissioners
present.
ts
Mr. Feinberg stated that he would
andread
355and
thenthen
stated therea rerspecialsof
rules
Order, newly revised, pages 3
that a body can adopt that might parallel
recordedcasrauyeso?,Mand theobasis for.
his question is "Is an abstinence
this question is that that i�rthe$eractice of advised the Commissioe City n his interpretationbelieves
follows Roberts Rules of Orc� means no vote at all.
would be that a vote to abstain simply
to
les,
Mr. Andrew stated the Council has its own rules
ftnthatithenCommissionSsRRules
and that the Chair will rule that due to the fac
do not clarify an abstinence vote and the Assistant City Attorney having
advised the Commission that an abstinence l does not count either yes or no, the
Commission will proceed with the tle
4e1
A roll call vote on the tabling resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Colomina, Falk, Tent, Moser
NAYS: Pinto, Hand, Andrew, Talbot, Tunis
ABSENT: None
9053
1r2Ir. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution fails for lack of support.
re
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand and seconded by Mr. Tunis, it was
#1-18-71 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
January 26, 1971 on Petition 71-1-1-1 as initiated by Council
Resolution ##1211-70 pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance
##543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended,
to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Farmington
Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4,
from C-2 to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 71-1-1-1 be denied
for the following reasons:
(1) The C-2 zoning is consistent with the previously approved
general development plan for the area.
(2) The C-2 zoning category provides for the broadest range
of land uses and maximum amount of design flexibility to
encourage a well balanced and integrated commercial
facility.
(3) The conditions of the area have not substantially changed to
necessitate a major revision in the Master Plan for the
northwest area at this time.
I
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above Public Hearing was
published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer,
under date of January 9, 1971 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. Hand stated he feels this zoning was granted in good faith on the develop-
ment of that area and he can see no logical reason for any change taking place
in the area. He said he thinks it is compatible with the development of the
area.
Mr. Colomina stated in answer to Mr. Hand regarding a compatible use that the
uses in that area now are of a C-1 nature and in the Commission's meetings with
the Council on the Seven Mile Road Parking Study it was mutually agreed and
directions were given by Council to pull back the zoning from the commercial use
to cut down on the intensified use. He stated he can't see putting in a C-2
for something that will generate as much traffic as this type of use will. Also,
he stated the City and people denied the ML zoning because it was too high an
intensity of use for this area and if homes continue to develop like the homes
that have developed there now, he can't see putting this high-intensity use on
this corner.
Mr. Falk stated he can't see what is being done that wasn't done five years ago
°e when a K-Mart was proposed on Six Mile and Middlebelt Road. He said it wasn't
wanted then for the same reasons it isn't wanted now and he can't see moving it
down one mile further and changing the position of the Council and the people.
The situation will change based on that C-1 is acceptable but not C-2 in that
area.
9054
Mr. Andrew stated he would like to remind theOVeCommission d C-2 z nithat
ng folless
than
ornigh eighteen
ILmonths ago the City Council unanimously app
the Federation of Civic Associations supported the Council 100% at that time.
He said that eighteen months later, becauseanthhed tmortgageagage money has
f loosened enedcup
the Commission decides the Council is wrong
iatiOne ie wrong and that it should have been zoned P.S. eighteen months ago.
He stated he betieves the hang-up
is the K-Mart and believes the question
sho�id be zoning and not the use.
Mr. Tent stated that eighteen months ago the property was zoned C-2, R-7 and
P.S. and eighteen months ago there was a good plan for that area. The question
now is is the plan for the use of the commercial the same today, and Mr. Tent
stated he was on the Commission at the time it was felt that a discount store
would generate high traffic so what could be put in that would not generate
traffic, and stores were discussed then. Mr. Tent stated that now the discussion
is whether or not to rezone the property from C-2 to P.S. and that is a large
amount for that area. He stated his suggestion is to go to C-1 which will not
be so high in intensity but will still leave the commercial zoning.
Mr. Andrew stated that the petitions were approved for the R-7, P.S. and
commercial zoning and the City acquired some right-of-way and he would like to
remind the Commission that the people at that time agreed with the.Council
that this was good zoning, and he can't believe that in eighteen months this
position has changed.
t: Mr. Pinto stated that the memory of some members of the Commission goes back
further than his but his understandingis that
eighteen
months
rezoned toiC 2landing
Commission voted unanimously to recommend this property be
asked what has happened to the circumstance of this property in eighteen months
that suddenly makes the C-2 that passed eighteen months ago P.S. property.
Mr. Tent stated that panic set in because of passed to recommendation bye thet e Plat
lan-
ning Commission and the other zonings were
time.
•
Mr. Andrew requested to know what C-2 use would not intensify the traffic at
this corner.
Hr.' Tent stated for instance a party store.
Mr. Falk stated that he happened to be the President ofethe
n hFedetratio say of Civic, ,f
Associations at that time and his memory
is not that
conceded to a C-2, his main concern in representing the people is that theyC-2
wanted to see homes up on that corner and at that time no one was
ttalkn '
Federation what
only light.industry and apartments. He stated he can't say
did on the C-2 but he knows they didn't want industrial, they wanted homes.
the Council and he can't
Mr. Hanthisis uld3be3 cnaivere tenoughe dto�think party stores would go up
believe thhatat aannybodys woo
on C-2. He said the CouncilCor P.S. andthat isall hasdiredthe � sthe Commission isconcerned
her or
not to recommend this as
with tonight.
A motion on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
9055
AYES: Pinto, Talbot, Tunis, Hand, Andrew
NAYS: Colomina, Falk, Moser, Tent
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-12-8-10 by
Schostak Brothers requesting site plan approval for K-Mart
proposed to be constructed on the northwest corner of
Farmington Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4
of Section 4.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mr. Tent, it was
#1-19-71 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 11.03
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended by Ordinance #606, having reviewed Site Plan #7082 dated
December 30, 1970, presented in connection with Petition 68-4-1-10
approved by City Planning Commission Resolution #5-57-68 adopted
on May 21, 1968, does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 70-12-8-10 by Schostak Brothers requesting site plan
approval for a K-Mart development proposed to be constructed on
the northwest corner of Farmington Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, be denied for the following reasons:
•
(1) The parking bay sizes do not comply with Zoning Ordinance
#543, Section 2.09(2) .
(2) The parking lot access aisles do not comply with the
approved standard of, the City of Livonia Traffic Bureau
and Building Department.
(3) Ingress and egress as related to Seven Mile and Farmington
Road will cause a traffic hazard and safety problem in the
opinion of the City of Livonia Traffic Bureau of the Police
Department.
(4) No protective masonry screen wall is provided for along
the northerly and westerly limits of the site as it
abuts residentially zoned property.
(5) Inadequate provision has been made to landscape the interior
of the parking lot and the front building pedestrian walkway.
Mr. Andrew stated for the information of the Commission that the file contains
a letter from the Fire Department stating they have no objection to this
petition and a letter from the Police Department relative to the proposed plan
possibly causingheotentialproblem.P
endation on
traffic
Mr. Andrewreadthe
problem
and
that
Department's
m
letter from the Police
' alleviating
Department for the Commission's edification.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
r
9056
AYES: Tunis, Tent, Talbot, Pinto, Moser, Falk, Colomina
NAYS: Hand, Andrew
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-128-or by
Volk & London, Architects, requesting site plan approval
Trinity Park Housing for the Elderly proposed to be located
on the east side of Middlebelt Road south of Jamison Avenue
in Section 24.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser and seconded by Mr. Talbot, it was
RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 29.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #774, having
reviewed Site Plan #1707 dated December 1, 1970, presented
in connection with Petition 70-5-1-16 approved by City Plan-
ning Commission Resolution #6-63-70 adopted on June 9,1970,
does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 70-12-8-9
submitted by Volk & London, Architects, requesting site plan
approval for Trinity Park Housing for the Elderly proposed to
be located on the east side of Middlebelt Road south of Jamison
IL: Avenue in Section 24, be approved subject to submission of a
Landscape Plan by the petitioner, for the following reasons:
(1) It complies with all of the applicable Ordinance of
the City of Livonia.
(2) It reasonably conforms to the plan presented at the time
the zoning change was granted to facilitate the development
of a project for the housing of the elderly.
Mr. Andrew stated he assumed Mr.Kropf iswehere representing the petitioner and
read the conditions of approval
(1) Site Plan #1707 dated December 1, 1970 shall be adhered to.
(2) Architectural drawing #1707, Sheet A-4, A-6 and A-7
shall be adhered to.
(3) Within one (1) month of the date of this approval a
landscape plan shall be submitted for Planning Commission
approval.
(4) All landscape material as shown on the approved landscape
plan shall be installed prior to issuance of a Certificate
of Occupancy and all landscape material shall be maintained.
IL:
Mr. Tent requested to know if there are any
deficiencies in the site plan
modification as far as the exteriorstuicdi ,
buildings
gsin this location are concerned
regarding side yard and backyard
9057
Mr. John Nagy, Planning Director, stated tthato at treatar time
the
di setback rst sitedetected
plan was submitted a violation with reeltd
slbea40'. Mr.new Nagyite plan Was st ted that tobtthheted bestnofshisnthe
but rear
knowledge
yard
wi
there is no
yard willl
conflict now.
Mr. Tent asked if this plan conforms or does not conform to the original plan.
Mr. Nagy stated that the first plan was submitted to indicate the conception
of the development of the area at the time the rezoning was requested and since
that time an architect was obtained and naturally there were some adjustments
made, but still there is reasonable adherence to the first plan.
Mr. Tent was asked efa a overbuilding rsee
ars wee site
e in ourplan.
legalMr.
limits.replied yes,
and questioned if W
Mr. Nagy stated we are not at the absolute maximum.
Mr. Colomina questioned if the possibility of another ingress has been explored.
Mr. Kropf stated they had investigated the possiblity of another road going
to the north but found it could not be done.
Mr. Ralph Bakewell, Planner III, explained the site plan to the Commission and
audience.
te Mr. Tent asked if the road is on the RUF property.
Mr. Bakewell replied, yes.
Mr. Tent asked what the reason was for exluding the RUF property and building
the road on it.
Mr. Kropf stated that originally the Church felt that if the Church retained
ownership and control of this property the surrounding neighbors to the south
might not be as objectionable. He stated they were not overjoyed with the
project. He said they will install a greenbelt and will get a plan in within
a few weeks so these homeowners will be assured of protection.
Mr. William Melcher, 29132 Barkley, was present and stated his feeling that the
exclusion of the RUF property is a subterfuge to gain possession of that land.
Mr. Homer Flora was present and stated he is the President of Compton Village
Civic Association and when this proposal came before the Commission and Council
their premise for objecting to this rezoning was that they felt it would deter
from the property value. He stated that living space in their homes is in the
back and asked if these home owners with a greenbelt in the backyards wouldn't
suffer a loss of value of their property.
Mr. Andrew asked at what point in time did the 25' become a question as far as
te the Civic Association was concerned.
Mr. H. Flora stated at the Council level, and thata year ago this was defeated
by the veto of the Mayor and this year they came back in with a 25' subterfuge to
eliminate the property owners.
9058
Mr. Hand stated that when this request for rezoning
came 0'inthere here the
e
area abutting the property owners was a greenbelt
no road way proposed in there as it was presented to us and as to what happened
to it after that, he has no idea.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Moser, Pinto, Talbot, Andrew
NAYS: Colomina, Falk, Tent, Tunis, Hand
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the resolution lost for lack of support.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Colomina, it was
#1-20-71 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section 29.02
of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended by Ordinance #774, having reviewed Site Plan #1701 dated
December 1, 1970, presented in connection with Petition 70-5-1-16
approved by City Planning Commission Resolution #6-63-70 adopted on
June 9, 1970, does hereby recommend to the City Council
cilttthat
requesting
Petition 70-12-8-9 submitted by Volk & London,
site plan approval for Trinity Park Housing for the Elderly proposed
to be located on the east side of Middlebelt Road south of Jamison
Avenue in Section 24, be denied.
IIV A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Tunis, Falk, Tent, Colomina, Hand
NAYS: Talbot, Pinto, Moser, Andrew
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda to be
nasFinal
Plat the
approval
lsfor
Tiffany Park Subdivision #5 proposed
1/2 of Section 19.
Mr. Andrew stated if theri�etin objection
the Tanning Commission. eri ander advise-
ment until the next regularg
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is a request dated January 18,
1971 from Elliott C. Schubiner to modify the Site Plan (Petition
68-1-8-1) for Merriman PApartments
located on tside
of Merrimanoa , sohof EghtMile Road, in theNorthwest1/4 of
Section 2.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Tent and seconded by Mr. Colomina, it was
9059
IL
RESOLVED that, having considered the letter dated January 18,
1971 from Elliott C. Schubiner requesting approval of a modi-
fication of Site Plan #68-874 (Petition 68-1-8-1) for Merriman
Park Apartments located on the east sidef
allow
installation
of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest
installation of 74 carports, for the present time, instead of the
originally approved 131 carports, the City Planning Commission
does hereby deny said request for the following reasons:
(1) Carports will help to increase the quality of the project.
(2) Carports are a desirable amenity that will help to main-
tain the livability of the project through time.
(3) The required number of carports, as agreed upon, was
established on the basis of a slightly less than a one-to-
one ratio which is not an unreasonable requirement.
Mr. Elliott C. Schubiner, petitioner, was present and stated thatoriginall
al
approval was given for 131 carports and they would be most happy to
them today if they had users but their intention is not to spend X number of
dollars on carports that will stand vacant, and these carports will not be able
to be used. He stated that at this point they are putting in all the carports
on the north side of the property which was originally to be a buffer against
the industrial; that will be 64 carports, and they are putting in an additional
12 on the south side. He said he would like the Commission to know that out of
1 the 64 on the north side he doubts if they will be able to rent 20% of them;
there is just not the demand for them. He stated they are requesting 76 car-
ports and hold in abeyance the balance for two years, but if the economy
improves they will be most happy to build them. He stated, at this time
consideration from the Commission is being requested to hold in abeyance for
two years the balance of the carports.
Mr. Tent stated he would like to refresh the memories of the Commission and
Mr. Schubiner: this site was in question when the rezoning to R-7 was enter-
tained a few years back and the Commission was
buildn ionia tour ta.to Birngram
and told to pick out a concept and they a art of this development; now, the
at that time, he said, were very much a p orfs. Mr. Tent
Commission is told it is not economical to put in the carp
stated his feeling that Mr. Schubiner can lower the rent and put in the carports
and if the Commission allows an opwhen aion ndeveloperthis ecomeswill
before the Commission
every developer that comes in and
and makes a proposal the Commission should stick to it.
Mr. Schubiner stated that Mr. Tent's arguments are fallacious and incorrect;
they took the Commission to that a which
said theirGcostsohave been Fourteen
so highMile and
this was the project that was chosen.
but they have frorj exsethat were shown to Mrded the building . Tentnts of Livonia and and he believes hiscomments
exceeded any projects i to eliminate carports
were uncalled for. He stated they are not trying
because they are installing better
than two carrdstof them; they are asking for
a two-year moratorium on the balance
Mr. Tent asked if a request for a two-year moratorium is stated on the proposal.
rani► -
9060
Ile Mr. Schubiner stated he will be happy to put that in there.
Mr. Pinto asked if this modification has to go to the Council from the Commission.
Mr. Nagy stated that at the time this Petition was acted on, site plan approval of
multi-family projects rested solely with the Planning Commission and this has been
treated as a modification and in his opinion does not need to be transmitted to
the Council for action.
Mr. Pinto stated that as he recalls the study session on this, the request was
to eliminate a certain nutiber of carports but to also authorizeethe
construction
of several or more carports in a differewt location
somewhaCthe
differeat net figure.
you subtract the former you will end up with a
sHe was also asking permission to build carports on some other location and elimi-
nate some at some other location.
Mr. Nagy stated that based upon the request there will be a net loss of 54hat
carports; now Mr. Schubiner states that within two years he will make up
net loss.
Mr. Andrew read the letter dated January 18, 1971 from Mr. Schubiner relative
to his request.
Mr. Hand stated that if Mr. Tent will withdraw backstoothenfor denial he Commission for furthers
a motion should be made to bring what
' stuffy so Mr. Schubiner can
becauseexpress
there seems to beta conflictwriting
as towhatis on
he will and will not do
the petition and what the Commission has discussed and what Mr. Schubiner says
tonight.
Mr. Tent said he will be willing to withdraw
what he motion
ants if Mr.r. Schubiner will
come back before the Commission and
Mr. Colomina stated he will withdraw his support of the motion to deny.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot and seconded by Mr. Tunis, it was
#1-21-71 RESOLVED that, having considered the letter dated January 18,
1971 from Elliott C. Schubiner requesting app
modifi-
cationroval of Site Plan #68-874 (Petition 68-1-8-1) for Merriman
outh
Park Apartments located on the east side of Merriman Road,
of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, toad allow
installation of 74 carports, for the pres nt time,
of
pp
the originally approved 131 carports, the City Planning Commission
does hereby determine to table this request for further clarification
and study.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Colomina, Falk, Pinto, Tent, Tunis, Talbot, Hand, Andrew
NAYS: Moser
ABSENT: None
Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
9061
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously care e ,l the
MeetCCity
ng hof Livonia
Planning Commission adjourned its 254thp
on January 26, 1971, at approximately 10:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Yr, to
Francis M. Hand, Secretary
ATTESTED:
1*--)1A4/6 -7
Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman