Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1975-04-08 5759 ji . MINUTES OF THE 293rd REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF i LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 8, 1975 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 293rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman, called the Public Hearings and Regular Meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. , with approximately 30 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph R. Talbot Charles Pinto Herman H. Kluver Suzanne Wisler Esther Friedrichs Joseph J. Falk Francis M. Hand Members absent: William Scruggs (vacation) Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV; H G Shane, Planner IV; John Dufour, Superintendent of the Parks & Recreation Department; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney, were also present. Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a question of rezoning or vacating, this Commission only makes recommendations to the City Council and the City Council , after holding a public hearing, makes the final determina- tion as to whether a petition is approved or denied, and if a petition requesting a waiver of use is denied, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision to the City Council . j Mr. Joseph J. Falk, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 75-2-1-7 by William Abney & Roy W. Johnston to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Grove and Terrence in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-1 . Mr. Nagy: There are two pieces of correspondence in the file; one from the Engineer- ing Division indicating there are no engineering problems connected with this petition, and one from Consumers Power Company indicating they have no objection to the petition. Mr. Andrew: At the the study meeting, there was discussion relative to an amendment to reduce the area under petition to exclude that portion lying within the flood plain. Roy W. Johnston, 20793 Farmington Road, Farmington, Michigan, petitioner: The Architect came up with the proper legal description which is about what is shown on the map. I will have to get that over to the Engineering Department. Mr. Andrew: Has the Engineering Department reviewed this legal description as it relates to the flood plain? Mr. Nagy: We asked the Engineering Department to furnish us with a revised legal description covering just the buildable area. We have been furnished with the legal description based on the site plan furnished with the petition. 5760 • 4 ' Mr. Andrew: Has any of the correspondence gone to the petitioner or his architect? Mr. Nagy: It has not been indicated on the letters that copies were furnished to either. Mr. Andrew: Is there any difficulty with the legal description? Mr. Johnston: I don' t think so. I think our architect has it just about as it is here on this map. Mr. Andrew: For the record, you don't have any objection to the legal description furnished by the Engineering Department in connection with this petition? Mr. Johnston: No, we don't. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-2-1-7 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk and seconded by Mr. Kluver, it was #4-59-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-2-1-7 as submitted by William Abney and Roy W. Johnston to rezone property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between Grove and Terrence in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to C-1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-2-1-7 be approved as amended to cover only that property legally described as follows and to ex- clude that portion of the petition lying within the flood plain: ' That part of the East 470 feet of Lot 333, Supervisor's Livonia Plat #5, as recorded in Liber 66, Page 32, said plat being of part of the S. 1/2 of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 13 , T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , Livonia Township (now the City of Livonia) Wayne County, Michigan, described as measuring 110 feet along the North line of said lot and 190 feet along the South line of said lot; and That part of the N.W. 1/4 of Section 13, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, described as beginning at a point on the E. line of Middlebelt Road distant S. 0°22' W. along the W. section line 1409 feet and S. 39°02' E. 94.53 feet from the N.W. corner of Section 13 and proceeding thence S. 0°22' W. along said E. line 162 feet, thence S. 89°39' E. 133.04 feet; thence N. 39°02' W. 209.59 feet to the point of beginnings for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning represents a very minor expansion in a C-1 zone between an area already zoned C-1 and an area confined on the north and east by permanent open flood plain area. (2) The proposed change of zoning is related and and will be inte- grated with the planned development for the commercial district already existing to the south. 5761 (3) The proposed change of zoning will permit uses that will be compatible to the surrounding uses of the area. Jr- (4) The proposed change of zoning will provide for the more orderly and appropriate development of the subject area due to the common ownership of commercial lands. (5) The petitioner has agreed to the legal description which reduces the land area under petition which area has been described by the Engineering Department in a letter dated April 3, 1975. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Observer/Eccentric, under date of March 20, 1975, and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Con- sumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Friedrichs, Pinto, Talbot, Wisler, Falk, Andrew NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Hand ABSENT: Scruggs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-2-1-8 by Emerson • Building Company to rezone property located on the west side of Alexander between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-1 . Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file dated March 7, 1975 which states that the west half of Alexander Avenue is not improved at this time and should a building operation occur on the west side of Alexander, the Engineering Department would require a minimum improvement of the west half of the road. There is also a letter from Consumers Power Company stating they have no objection and a letter from Don Carter dated March 21 , 1975 stating that he is not opposed to the zoning change but that homes built should have brick to the eaves on all sides of the homes and garages. Mr. Andrew: I have a question on the letter from Engineering. What vehicle would the Engineering Department use to implement the paving of the west side of Alexander if Emerson Building Company came in for a building permit on the north 170' of the east 68' of Lot 224? Would they deny the building permit until such time as a road is put in? Mr. Nagy: That is the way I read it. I think they are saying they do not recommend issuance of. a permit until thebuilder._paves the street. Mr. C. Grenader, 18250 Riverside, Birmingham, Michigan: Mr. Schwartz is the purchaser and he is going to fill in the drainage ditch. I don't know if they intend to pave it but they intend to put in a culvert. 5762 Mr. Andrew: How do you intend to build a home on the 66' x 130' lot? to, Mr. Grenadier: By building a culvert beside the lot 246. Mr. Andrew: Would you be kind enough to show us on the map? Mr. Grenader so indicated on the map. Mr. Andrew: The lot I am speaking of is 225 where you are carving out a piece. How do you intend to gain access to that lot? Do you intend to grant an easement? Mr. Grenader: I think so. Mr. Anthony Margiotta, 14489 Park, Livonia: There is a dual purpose here . . . Mr. Andrew: I take it there is a lot split before the City Council . Will you indicate that to the Commission? Mr. Margiotta so indicated on the map. We had a meeting with the City Assessor and Mr. Nagy and the question came up. It was clearly indicated that we could use it as it is and we would not be required to pave it until we platted. Mr. Andrew: It was my understanding that Lot 225 has been split. If we split a portion of Lot 225 again, is Lot 225 in violation of the Plat Act? te Mr. Nagy: Lot 225 right now is divided into three parts. If you split it east/ west, it will make a grand total of five and would be in violation of the Plat Act. Mr. Margiotta: We had a meeting with Mr. Tatigian and the Assessor and it was every- body's opinion that this proposal conformed with the Plat Act. ' Mr. Andrew: I disagree with the ruling of the City Attorney. I think you are in violation as soon as you split the lot again. Mr. Margiotta: Mr. Bridges called Wayne County and got a clarification on it. Mr. Andrew: We will check into that clarification with Wayne County. You do not intend to improve Alexander and the purchaser intends to build-five lots. Mr. Margiotta: That is correct. Mr. Falk: You stated that you had a meeting with Mr. Tatigian who said something; with Mr. Bridges who said something; and I don't think the Planning Director has been told there is no violation . . . I wonder if we should table this until we get further clarification so we know what we are doing. I am not certain what we are doing is right and I think we should have something in writing. Mr. Andrew: Where does his lot split stand before Council ? 5763 • Mr. Nagy: The lot split is not before the Council for the reason that it has not come through the Planning Department yet for comment, but the request is fp:, in the mill . Sam Provenzola, 11805 Haller, Livonia: I own Lot 225 and I don't understand why you are talking about splitting it. Mr. Andrew: Lot 225 has been split into three separate parcels according to the tax maps. If it is split again to create two more parcels, that would be in violation of the Plat Act of the State of Michigan. Mr. Provenzola: I see. They want to split it this way. That is all I wanted to know. Mr. Pinto: Without getting ahead of things. . .your initial comment was that you owned Lot 225. If you look at the map and we have the same map in front of us, and look at the portion of Lot 225 that is within the bold, black line, are you in agreement that what you own is outside that black line? Mr. Provenzola: Yes. I am also uncertain why they are trying to split this. Mr. Pinto: We are talking about the part of Lot 225 that you don' t own. Leonard Spas, 28678 Sunnydale, Livonia: I attended a meeting about four or five years ago with Emerson Builders who where petitioning this same land and at that time I represented a group in our area. We were in total objec- tion to Emerson Builders primarily because the east half of the street was paved and the west half was not paved. There is a culvert littered with debris. We did not approve then and are against this particular addition unless there are sewers and paved curbs and we are concerned 1E; about the style of the homes. Ours are brick with attached garages. We do not want any other type homes coming in to lower our values. I be- lieve Emerson is camouflaging here by selling it to Schwartz. We want to know what type homes they intend to build and what is their defini- tion of a culvert. Mr. Andrew: I think you broughtup some interesting points. This Commission must con- cern itself with the petition which is a concern of zoning. Many ques- tions you raised are questions of engineering which I don't care to have the Commission address itself to this evening. I think we can be con- cerned about the improvement of Alexander Avenue. We have no control over the exterior appearance of structures, that is a function of the • Building Code and I don't know if the Building Code would cover the exterior. Mr. Spas: Can you control what he does by your consideration regarding the zoning? Mr. Andrew: Our difficulty is that we cannot approve zoning based on conditions. The Engineering Division says they object to the building of homes with- out the improvement of Alexander. Mr. Spas: Would more representation by us have more of a clout in this way? IL Mr. Andrew: The Commission looks at things objectively whether there are one or one hundred people, but honestly I think it might. Mr. Provenzola: After this meeting, how much further does this go? 5764 • Mr. Andrew: To the City Council . They will have about three meetings where they will vote at different levels. , Mr. Hand: In answer to the remark that the gentleman made. . .we look at situations like this occasionally and they represent , in my opinion, mistakes that have been made in the past with lot splits. Many of those splits were RUF and should have remained RUF. This is an attempt to build small homes. At this level , a lot of people won't make a lot of difference because we do attempt to remain somewhat aloof from the political pres- sures of the people and make a decision as to whether or not it is best for the interest of the people concerned. If you parade a lot of people in front of the Council , you may get attention. Vickie McDonald, 28940 Broadmoor, Livonia: There is a water line coming though the property that my house and the house next door tap into. Would we be forced to tap into the street that we are on and would we have to pay a tap-in fee? Mr. Andrew: In my opinion, this is a problem for the seller, buyer, Engineering Depart- ment and City. I will assume they will not turn off your water. If I were you I would call Mr. Dick Jones tomorrow morning and I am sure you will find him very helpful with the information you seek. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-2-1-8 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was L #4-60-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-2-1-8 as submitted by Emerson Building Company to rezone property located on the west side of Alexander between Sunnydale and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13, from RUF to R-1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 75-2-1-8 until the study meeting of April 22, 1975. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-3-1-9 by the City Plan- ning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the east side of Farmington Road between the C & 0 Railway and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, from M-2 to M-1 and M-1 to M-2. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from Consumers Power Company stating they have no objection to this petition. Mr. Andrew: This is a petition by the Planning Commission on its own motion with two basic purposes involved. One is to bring the zoning into conformity with property lines and the second is to change zoning classifications to more clearly associate the type of use that the property is currently being used for. Sam Shamie, 26400 Southfield, Lathrup Village: I own Lot #7. My tenant in the building is Wayne Steel Company and RE-Steel Center. RE operates the steel and Wayne the office area. Four years ago when we built the office for the 5765 • company, it was heavy manufacturing. One of the reasons we picked that lot was because it was heavy manufacturing and could use outside storage in the day and park them there at night. I am concerned because to change t it to light manufacturing would stop them from doing this and defeat the purpose of them easing the building. Mr. Andrew: It is my understanding that the outside storage of material is not per- mitted in M-1 Districts. For that reason 1 can't see why it will affect this at all . Mr. Nagy: That kind of storage would be prohibited in M-1 . If it is steel in con- nection with fabrication, it can't be stored. Mr. Andrew: Are they a steel fabricator? Ken Dudzinski , 32920 Capitol , tenant: Yes. We are a fabricator. Both companies have the same president. Mr. Andrew: The five-ton crane is in the building operation by RE; that is zoned M-1 and we are not talking about changing that. Mr. Shamie: We want the heavy manufacturing to stay so we can store outside on the M-2 property. Mr. Andrew: You store it on the M-2 and use it in the M-1? Mr. Dudzinski : We use it in both. . . Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, if I understand this right, we should be talking about rezoning all of Lot #7 from M-1 to M-2. Mr. Nagy: If RE and Wayne are steel fabricators that actually use steel fabrication in connection with the building and have a need for outside storage and it is not enclosed in a building, then that is an M-2 permitted use. Our field investigation shows that the permit was based on M-1 zoning with no outside storage and on that basis we don't see the need for M-2 zoning. There was no evidence of outside storage yesterday and everything was inside. Mr. Andrew: Do you see any damage in rezoning Lot #7 in its entirety to M-2? Mr. Nagy: I don' t see damage but our view is that this is a planned industrial park and complies with standards of good industrial parks. I think heavy industrial zoning is contrary to the planning of good industrial parks. We could perhaps make an exception in that case but I don't see how we are doing any damage to this tenant when his use can be carried on in an M-1 zone. Mr. Andrew: When do you store outside here? . Mr. Dudzinski : We haven't had outside storage since August or September of last year but until then we were storing outside on a day-to-day basis depending on the market. , Mr. Andrew: If the owner paves it this year, are you going to use it for storage? Mr. Dudzinski : Yes. We intend to fence it and store on it. 5766 Mr. Pinto: If John and H have been listening to this gentleman, he seems to be indicating that there has been a period when outside storage has been discontinued. He stated it existed prior to that time and subsequent to the repaving of the lot. Have I heard you to say that under the existing zoning the outside storage if started up again in the future would be in violation of the existing ordinance? Mr. Nagy: It would be in violation of M-1 zoning. Mr. Pinto: The property upon which these gentlemen plan to initiate open storage for the next several months; that property which they contemplate for use for outside storage. . . is it M-1 or M-2? Mr. Nagy: M-2. Mr. Pinto: So, under the present zoning the open storage which they expect to com- mence in the future would be within the present zoning of the property on which they plan to do the open storage. Mr. Nagy: That is correct. Mr. Pinto: I assume that the proposal would propose to rezone that portion to M-1 making it impossible to "store". Mr. Nagy: The use would then become prohibited and subject to waiver use approval . Mr. Kluver: To fully clarify the point. . .there will be outside storage. ' Mr. Dudzinski : That is correct. Mr. Talbot: The gentleman says he was storing in the past on M-2, which is legal . At the present time reports did not show storage but times have changed. Back in August or the fall of last year, steel was hard to get so .you grabbed it and stored it. Right now it is cheap and you don't have to store it. In another six months it may get tough again and there will be a need to store it. Daniel Gilmartin, Industrial Development Coordinator: When the Industrial Commission originally looked at this and forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission, we looked at this end of Capitol as now being developed in a heavy manufacturing capacity and with one exception it has not hurt the area; that being Freedland who will make some improvements in the park- ing. M-2 is scarce. That was the reason we recommended that this be considered to remain M-2 whereas we didn't dispute the fact that it is not a subdivision. It would be difficult in the future to change to M-1 if the intent is heavy industrial . I am quite certain that if this in its changed variation as it is now from what we first considered, I feel if it was brought back to the Industrial Commission, they would recom- mend leaving the entire area heavy manufacturing. Mr. Andrew: What is your feeling regarding Lot #7 where RE Steel is? IL, Mr. Gilmartin: I don' t see where we would have any objection to that. 5767 Mr. Hand: It seems this started when Livonia Stamping expanded and the whole intent of this zoning proposition was to bring zoning into conformity with lot lines and I realize at that time Lot #7 was, in fact, half M-2. It seems logical to me that we might go entirely M-2 on Lot #7 and then we have the use in conformity with the zoning and it would allow them to do what they want to do. It seems reasonable to rezone Lot #7 entirely M-2. Mr. Andrew: Would there be any objection, John? Mr. Nagy: Philosophically I have a difference of opinion because industrial parks should not have heavy manufacturing. They have done a good job here and I am willing to go along with this. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-3-1-9 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Hand and unanimously adopted, it was • #4-61-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-3-1-9 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the east side of Farming- ton Road between the C & 0 Railway and Capitol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, from M-2 to M-1 and M-1 to M-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-3-1-9 be approved, as amended, and that the following legally described property be rezoned from M-1 to M-2: The East 190 feet of the South 458.53 feet of Lot 9, and the North 1/2 of Capitol Avenue (60 feet wide) adjacent thereto, Livonia Industrial Park Subdivision No. 1 , as recorded in Liber 91 , Pages 20 and 21 , Wayne County Records, said subdivision being a part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan; and That part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, T. 1 S. R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan described as beginning at a point distant N. 00 39" E. , 1877.68 feet and S. 89° 13' 14" E. , 1320 feet from the S.W. corner of Section 27, proceeding thence S. 89° 13' 14" E. 145.21 feet, thence N. 0° 02' 31" E. , 165 feet; thence N. 89° 13' 14" W. , 145.21 feet, thence S. 0° 02' 31" W. , 165 feet to the point of beginning. for the following reasons: (1) This petition is necessary to bring zoning into conformance with property lines. (2) The uses established on the properties involved more properly belong in the zoning districts proposed to be established thereon. (3) The Industrial Development Coordinator recommends approval of this petition. . 110 5768 • AND THAT, the portion of Lot #7 being legally described as follows be it' deleted from consideration for rezoning from M-2 to M-1 : The West 54.79 feet of the East 72.29 feet of Lot 7, and the North 1/2 of Capitol Avenue (60 feet wide) adjacent thereto, Livonia Industrial Park Subdivision No. 1 , as recorded in Liber 91 , Pages 20 and 21 , Wayne County Records, said subdivision being a part of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer/Eccentric, under date of March 17, 1975, and a 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-62-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 (b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, the City Plan- ning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone the west part of Lot #7 and that portion of Parcel E3a1 immediately north of and adjacent to Lot #7, which property is located east of Farmington Road, north of Capitol Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, from M-1 to M-2. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing shall be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, delcared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-3-2-5 by Livonia Jaycees requesting a waiver use approval to hold an Annual Spring Carnival on the Wonderland Shopping Center property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35. Mr. Nagy: Correspondence in the file indicates that Consumers Power Company has no objection to this petition. Mr. Andrew: When will this carnival be in operation? . Petitioner: From May 21 , 1975 to June 1 , 1975. Mr. Andrew:IL It will be in the same location as last year? Petitioner: Yes. 5769 There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-3-2-5 closed. / On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Pinto and unanimously adopted, 1!: it was #4-63-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-3-2-5 as submitted by Livonia Jaycees requesting a waiver use approval to hold an Annual Spring Carnival on the Wonderland Shopping Center property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-3-2-5 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The Police and Fire Departments have no objections to the . petition. (2) The use of property for carnival purposes will not interrupt the normal traffic flow and use of land for parking purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above Public Hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. • Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ' IL Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-3-3-2 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #42-75 to vacate a portion of the public walkway located on the west side of Knolson at Mason Avenue in the South 1/2 of Section 19. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in the file from Castle Gardens Civic Association which states that they are strongly opposed to the approval of this petition, and a letter dated March 5, 1975 from the Engineering Division which recommends that a public easement be retained over the same area to be vacated. A letter from Consumers Power Company indicates that they have no objection to the vacating. Mr. Andrew: Basically, what is the width of the public right-of-way? Mr. Nagy: The public walkway is 29.3' which was a right-of-way for the extension of Knolson Avenue. Mr. Dufour: The map I have indicates the public walkway fenced in is 8.7' in width. Under no condition can we get into the existing park site with the walkway the way it is. We have to have a minimum of 10' to get our equipment into the park. I ask the Commission to consider the widening of the walkway to a minimum of 10' so we can get in from the south. . Mr. Andrew: Is the fence on both the north and south sides? Mr. Dufour: Yes. 5770 Mr. Andrew: In addition to the 8' walkway, you need another 2' of paved area? 10 J Mr. Dufour: Paved or not, we need it. Mr. Pinto: Mr. Dufour's point is that he does not want the south 10'-11 ' vacated or in any way distrubed. All we can do to protect it is to reserve for Parks and Recreation more than 8' and Mr. Dufour is saying 10' . Mr. Andrew: I think it is our prerogative to recommend to Council to suggest that the property owner who is going to benefit be responsible for moving the fence and paving the sidewalk. Mr. Pinto: The fence was put in in a location where John can't get his equipment in and if there is an error with the location of the fence, we can forget this petition and the City will have to move the fence anyway. It seems to me that if a mistake was made and John can't get in, I can't see why that is the responsibility of the adjoining property owner. Mr. Legleitner, 14129 Knolson, Livonia: I petitioned Council for the vacating of the balance of the property between my property and the fenced-in walkway. My purpose was to fence my property where people coming from Knolson or Mason entering the park wouldn' t continue to go in the dirt section. I hoped, with the acceptance of my petition that I would grass and fence that area. I had no intention to block off access to the park. The builder who built the property on Summers, I believe installed the walkway and fence. Mr. Hand: Wouldn' t twelve feet be a little more reasonable width for you to have in the event that the future might develop some larger equipment to move in there? Mr. Dufour: I asked the Park Superintendent and he said a minimum of 10' . Mr. Hand: I would suggest that we talk about 12' and I have no objection to the balance going to the petitioner. In view of the fact that you will be picking up this additional land, Mr. Legleitner, would you relocate the fence to the new property line? Mr. Legleitner: That fence runs 160' . Under those conditions, I wouldn't want the land. Mr. Hand: What kind of solution do you feel you would realize if the fence went un- moved? Mr. Legleitner: Status quo. The problem would not be resolved and the area would remain infested. Jerry French, 14163 Blue Skies, Livonia: I am the. President of Castle Gardens Civic Association. We have 5.2 acres of park sites, and we have an active Park Committee to try to get some additional space where our children can play. This park was designed to be much larger but was ,cut down by the freeway. Prior to last fall , lot 489 was vacant and any park equipment coming in came through the vacant lot. This house being built now takes care of that. We have no objection to giving uppart of the easement but I question the 10' minimum. Suppose the City gets a larger mower next year. Then we will be in trouble. Based on this, the Civic Association opposes giving up any of 5771 this access. Further, with the Freeway, we are concerned about an area that size that is growing up because without the proper easement for getting in and out it will become a dumping area. Fire equipment can't get in with a smaller easement and our homes could be jeopardized. Mr. Hand: What do you need for a fire truck? Mr. Andrew: No more than 12' . Mr. Pinto: I am really not clear in my mind about the opening portion and concluding portions of your statement, Mr. French. You indicated in the opening state- ment that you do not object to a portion of the easement being vacated and in the conclusion you indicated an objection to vacating any portion of the easement. Mr. French: We want enough so a fire truck, etc. , can get in there. Mr. Pinto: It seems to me that to balance both interests. . .John needs 10' for access to the park. Balancing the need for access to the park with what I think would be the blessings of the subdivision, that a property owner, the petitioner, is willing to undertake at his own expense the cleaning up of what you think is a messy situation. Mr. French: It is dirt. . .not messy. Mr. Pinto: It would seem to me that if 12-15' was left and the property owner would clean up the rest, it should be in the best interest of the subdivision. Mr. French: We would be limited to the 8' access. . 110 Mr. Pinto: The petitioner and we found out tonight that the Parks Department doesn't think the fence is in the right place. You are in agreement that a sub- stantial portion could be vacated just so enough was retained to provide the necessary access. Now we have to determine what is sufficient access to retain. Mr. Dufour: I ' ll buy 12' . That will be plenty. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, delcared the public hearing on Petition 75-3-3-2 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-64-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-3-3-2 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #42-75 to vacate a portion of the public walkway located on the west side of Knolson at Mason Avenue in the South 1/2 of Section 19, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-3-3-2 be approved, as amended, and that only that portion of the subject area legally described as follows be' vacated subject to retention of an easement over the area proposed to be vacated: 5772 That part of the Mason Avenue right-of-way (60 feet wide) more particularly described as beginning at the southeast corner of Lot 42, Tiffany Park Subdivision, as recorded in Liber 87, Pages 58, 59 and 60, Wayne County Records, said subdivision being of part of the South 1/2 of Section 19, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, -and proceeding thence S. 0 02' 30" W. 12.45 feet; thence S. 83 01 ' 30" W. 32.74 feet; thence N. 89 57' 30" W. 73.50 feet; thence N. 0 02' 30" E. 16.60 feet; thence S. 89 57' 30" E. , 106.0 feet to the point of beginning, subject to an easement for public purposes and use over the area herein described; for the following reasons: (1) The entire dedication is not needed to serve for access to the interior park lands. (2) The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends approval of the vacating of the surplus right-of-way. (3) The utility companies have no objection to the vacating of this area provided an easement is retained. (4) The City Engineering Division recommends approval of the vacating of this area subject to the retention of a full width easement. FURTHER RESOLVED that, ntoice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer/Eccentric, under date of March 17, 1975 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mrs. Wisler: Is there any problem with the utility poles or sewer being located in the portion of the property that would be returned to the petitioner? Mr. Andrew: We are retaining a full width easement. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 73-8-6-12 (rehearing) by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Reso- lution #634-73 to amend Sections 18.50, 18.50A, 18.508, 18.50C, 18.50D, 18.50E and 18.50F of Article XVIII of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, so as to adopt new controls for the regulation of signs. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this iteM and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearong on Petition 73-8-6-12 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Hand and unanimously adopted, it was 5773 #4-65-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public rehearing having been held on April 8, (0 1975 on Petition 73-8-6-12 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #634-73 to amend Sections 18.50, 18.50A, 18.50B, 18.50C, 18.50D, 18.50E and 18.50F of Article XVIII of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia so as to adopt new controls for the regulation of signs, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 73-8-6-12 be approved for the following reason: (1) This amendment is an essential tool that will enable the City of Livonia to exercise maximum control over the size, placement and nature of signs. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer/Eccentric, under date of March 17, 1975 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-2-6-1 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #915-73 to amend Section 18.45 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, so as to adopt new controls for the regulation of protective walls. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 75-2-6-1 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-66-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on April 8, 1975 on Petition 75-2-6-1 as submitted by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #915-73 to amend Section 18.45 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, so as to adopt new controls for the regulation of protective walls, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-2-6-1 be approved for the following reason: (1) This is an essential tool to provide added flexibility in the use of materials for the protection of residential property from incompatible uses. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer/Eccentric, under date .of March 17, 1975 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. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 5774 Mr. Falk, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 75-2-1-5 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Eckles in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to P. (10 On a motion duly made by. Mr. Hand and seconded by Mr. Talbot, it was #4-67-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 11 , 1975 on Petition 75-2-1-5 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road, east of Eckles in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 30, from RUF to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-2-1-5 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning is needed in that the RUF Zoning District is unuseable due to the fact that the strip is used principally for public utility purposes. (2) The existing RUF Zoning Distric is incompatible for residential purposes due to the fact that the adjacent zoning and land use is of a commercial nature. (3) The proposed change of zoning to the offstreet parking classifica- tion will provide for the more appropriate development of this land with respect to the established uses of the area as well as the fact that the land cannot be built upon due to the underground utilities contained within the subject area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resoltion resulted in the following: I • AYES: Friedrichs , Pinto, Talbot, Wisler, Hand, Falk, Andrew NAYS: Kluver ABSENT: Scruggs Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution 'adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #4-68-75 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Act 285, the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 , as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend the Master Plan of the City of Livonia so as to adopt the proposed Future Land Use Plan; and FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or rail- road within the City of Livonia in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931 , as amended. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Wisler, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it wa! to, #4-69-75 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to rescind its Resolution #9-201-74, adopted by the Planning Commission at its 282nd Regular Meeting held on September 17, 1974, which reso- lution established and ordered that a public hearing be held to deter- 5775 mine whether or not to amend the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, so as to consider adoption of the proposed Land Use Plan-1985. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-70-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-1-8-1 as submitted by Donald J. Summers requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a proposal to construct a medical/office building on property located on the east side of Farmington Road between Fargo and Norfolk in Section 3, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Site Plan for Livonia Professional Plaza Section Two, prepared by D. J. Summers, dated January 20, 1975, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevations as shown on Sheet #5, Job #72-812, dated 6/12/72, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to the Plan- ning Commission for approval within thirty (30) days from the • date of Site Plan approval . (4) This Site Plan approval is conditioned upon the approval by the City Council of the rezoning of the property to the Pro- fessional Service classification; otherwise the approval shall be deemed null and void. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Talbot, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-71-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-3-8-3 as submitted by Brody-Built Construction Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a proposal to alter the facade on an existing building located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Woodring .and Loveland in. Section. 10, be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) That the plan showing the remodeling proposal as prepared by Brody-Built Construction Company and dated March 19, 1975, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 5776 (2) That the parking area be hard surfaced within two years of the j!' date of this approval . 1110, (3) That a row of tallhedge 3 '-4' high, 3' on center, be installed along the west property line between the sidewalk and parking areas adjacent to Woodring Avenue. (4) That no parking be permitted in front of the building and the area be restored to grass with appropriate barriers being installed for the protection of same. (5) That the brick on the existing building be cleaned. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #4-72-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 75-3-8-4 as submitted by Ralph Weber for Color Tile requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 in connection with a proposal to construct retail stores on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between St. Martins and Bretton in Section 1 , be approved; however, the City Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council determine the necessity for establishing a special assessment district for the improvement of St. Martins for the length of the properties involved on the north and south sides of the street, 250' in depth; and subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #74-103K, Sheet 2, as prepared by T & M General Construction Consultants , Inc. , which is hereby approved , shall be adhered to. (2) That the building elevations as shown on Sheet 4 of Job #74-103K, by T & M General Construction Consultants, Inc. , which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That a landscape plan showing all landscape material proposed to be installed on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Com- mission for approval within thirty (30) days from the date of Site Plan approval . (4) That a plan showing the free standing sign proposed to be located on the site shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 5777 On a motion duly made by Mr. Falk, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and unanimously adopted, it was #4-73-75 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Sign Design Plan submitted by Cornell Sign Company in connection with a condition of approval of Petition 74-10-8-39 by Fre4 J. Armour for Mario Fall-one requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #990, in connection with a proposal to build a one-story retail sales building with partial basement on property located on the east side of Middlebelt Road between St. Martins and Bretton in Section 1 , subject to the following conditions: (1) That the Sign Design excluding the brick planter as shown on the plan submitted by Cornell Sign Company dated April 1 , 1975, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That the approved sign shall be located on the site as shown on the Site Plan submitted by Cornell Sign Company and dated April 1 , 1975. (3) That the sign installed on the site shall correspond in height with the sign erected on the Alan Lori Carpet Company building located on thedwest side of Middlebelt Road. (4) That the construction material on the face of the sign shall be Lexan. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mr. Hand and unanimously adopted, it was #4-74-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 75-4-8-5P by Albert lafrate requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to construct a speculative office building on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Farmington Road, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan labeled Phase II Development, dated April 1 , 1975, by Alvin A. Chartrand , Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That the building elevations as shown on Phase II Drawing SP-3, dated April 1 , 1975, by Alvin A. Chartrand, Architect, which are hereby approved , shall be adhered to with the following added con- dition: The south elevation shall be architecturally the same as the proposed north elevation. (3) That a detailed landscape plan showing the construction of curbed planting areas, earth berms and the number and sizes of plants pro- • posed to be used in both development phases shall be submitted to 5778 the Planning Department within thirty days from the date of this approval . (4) That any ground , wall or canopy sign design proposed for the site shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval . Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mrs. Wisler and unanimously adopted, it was #4-75-75 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended byOrdinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 75-4-8-6P by Manufacturers Bank of Livonia requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection with a proposal to renovate the existing building located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Hubbell and Denne for a temporary branch bank, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #75-416, prepared by Rails, Hamill , Becker & Carne, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That the architectural remodeling as shown on the plan as pre- pared by Rails, Hamill , Becker & Carne, Inc. , which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That this approval shall be granted for a period of one year from the date of this resolution after which time the Planning Commission may again review the petition. Mr. Andrew, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution - adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unaimously adopted, the 293rd Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on April 8, 1975, was adjourned at approximately 10:50 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION C J ....00.-:....011111 � Jo eph J. �, - etary ATTEST: Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman ac