Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-09-13 2962 MINUTES OF THE 121ST SPECIAL MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA f On Tuesday, September 13, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 121st Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 F4ve Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the meeting to order at approximately 6:05 p.m. Members present: Charles Walker, Robert M. Peacock, Robert L. Angevine, Robert L. Greene, Wilford E. Okerstrom and Dennis Anderson. Members absent : Leonard K. Kane and William R. Robinson ** Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner- and Mr. Charles J. Pinto, First Assistant Attor- ney were present along with approximately 100 interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition M-206 by Wm. J. Krause on behalf of the Redford-Livonia Dads' Club, request- ing permission to operate a recreational site on property located on the West side of Inkster Road, East of Cardwell, approximately 800 feet North of Joy Road on Lots M-53 - 58 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36. We have an oral communication from the Engineering Department indicating a drainage problem but they have no objection to approving this land for recreational purposes provided that at some later date the petitioner presents a suitable solution to the problem which is acceptable to the Engineering Dept. A letter dated September 13, 1960 has also been received from the Parks & Recreation Department. Mr. Walker: Mr. McCullough, is this a situation whereby the petitioner has not furnished the Engineering Department sufficient information to allow them to make a recommendation? Mr. McCullough: Yes, the petitioner waa delinquent in submitting their topographical information to the Engineering Department. This is the reason they are unwilling to give us a more definite • recommendation. Mr. Walker: I will now read the letter from the Parks & Recreation Dept. After doing so, Mr. Walker continued: We allowed this petition to come back because we felt that some of the information furnished by the Engineering and the Parks & Recreation Department was not correct and that there had been a misunderstandint between the two departments. Rather than get into a lengthy and involved discussion about things that already have been said before, we would like to allow a representa- tive from both sides of this argument present themselves before this board. Mr. Clarence Charest, attorney for those surrounding property owners who are objecting to said petition, presented a petition of objection signed by nine property owners. Mr. William J. Krause, petitioner was also present. Ire Mr. Walker: Please limit yourself to new evidence so that we do not get into any needless repetition. 2963 Mr. Charest: I will allow Mr. Krause to speak first. Mr. Krause: This request has been before you previously. I do not think the information you had at that time was adequate. I think that it has been clarified by the Parks & Recreation that we need these facilities and we are here to help get these 'facilities. We have tried to comply with the Engineering Department in regard to all drainage problems and they have this information before them now. We have reduced the site from the previous petition. Mr. Walker: Have you at this time acquired the land or are you about to acquire the land necessary for this full development? Mr. Krause: We have the land ae. shown on the submitted plan. Mr. Walker: There has been a question in the minds of the commissioners and the public as to the safety of the children in relation to crossing of the street. Do you have any remarks to make at this time? Mr. Krause: We have a light at W. Chicago and Inkster and ,also one at Joy Road and Inkster. These are only approximately 1/2 mile or less from the area. I: Mr. Walker: Where would your children cross? Mr. Krause: Most of them wod be coming from this side of Inkster to get to the park, at W. Chicago and Inkster. **Mr. William Robinson arrived at approximately 8:15 p.m. Mr. Walker: Would you have it controlled so that it would happen this way? Mr. Krause: I feel that we coull control it. I don't feel we will be getting any childrennouth of Joy since I believe that is served by some other parish. Mr. Walker: How often would the children cross this street to arrive at this park site? Mr. Krause: They would not be crossing daily. We anticipate bringing in the baseball teams by automobile. Our coaches will take care of these children and see that they are delivered to the site. The mothers who take their children during the day for the slides and swings will, of course, control these children. Mr. Walker: The park will be opened during the day? C Mr. Krause: Yes. Mr. Peacock: I was on the site. It is surrounded by four sides of residential. Some of these residents are retirees, some are semi-invalids. The picture did not look very good to me. They are asking permission to operate a park. Isn't this an athletic field? 2964 Mr. Krause: Yes, this is a recreational athletic field. This is what we have in mind and we have submitted a letter to 11[: the City Planning Commission stating this. There will be a swing and slide area for the smaller children and there will be baseball diamonds to teach our children baseball. Mr. Peacock: Any children from Joy Road area? only Mr. Krause: We will be having / people from Redford and Livonia. We do not take in the area South of Joy. Only children from that area would be mothers bringing their children for the playground facilities with the slides and swings. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Charest: I represent 9 of the 13 abutting land owners around this particular site. I again have a communication addressed to you which is repe:ious of the previous one. We merely state we object this proposed use. At the time the previous petition was filed there were a number of hearings held and much discussion was lad.. The matter was properly decided at that time. You should sustain your previous decision. We were surprised with this petition because it was the understanding that with any petition of this type, unless there was any new evidence a rehearing would be denied. We f.el that if you grant this petition, it would be in direct opposition to the existing zoning ordinance, Section 5.02, sub-section (j) in which it provides (Mr. Charest proceeded to read said section from the ordinance book) Our first point is that the proposed use will definitely impair the natural appearances of such land. The operation of this type of field will definitely produce noise and annoyance to the surrounding property. At least 9 of the 13 will be affected. Out of the 13, 9 have objected, three have sold their property and the other one is in favor of the proposed use. It is practically unanimous against it. We are in opposition because the location is approximately 1 block from a public school that has adequate facilities which are supervised. This will be a privately operated park. Mr. Krause said anyone can use it at any time. They will not be able to have it properly pervised. You will find a lot of children coming down on the west side of Inkster. There are no sidewalks in this area. They will have to walk on the shoulder. This will produce a traffic hazard. There is a bond issue before the city. This issue will produce a ten acre park site a block away from this particular site. There are adequate facilities now and after the bond issue is voted upon it will not compare with the site that will be supplied by Mr. Girardin and the Parks & Recreation Department. The lack of supervision does not make it a particular good feature. As to the drainage problem. They have said that they will eliminate this problem in some fashion. This request for approval at this meeting is premature. Until it has been approved by the Engineering Department I do not think the Commission can act upon this petition. I feel that this petition should be denied for these reasons. 2965 I wish to correct you on two points. Mr. Walker: You state you do not know why we were here tonight because you felt that this petition should contain new evidence. The record bears out that the Parks and Recreation Department and the Engineering Department wrote this commission a letter of objection. We had a meeting with both departments and the result was that we have a letter on file whereby the Parks & Recreation has completely reversed their decision and they are recommending approval. That is a good valid reason for us to reconsider. You also state that you feel we do not understand the interpretation of the zoning ordinance in relation to the park site. It was ruled by the City Attorney that there was a valid reason for this rehearing. Mr. Charest: I do not feel that the letter from the Parks and Recreation Department refers to this particular site at all. If I am wrong I would apologize. Mr. Walker: I would like to read this portion of the letter to you "The Parks & Recreation Commission endorses the idea of developing additional recreation sites by the Redford-Livonia Dads' Club" Mr. Peacock: The property they have purchased is on the back of four lots. I do not see why they want to put a recreation field right in the middle of residential property. Certainly there Ira must be another piece of property that they could purchase for this recreation field. I would object very strenuously if they did this to me. I really can not see why this should be petitioned for in this particular area. Mr. Anderson: I have looked at this area and there have been a lot of arguments from both sides. I do not see how the drainage problem can be aggravated further. For the most part it would be better Kept as a park than if it was not used at all. There is ample room for the parking. We have no assurance that the bond issue will pass and there is a need for a park in this area. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, it was #9- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, September 13, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-206 by Wm. J. Krause requesting permission on behalf of Redford-Livonia Dads' Club, to operate a recreational site on property in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36 subject, however, to the following conditions: (1) that any lights erected on the premises be reflected away from surrounding houses; Ira (2)that loud speakers and amplifying devices shall not be used after dusk; and .� (3)that the land shall never be used for a carnival (4) that a stadium shall never be erected on the land. 2966 Mr. Walker: Are you leaving out the greenbelt stipulation? IL: Mr. Anderson: I feel that the whole park is a greenbelt. Mr. Walker: Shouldn't we put in the resolution what type of greenbelt we want and where we want it? Mr. Anderson: If the other commissioners would like to include any other condition, I will listen to an amendment. Mr. Walker: If it is not mandatory in the ordinance and we do not put it in the resolution, how do we know there will be a greenbelt. Mr. Anderson: I would like to amend my motion for approval by adding thereto: "that the applicant post a cash bond in the amount of $12.50 per lineal foot of greenbelt, shown on exhibit "A", said greenbelt to be approved by Parks & Recreation Department". Mr. Greene: Why did you leave out condition #4? Mr. Anderson: I am sorry, I did not see it, I will also include the following: "that the applicant secure written approval of his drainage plan from the Engineering Department prior to any use of the land". Mr. Greene: I will support Mr. Anderson's motion to approve. Mr. Walker: Any further discussiotL, Gentlemen? Mr. Peacock: Why did you include condition #2 when I believe it has been stated that there would not be lights? Condition #2 referred to any lights erected on the premises should be reflected away from surrounding houses. Mr. Anderson: I do not feel I want to change my motion as long as they reflect the lights from the surrounding property. Mr. Peacock: What about night playing? Mr. Anderson: This is just a supposition. Mr. Walker: Mr. Pinto, do they have to come before any department of the city for permission to erect lights? Mr. Pinto: The only thing they would have to do is get an electrical permit to light the area. Mr. Anderson: You mean flood lights? I will go along with the stipulation " that there will be no flood lights" Mr. Greene: I will support the amendment to the motion to approve. 2967 Mr. Robinson: I would like to apologize for being late. It appears that IL: a number of commissioners have changed their minds. Have the people in the audience changed their minds also? Mr. Angevine: Mr. Charest represented 9 of the 13 surrounding property owners who have stated their objection to the proposed use. Mr. Walker: I assume from this discussion that the people feel the same way as previously. For purposes of clarity, Mr. Anderson repeated his motion, as amended. Upon the motion duly made by Mr.Anderson, and supported by Mr. Greene, it was #9-190-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, September 13, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-206 by Wm. 3. Krause requesting per- mission on behalf of Redford-Livonia Dads' Club, to operate a recreational site on property in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, subject, however, to the following conditions: (1) that the applicant post a cash bond in the amount of $12.50 per lineal foot of greenbelt, shown on Exhibit "A" , said greenbelt to be approved by Parks & Recreation; (2) that no flood lights shall be erected; (3) that any lights, other than flood lights, erected on the premises shall be reflected away from surrounding houses; (4) that loud speakers and amplifying devices shall not be used after dusk; (5) that the applicant secure written approval of his drainage plan from the Engineering Department prior to any use of the land; and (6) that the applicant is prohibited froze ever erecting a stadium on this site; (7) that the land shall never be used for a carnival, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Anderson, Greene, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock, Angevine and Robinson Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-205 by S. & L. Construction Company who is requesting permission to operate a drive-in restaurant on property located on the triangular piece of property between Eight Mile Road and Grand River and west of Inkster in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. ll: There is no correspondence in relation to the petition other than from the Traffic Department and they have no objection. Mr. Harold Eskovitz and Mr. Irving H. Small were present representing petitioner. Mr. Small: This will be a very modern hamburger and steakburger drive-in. 2968 It will not be a sit-down or restaurant type of affair. There will be no car hops. Customers will Iri come in and take the food out. Mr. McCullough: Are the exits and entrances already existing? Mr. Small: Yes. It was determined from the plot plan that the proposed drive-in restaurant will be situated east of the presently existing gas station. Mr. Saperstein, builder, came forward and presented a more thorough plan of the area, explaining the ingresses and egresses. It was determined in the discussion that no additional driveways would be necessary and that the present parking lot will take care of the proposed drive-in restaurant along with the super market and the specialty shop. Mr. Greene: What are they going to do about more parking? Mr. Saperstein: The parking area is for the whole project. Wrigley's will okay the parking. Mr. Eskovitz: We own the land and lease to these other stores. The question was raised as to whether or not there was an existing fence between the presently existing gas station and the proposed drive-in. Mr. Eskovitz: I believe it is a wooden fence but concrete filled posts, supporting the fence between the gas station and the drive-in. Mr. Okerstrom: Would they have any objection to putting in a masonry wall across that area? I think it would be safer. About four feet high. Mr. Small: The gas station is located quite a distance from the proposed drive-in that it is practically separated from the other property. Mr. McCullough: Would you erect a masonry wall on your property line approximately four feet high? There was a lengthy discussion whether or mot there was sufficient parking area. It was determined that there were approximately 15 spaces short without the added business. The petitioner explained that there was an area to the east of the area not presently used for parking which was to be used for additional parking. Mr. Okerstrom: I would like something in writing that they will dedicate this area to the east for parking before approval is granted. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. E:ay: What about water and sewer facilities? E2327 Cass, Farmington Township) Mr. McCullough: The petitioner would have to have these facilities or the Health Department would not let him operate. I believe Mr. Bray's chief objection is that his restaurant will be across from the proposed drive-in. 2969 Mr. Shoup: I understand that this is strictly carry out with no car IC] 27530 Long) hops. But if people eat in the cars I hope that there will be trash cans for the people in which to discard their papers, etc. Also, from the front of Wrigley's, west of Inkster there is no black top - only gravel. I feel that the Planning Commission should make a condition that the parking area be brought up to standards. Mr. Small: We have taken care of having this area maintained so as to take care of any trash. Mr. L. Schmidt: My objection is the same as Mr. Shoup's. 20405 Antago) Mr. Clarence Kearney: I concur with the others. 27428 Long) parking Mr. Greene: Mr. McCullough, we have determined that there are 15/spaces shy as of tonight - I think we should stipulate a definite number of parking spaces which should be added. Mr. McCullough: Yes, parking should be provided in sufficient numbers to take care of the proposed drive-in and the already existing businesses. Mr. Greene: I think wv,., shoL..id set a precedent on this kind of operation IL: and see that, we have enough parking spaces. Mr.Okerstrom: If these gentlemen would agree to the masonry wall and the additional parking spaces and discuss it further at a study meeting, we wouldn't have to take up any more of this public hearing. Mr. Greene: They are presently shy 15 spaces, with the new proposal on off-street parking they will be shy an additional 30 spaces. That means that 45 additional spaces are necessary. The extended area on the east will have to be laid out for these additional 45 spaces. It is advisable this is prepared for the next meeting. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-204 by J. M. Crenshaw requesting permission to operate outdoor sales on property located on the Northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and St. Francis in the Botsford Park Subdivision in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1. There are no communications. Traffic Department has reviewed it and find no objections. Mr. Crenshaw, petitioner, was present. IC: Mr. Crenshaw: This will be for garden and lawn supplies. Mr. McCullough: Are you going to have any of these supplies in the front. of the building? Mr. Crenshaw: At the present time I do not know. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? 2970 Mr. L. E. Schmidt: Any objection we have would be parking along Seven Mile Superintendent of ) Road. We would hate to see any provisions made whereby Claranceville Schools) parkipg is permitted along Seven Mile Road. We do have certain bus stops in this area for our youngsters and we feel it would be dangerous to have parking where these buses would have to stop. Mr. Shoup: I did not hear what Mr. Crenshaw, is going to sell on this 27530 Long) property. Mr. Shoup was informed it was going to be garden and lawn supplies. Mr. Crenshaw stated he intended to have a display booth. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #9-191-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, September 13, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-204 by J. M. Crenshaw requesting permission to operate outdoor sales in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Greene, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the Biltmore Estates Sub- division submitted by Biltmore Building Company and situated on the North side of Schoolcraft Road and South of Lyndon Avenue approximately 1400 East of Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20. Letters have been received from Department of Public Safety dated September 9, 1960; from Department of Public Works dated September 9, 1960; from the Fire Department dated September 12, 1960; from the Department of Parks & Recreation dated September 12, 1960 and from the Livonia Public Schools dated September 12, 1960. There is also a letter objecting to the 60 ft. lots in the proposed subdivision from Frank & Gertrude L. Ross, 35564 Schoolcraft. The letter from the Parks & Recreation Department state their objection to lots backing into the park site. FHA are in favor of it. ll: Mr. Walker: What does the Plat Committee have to say in relation to the plat? way Mr. Okerstrom: I do not care for the/Park Avenue is laid out and I object to the houses on Schoolcraft. I Mr. McCullough: There are two schemes. Some people object to the look-alike 2971 homes in a subdivision as this. Having a greenbelt along Schoolcraft would eliminate this. The heavy growth presently IL: there could be retained. This is Scheme #2. Scheme #1 has the marginal access road along Schoolcraft. The purpose of this is so that the cars do not drive directly onto School- craft. An additional advantage of scheme #2 is that it would help eliminate the problem of access to industrial land along the South side of Schoolcraft Road. Mr. Walker: Due to the 75ft. set back required on Schoolcraft, the access road is desirable to use. Mr. Robinson: I feel that it is a very poor layout, I do not like the street design. Mr. N. Cohn, representing Biltmore Building Co. : We submitted Scheme #1 which showed a marginal access drive. Mr. McCullough suggested that since the south side of Schoolcraft would eventually become industrial, it would be best to have some sort of greenbelt to screen off any industrial area. Following this suggestion we submitted Scheme #2. This is a very difficult piece of property to lay out because it is so narrow it does not lend itself to a variety of schemes. After considering the various proposals by Geake & Stechison, it was thought that Scheme #1 was the best. Mr. Greene: Who would take care of the greenbelt? Mr. McCullough: The City would have to take care of it. Mr. Cohn: The donation of this greenbelt strip eliminated about six lots when Mr. McCullough suggested the greenbelt. As far as the land is concerned we plan to convey to the City 75 ft. If this is not used for a greenbelt, it would convert back to us and it would be platted into six lots. Mr. Walker: This is a very peculiar shape of property. I do not suppose that you have any solution for the road as shown on the plat? Mr. Cohn: We have had a number of different sketches. Most of them were more cumbersome than this present one. It seemed to be the most appealing than any of the others. Mr. McCullough: The drain as shown on the plat - is it existing or did Mr. Hiltz indicate you need it? Mr. Cohn: In a large measure it will have to be relocated so that it will follow as shown on the plat. This is according to Mr. Hiltz. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Peter Romanow: I think the biggest consideration should be for the people 35632 Schoolcraft) who are presently there and not those who will be there. Our only objection is the size of the lots. Our property has 165 ft. frontage. Our next door neighbor has 167 ft. frontage. We should like to know what price home and what type of home is to be built. Mr. Cohn: These homes will be all brick. The price range $16,000 to $18,500 including lot. 2972 Mr. Walker: The Planning Commission can only control the size of the homes. We do not have any control over the type of home. At the present time it is permitted to build upon 60 ft. lots. Mr. Romanow: Why not larger lots? Mr. Cohn: We are trying to be consistent with the surrounding developments. The others are similar to this. We are merely being consistent with the others in the section. Mrs. Emil Lewis: I object to the 60 ft. lots also. Some of the earlier houses 14450 Levan Road) built were built upon 50 ft. lots. They have increased to 60 ft. but that is not much of an improvement for today's type of ranch homes. Mr. Anderson: I feel there should be a cut through street to the property that is not developed as yet. Mr. McCullough: This plat will have to worked in with the approved plat of the Madonna Estates after the bond issue is settled. There is a question of whether or not there will be a park site in that vicinity or not. Please indicate to him whether or not you want the access road or the greenbelt. I: Mr. Peacock: I would prefer the access road. Mr. Angevine: Access road. Mr. Robinson: Access road. Mr. Anderson: People living on the mile roads would prefer the greenbelt. I would go along with that. But, it this is brush instead of trees, I would rather go along with the access road. Mr. Greene: I concur with Mr. Anderson. Mr. Okerstrom: I do not like houses backing onto a mile road. Mr. McCullough: Are you going to back lots into a park site? Mr. Okerstrom: We can wait until the bond issue has been decided. We may not have a park site. lq Mr. Walker: This item will be taken underoadvisement.Possibthe petitioner and the City Planner eau work something better in the street design and also determine a scheme that will not block in property that is not developed. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously adopted, it was • #9-192-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, September 13, 1960 at approxi- mately 9:40 p.m. i A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Greene, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is hereby adjourned. 2973 Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9: 41 p.m. Mr. Walker called the 121st Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:55 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Taylor Gardens Subdivision submitted by the Sylvan Building Company and situated on the West side of Hubbard Road approximately 800 ft. South of Five Mile Road and 850 ft. North of Lyndon Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22. They have requested a one-year extension on the preliminary approval granted September 15, 1959. Mr. Zumstein of the Civil Engineers, Inc. , was present for the petitioner. Mr. McCullough: The property immediately north of Brookfield situated between the Taylor Gardens Subdivision and the Civic Center property does not be- long to the City as it was thought at the time Taylor Gardens was given preliminary approval. At that time it was suggested that Mr. Taylor pave a thirty foot strip on the Civic Center property so that Brookfield would not dead end in his subdivision. Since this property does not belong to the City, the petitioner will have to work something out with the Fire Department in relation to a temporary turnaround in his subdivision. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #9-193-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension on the preliminary plat of the Taylor Gardens Subdivision located on the West side of Hubbard Road approximately 800 ft. South of Five Mile Road and 850 ft. North of Lyndon Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22., the condition in the original approval being deleted but the extension is conditioned upon his beim: able to provide a turn around at or near the north end of Brookfield, which shall be acceptable to the Fire Dept. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson and supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, it was #9-194-60 RESOLVED that, final plat of Fairway Farms Subdivision #2 located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17 be given final approval, and FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission on February 3, 1960; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with the plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public Works under date of July 20, 1960; and it further appearing that a surety bond is the mount of $5,400.00 and a cash bond in the amount of $600.00, dated August 11, 1960 and August 17, 1960, respectively, to cover the installation of improvements have been filed in the office of the City Clerk under above dates; such bonds having been approved by R. C. Kropf, City Attorney on August 18, 1960 it would therefore appear that all the conditions necessaryto the release of building permits have been met the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 2974 Ht. McCullough: The next three items are all related to each other - Petitions Z-457, Z-458 and Z-459, C-1, C-2 and C-3 ordinances. The public hearings were held on Tuesday, August 16, 1960 and was these items were taken under Il] advisement. There was a lengthy discussion on these petitions as to where certain uses should be included. It was suggested that "bottling works" should be in C-3; "contractors and storage of heavy equipment" be a prohibited used in C-3, to be permitted in M-1; pro- hibit "vulcanizing shops" in C-3 and allowing "Sign painting" in C-3. It was also suggested that gasoline stations be a permitted use in the C-3 district. "Auto bump shops" is to be a permitted use in C-2 with the provision that it must be located at least 300 ft. from a residentially zoned district. Mr. Angevine suggested that a list of the permitted uses in each district be compiled so that it can be more readily determined whether or not the right uses were in the right district. Mr. McCullough concurred and said this list would be mailed to them. Mr. Walker: These three petitions will be taken under advisement until the suggested changes have been made. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #9-195-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #265-60 and to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60 as amended, the City Planning Commission at this time on its own motion does hereby provide for a public hearing to be held to determine whether or not to amend Section 17.02 of Article 17.00, by adding thereto the following{ The applicant for such approval shall have the right to a timely' appeal before the Council from any determination of the City Planning Commission. The Council call have the power to review the determination of the City planning Commission and either concur with or reverse such determination. The decision of the Council shall be final. PROVIDED,howo:ver, that the Planning Commission recommends that said addition shall be amended by deleting the word "timely" and adding the words " an appeal within 10 days': and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #9-196-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant a one-year extension on the preliminary plat of the Golfview Meadows Subdivision located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 17 and the Northwest 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. I:' Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.38 and 4.37 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia. This pertains to off-street parking re- quirements. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, it was #9-197-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60, as amended, 2975 the City Planning Commission at this time on its own motion does hereby provide for a Public Hearing to be held to determine whether I[: or not to amend certain portions of Section 4.37 Off-Street Parking; Requirements and Section 4.38 Off-Street Parking; Schedule, of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the election of Vice-Chairman. We have Robert L. Angevine and William R. Robinson, nominated. There was a tie vote at the meeting held on Tuesday, September 6, 1960. It was thought at that time that this part of the election would be held again at the next meeting which is tonight. The ballots were submitted to the commissioners. After the votes were cast, Mr. Pinto was asked to compile the results. Mr. Pinto announced that William R. Robin- son was the new Vice-Chaianan for the corning year for the City Planning Commission. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Greene and unanimously adopted, it was #9-198-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes for meetings held on August 9th and August 16, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 121st Special Meeting held on Tuesday, September 13, 1960 at approximately 10: 58 p.m. • ' y 613, 10 ,E . Wilf d E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTE4 (2 f: ZOr W 0--•6‘/ Charles W. Walker, Chairman