Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-10-04 MINUTES OF THE 122ND SPECIAL 2989 MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING ECOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA --3 On Tuesday, October 4, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 122nd Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles Walker, Chairman called the public hearing to order at approximately E:05 p.m. Members present: Leonard K. Kane, Robert L. Angevine, Charles W. Walker, Robert L. Greene, Robert M. Peacock and Wilford E. Okerstrom Members absent : Dennis Anderson*and William R. Robinson** Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Charles J. Pinto, First Assistant Attorney were present along with approximately 18 interested persons in the audience. Mr . McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition M-209 by Socony Mobil Oil Company, Inc. , requesting permission to construct an automotive service station on property located on the Southwest corner of Plymouth and Ir-.kster Roads in the New Detroit ibdivision located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36. There is no correspondence in relation to this petition. Mr. Thomas Pence, representative for Socony Mobil Oil Company was present. Mr. Pence: This is a baked enamel type building. It will be set back 132' from the center of Plymouth Road. It will be built along the company's standard plan. We have had approval from the state and the county for curb cuts along Plymouth and Inkster Roads. ** Mr. Robinson arrived at t:10 p.m. Mr. Pence submitted i►is ' plans which showed the alley used as an approach. *Mr. Anderson arrived at 8:12 p.m. Mr. Pence: I feel that a safety hazard could be created if the alley is not used because of the sharp turning movement which would be necessary for autos entering from Inkster. Members of the commission examined the two site plans. The question was raised whether or not it would be wise to vacate the alley. Mr. Walker: Is it your opinion, Mr. Pence, that you can't move the approach because of the location of the pump? Mr. Pence: Both the state and Wayne County Road Commission have certain standards set for these approaches as to exactly where they are to start and end. Mr. Keeting: From the property line to the beginning of the approach (Engineering Dept. is 20 ft. You can not start to turn within the radius of Socony Mobil Oil the 20 ft. Company) IIMr. Peacock: The plan shows 54 ft. from the curb line to the pump, I certainly that should be sufficient room to see the pump and turn the wheels of a car. Mr. Walker: The Planning Commission should determine themselves whether the alley should be vacated or not. Mr. Peacock: When a commercial piece of property abuts an alley, will it v 2990 require a wall? Mr. Pinto: The intent of the ordinance is to require a protective wall where commercial properties adjoin or are contiguous to residential property. In this case residential property is right next door and a protective wall is require3. Mr . Pence: We are prepared to put the wall in. The only question is where it will go in. In the event that the alley is vacated the wall will be within thetwenty feet. Mr. Pinto: The existing ordinance provides a wall on the rear easement line and not on the rear property line. Mr. Okerstruu: I du not know how the other commissioners feel about this, but how can we vacate the alley here when the rest of the block isn't built up? Also, the new gasoline ordinance calls for a 40 ft. driveway from the rear property line as measured along the side street property line. This plan does not provide fur this. Mr. Kane: If the alley is vacated, doesn't half of it go to the property owner south of the alley? This drawing shows that the gasoline station takes the entire 20 ft. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. J. Jestrike: This is in regard to the approach at the alley - there is a new home next to the alley. If the alley is used as an approach to the station then the driveway of the home will also be used because it is located on that side of the house. I wouldn't like to see the alley being used as an approach to the station. Mr. Pence: Is there a side drive to the house? Mr. Oestrike: Yes, there is. Mr. Pence: A good example of how this is avoided is on the other side if the street. The approach is curved so that it goes away from the side drive. Mr. William J. Newton: Will it be a wall or a fence on the back of the property? 11414 Arcola) MI . Walker: This will be a wall. The questiu:. was raised where did the wall start? How many feet west of Inkster. M:. . Pinto: This is to start at the property line. I[: Mi.. Peacock: I understand that we cannot start a petition to vacate, and that the present alley is not maintained as well as it should be. Mr . Pinto: I would have to check the ordinance. To ny recollection it has always been activated by the property owners or the City Council. 2991 Mr. Peacock: Can't we vacate the alley on our own motion? That would mean that the property owner on the south could maintain their side and the gasoline station could maintain their side. This would eliminate the problem of weeds. Mr. Walker: There is a question of whether or not the alley should be vacated. This should be decided first before any motion is made to vacate this alley. Mr. Anderson: I would like to see if we are out of order in making a motion to vacate this alley. Mr. Pinto was excused at this time in order to determine whether or not the Cit; Planning Commission has the jurisdiction to make a motion to provide for a public hearing to vacate an alley. Mr. Walker: The Commission should determine one way or the other. Mr. peacock: We can not do this until we know if we are in order to do so. Mr. Walker: If the majority of the commission don't want the alley vacated there wouldn't be any need for removing the alley. Mr. Pinto returned at 8:35 p.m. Mr. Pinto: The Planning Commission has no authority to activate the vacating of an alley. The City Council by resolution requests the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and then to make a recommendation to them as to the vacating of an alley. Mr. Okerstrom: The revolving sign appears to be with .in the right-of-way of the mile road. Mr. Pence: That can be moved to conform with your ordinance. Mr. Peacock: I would like the commission polled as to how many of the members wish to have the alley vacated. • Mr. Walker: How many of the members wish the alley to remain as it is? Mr. Robinson and Mr. Okerstrom ware in favor of this. Mr. Greene: Would we be setting a precedent on this if we indicated the desire to vacate the alley under the particular conditions of this situation? Mr. Pinto: Whether the alley remains or is vacated the wall remains the same under the ordinance, unless the petitioner goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variance. I[: Mr. Greene: We are vacating the alley without the normal reason for vacating. Mr. W. Newton : I do not want to see the alley vacated. I am against this. Mr. Pinto; If the alley is vacated the placement of the wall will be the same as if the alley'is not vacated. 2992 Mr. Kane: Can't we take this under advisement - it needs further II: study. Mr. +%7alker; This item will be taken under advisement for further consideration. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-76 by A. K. Miller, Inc. , who are requesting permission to remove top- soil from a parcel located on the West side of Middlebelt Road, approximately 695 feet North of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Miller was present: Mr. McCullough: Correspondence has been received from the Police Department dated September 23, 1960 and from the Engineering Department dated September 30, 1960. Mr. Peacock: I examined the area quite thoroughly. The people who live across the street have no objection to the petitioner removing the topsoil. The property owner to the north was concerned about the Just that might result from the removal of the topsoil. Mr. Miller is willing to stockpile on Seven Mile Road because the Police Department has asked that Mr. Miller not use Middlebelt. It was determined that this removal consisted of twelve (12) acres. Mr. Okerstrom: What will become of this property? Mr. Walker: Mr. Miller, do you have any information to satisfy Mr. Okerstrom's questiai ? Mr. Miller: I have no interest in this property; Mr. Klein has said that he plans on starting the building next Spring. Mr. Walker: Any one in the audience who wishes to speak? The question was raised as to how will Mr. Miller cross the drain to remove the topsoil? Mr. Miller answered that there is a culvert across the drain which will be used for this purpose. The question was also asked what about dust blowing. Mr. Miller answered that the blow condition will be taken care of by the grass. The seed is being put in now so that the grass will start growing in the spring. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #10-2k4-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-76 by A. K. Miller, Inc. , requesting permission to remove topsoil 11[: from a parcel located on the West side of Middlebelt Road, approximately 695 feet North of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, subject, however, to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; 2993 (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks and Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for twelve (12) acres (or $6,000.00), which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; and THAT, the period for which the permit herein, authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as required herein, whichever is the shorter period, and THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the I: property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of Sept. 30, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of September 23, 1960. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Robinszh, Anderson, Kane,Okerstrom and Walker. NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next tmo petitions, Z-473 and Z-475 by D. R. McCullough pursuant to authority vested in him under Section 4 of Article VI of the Rules & Procedure of the City. Planning Commission, are petitions to determine whether or not to amend Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 and Section 17.02 of Article 17.00 by exempting any church or charitable organization from a filing fee in relation to zoning and for petitions requiring approval by the City Planning Commission. There is no correspondence. Mr. Peacock: I feel that the churches and charitable organizations should 11[: pay the filing fee because this cost is usually included in the building construction costs. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #10- -6- RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-473 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of the Zoning Ordinance should be 2994 amended by exempting any church or charitable organization from a fileing fee in relation to zoning, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-473 be denied, There was a lengthy discussion after the motion to deny was made. It was thought that it might be wise to exempt churches from paying a fee but that charitable organizations should pay a fee. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Anderson: I think we should discuss this more fully rather than make a hurried decision now. Mr. Pinto: If, in the case of a church or charitable organization re- questing a zoning change or approval of a use, the ,Planning Commission can on their own motion provide for a public hearth in which case, the church or organization would not have to pay a fee. Mr. Okerstroh: I would like to withdraw my motion to deny in favor of having our City Planner determine whether both churches and charitabl organizations should be exempted from paying a filing fee or just churches. Mr. Walker: Mr. Peacock, are you withdrawing your support to the motion also? Mr. Peacock: I do not want to withdraw my support. It might be wise to bring these petitions to the attention of the Planning Com- mission at a study session and have it determined at that { time whether the petitioner should pay a filing fee or not. I will withdraw my support. Mr. Kane: The zoning ordinance could be amended by exempting any tax- exempted properties from the filing fees. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, Supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #10- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on Petition Z-473 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended by exempting any church or charitable organization from a filing fee, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-473 be granted and that said section be amended by exempting any tax-exempted properites from a filing fee in relation to zoning, Mr. Pinto: To ray knowledge, property is either exempted from taxes or it isn't. In a case of a Veterans organization, for instance owning a piece of land with a building on it, the land under- neath is exempted. But, if it has nothing upon it, it should be taxable. Mr. Kane: I would like to withdraw my motion in order that this subject may be taken under advisement. Mr. Angevine: I will withdraw my empport to Mr. Kane's motion. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement for further study. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in relation to Petition Z-475? 2995 There being no one, this item will also be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-475 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not to amend Section 5.02 of Article 5.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia, pursuant to City Council's Resolution #515-60. This is in regards to privately owned and operated neighborhood, community or club swimming pool in R-1 Districts. Mr. McCullough read the ordinance to the commission members and the audience. Mk. Pinto pointed out that this proposed ordinance did not relate to backyard swimming pools. One stipulation of the ordinance was that the pool could not be constructed within four hundred (400) feet of any existing residence. Mr. Robinson: I would like to object against this. We should encourage swimming pools. This ordinance requires three blocks tl be ;pen bei,.re the pool can be installed. Mr. Peacock: The pool in Buckingham Village Subdivision was built success- fully and the residents are closer than 400 ft. Mr. Howard Middlewood(representing Bureau of Inspection): This proposed ordinance also states that the written consent of fifty-one percent (51%). of the residential property owners within a radius of five hundred (500) feet of any part of the premises where on the proposed pool facilities are to be constructed and operated, shall be on file in the Bureau of Inspection. I personally feel that the Bur°au of Inspection does not have the facilities to verify these signatures. Mr. Peacock: This new ordinance would prohibit a pool in a developed area. Mr. Walker: If this ordinance was adopted, who would acquire the signatures of the 51%? The petitioner would have to obtain the consents. Mr. McCullough: They would have to be checked by the PlanningCommission to see if the 517. is obtained. Mr. Pinto: The signatures could be notarized. This provision could be made as part of the ordinance. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? There was a brief discussion in relation to civic associations wishing to install swimming pools in their respective subdivisions. One such civic assoda tion was the Rosedale Gardens Civic Association who are contea.plating installing a community pool in their subdivision. Mr. Robinson: I feel that we should allow the Rosedale Civic Association to appear before this commission and give us their arguments in relation to their pool. Because of this, I suggest that this be taken under advisement until that time. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #10-215-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, October 4, 1960 at approximately 9:25 p.m. 2996 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 1114i AYES: Peacock, Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Before we start the Special Meeting, we have -present with is the"-owner of'.. the Best Block Company located on Five Mile Road and Bainbridge. We have been discussing with him. the possibility of doing something to screen his plant from the residential across the street from him. We would like to have this gentleman step forward and see if we can come up with a solution. Mr. Walter Pachota and Mr. Alvin Chartrand came forward. Mr. Walker: You have two feet from the property line which is the area we thine something could be done with. Would you be in accord with us and going along with some type of wall that would dress up that entire piece of property? Mr. Pachota: How high would this wall be? Mr. McCullough: Approximately six to ei,ht feet. Mr. Walter: In this type of business it is a necessity to store the blocks as they are presently. We are in sympathy with the problem. We have asked Mr. Pachota if he would be willing to come before the Commission so that we could work something out in order to make this location look better than it presently does. Mr. Greene: I appreciate their problem but a low wall will not hide the blocks. What about a greenbelt or trees? Mr. Walker: We have discussed greenbelts. He did not stress any view- point on either. A wall was thought as being better. Mr. McCullough: Is there any possibility of you lowering the stacks of blocks on your property, or are you pressed for space? Mr. Pachota: The blocks are moved periodically. If we do lower them, we would need ten or twenty feet more and they would still be visible from the road. Mr. Peacock: If these blocks were worked or stacked in a design, it would be very beautiful. It would serve the purpose and it would leave him the space to cure these blocks out. Mr. McCullough: Possibly Mr. Anderson along with a committee of two, can work out a design for this gentleman. Mr. Middlewood: Is the back of the lot being utilized to the best use. It might be possible to store further back. The ordinance prohibits the use of the front yard for storage of materials. 2997 Mr. Pachota: We use this to hide the trucks which would look worse than the blocks. Mr. Walker: Can you work out some design with these blocks and forward them to a committee that I will appoint. Mr. Pachota: We will design something suitable and forward it to you. Mr. Walker: I would like to appoint Mr. Dennis Anderson along with Mr. Robert Angevine and Mr. Robert Peacock to be the committee to come up with some suitable wall for Mr. Pachota. I would like to thank you, Mr. Pachota, for coming down and discussing this with us. Mr. Walker called a recess at this time, 9:45 p.m. * * * * * Mr. Walker called the 122nd Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:50 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time the recess was called. Mr. Walker: Mr. Middlewood from the Bureau of Inspection is present. I suggest we take Item #10 under consideration now in order not to hold up Mr. Middlewood. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-47 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Section 4.45 of Article. 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended by changing the type of protective wall required by the existing ordinance. Public hearing 9/20/60. There was a very lengthy discussion at this time between Mr. Middlewood and the Commission as to the advantages of a different type of wall other than what is presently required in the ordinance. Mr. Middlewood stated the wall as shown on the plans before the Commission tonight, was the type discussed with Mr. Sheppard of the Federal Housing Administration. He further stated that the concrete block wall has certain disadvantages that make it unsatisfactory. It has very little strength; any sharp blow will dislodge a block; very hard to tap - in sewers; very expensive in comparison to the size of the lot. Portions of the wall, of the one presently before the Commission, can be replaced without harm to the remainder of the wall; and it is less expensive. Mr. Middlewood: The only protective walls presently in Livonia are the ones erected for Wonderland and Daly's Drive-In on Plymouth Road. There may be others, but we do not have very many. Mr. McCullough: The protective wall should be required before a building permit for the building is issued. Mr. Middlewood: But, if the wall is put up first, then it has to be torn down again when the sewers are tapped in. 11[: Mr. Okerstrom: In some cases, wasn't a cash bond required in lieu of the wall. This was determined true. Mr. Middlewood: The consensus of the meeting we had with the FHA was that 1 2993 there should be an alternative as to the type of wall. I feel that there should be some room underneath this wall. • Mr. Anderson and Mr. Peacock objected to this space. Mr . Peacock: I feel that our ordinance is adequate. Mr. Middlewood: Objection has been raised to this type of wall now required because of the cost. Mr. Anderson: I believe we should do some changing in our ordinance but we should not accept this particular wall. I would go along with pre-cast concrete . Mr. Robinson: Mr. Middlewood wanted to know what we wanted the wall for and then decide on kind of wall. We should go on record as to what this wall should protect. Mr. McCullough: I will compile a report from the various builders as to their 'thoughtts .on the putOoseof the walls. . It was determined that these protective walls should protect residential owners from noise, lights, debris , etc. , besides being attractive. li: Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until we have received a report from Mr. McCullough. Mr. Anderson: A wall is much less expensive to maintain than a greenbelt. This should be pointed out to the builders. Mr. McCullough: The next three items are the C-1, C-2 and C-3 District Regulations, namely Petitions Z-457, Z-458 and Z-459. The public hearings for these three items were held on August 16, 1960. They were taken under advisement at the public hearing, at the 121st Special Meeting held on Tuesday, September 13, 1960 and at the 119th Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, September 20, 1960. At the last meeting, various changes were made and the revised ordinances were submitted to the commission for their examination. After a brief discussion, it was decided to poll the commission so as to determine in which district, gasoline/oil stations, should be in. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Okerstrom to poll the commission whether or not gas stations should be in C-2. The poll resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Robinson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock, Angevine, Anderson and Kane Mr. Walker: The poll resulted in a tie decision. There was a further discussion among the members as to gas stations. Mr. Anderson asked that the poll be taken again. 2999 The poll resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock, Anderson and Kane Mr. Walker: The poll resulted in favor of gas stations in the C-2 District. There was a further discussion in relation to other uses in C-2 and C-3. It was suggested that"trampolines, rebounding tumbling centers" should be included along with "Migratory carnivals and outdoor seasonal amusement enterprises" in C-2. Also delete "establishments within buildings or structures for the alteration, finishing, assembling or storage of goods" from C-2 along with "Auto bump shops'. "Auto bump 6bops" yould.then be in C-3 Districts. It was also suggested that the wording" when located adjacent to and such use is incidental to the operation of licensed new car sales showroom" should be deleted in connection with "Used car lots". In the C-3 Districts, it was suggested that"go-carts and 1/4 midget race areas" be a prohibited use and that "auto repair, auto paint and body shops and similar business for bumping, refinishing, collision or like auto body work" be deleted as a prohibited use in the C-3 Districts. Mr. Angevine suggested that "assembly buildings" be changed to read" assembly halls", a permitted use in C-3. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was #10-216-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on L Tuesday, August 16, 1960 on Petition Z-457 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Article 10.00 of Ordinance No. 60 (C-1 Districts Regulations), the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-457 be granted, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of July 27, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was #10-217-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 16, 1960 on Petition Z-458 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Article 11.00 of Ordinance No. 60 (C-2 Districts Regulations) , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-4S8 be granted, FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of July 27, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison J , 3000 Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michian Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. • Upon a motion duly made by Mt. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was #10-213-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, August 16, 1960 on Petition Z-459 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance No. 60 by adding thereto Article 11.50 (C-3 Districts Regulations) , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-459 be granted, FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of July 27, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolutio n is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-470 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Ordinance No. 60 and the zoning map made a part, thereof, shall be amended by designating certain properties to C-3. Public Hearing 9/20/60, item taken under advisement. According. ten your •deetaion at the study meeting', this-item will not be actad upon. Mr. Waller: This item will then be taken under further advisement. Up on a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mt. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #10-219-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes for meetings held on September 6, September 13 and September 20, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Mt. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 3001 Mr. Angevine; I suggest that we think very seriously about amending the Protective Wall Ordinance so that it stipulates that a cash bond is required in event that the wall is not erected at the time the building is. Mr. McCullough: I will work on this and forward copies to the commission. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 122nd Special Meeting held on Tuesday, October 4, 1960 at approximately 11:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (JO/ ei a W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTED: i la Ch.rl-s W. Walker, Chairman