Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-10-18 3002 MINUTES OF THE 120TH REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 120th Regular Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles Walker, Chairman, called the public hearing to order at approximately 8:10 p.m. Members present: Robert M. Peacock, Wilfred Okerstrom, Robert L. Angevine, William R. Robinson and Charles Walker Members absent : Dennis Anderson**, Leonard K. Kane and Robert L. Greene Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Charles J. Pinto, First Assistant Attorney were present along with approximately 41 interested persons. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the public hearing is Petition M-208 by Kenneth D. Ockerman requesting permission to construct an auto electric service garage on property located on the East side of Farmington Road, approximately 340 feet North of Schoolcraft Road, in Wolfe Gardens Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22. Mr. K. D. Ockerman was present. It was determined that the proposed building would be set back approximately 120 ft. from the center line of Farmington Road. Mr. Ockerman: I have a business established in the filling station across the street. I have been there approximately five years and have a solid following of customers. I have hopes now of buying the property across the street and building a specialty shop where we would have facilities for the vehicles to drive in and park inside. There would be no cars parked outside tot" worked on. Tools and equipment are special and too cumbersome to be carried out and used out- side of the building. I have hopes of building a business and establishing myself in the city. **Mr- Dennis Anderson arrived at 8:15 p.m. Mr. Walker: What is the size of the lot and the building? Mr. Ockerman: The lot is 60`x 210'and the building will be 40'x 100! I intend to use the entire lot. The building will con- sist of 4 stalls but 5 cars will be able to park in line. It will not be necessary to park cars outside during the night. This will be a block building with a brick front. Mr. Walker: Does the set back of your proposed garage conform with the gas station on the corner or the house north of you? Mr. Ockerman: It would be set back further than the Edison building; it probably would conform more with the set back of the gas station. Mr. Okerstrom: What is the depth of the commercial frcm Schoolcraft? 3003 Mr. McCullough: The north line of his property is the north line of commercial zoning. Mr. Peacock: There will be hydromatic work, is that not true? Mr. Ockerman: Yes. Mr. Peacock: Then, this should be an automobile repair garage because you are doing transmission work. Hydromatic would be just motor tuneup. • It was determined that his entire lot was in the commercial zone. Mr. Walker: What about his off-street parking? Mr. McCullough: It depends upon how many cars he would have over and above the ones being worked upon. The rear part of his lot will accommodate about three or four cars. He has been advised that it would be desirable to provide more parking to accommodate autos not ing worked on plus employees autos. hr. Peacock: Has he been informed about the protective wall requirement? Mr. McCullough: He has been advised. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Knack,speaking for his mother, Mrs. Caroline Knack: A number of people, including 14020 Farmington) my mother feel that this would be deterimental to the surrounding property owners. It was determined that Mrs. Knack lived on the second lot north of the proposed garage. Mr. McCullough: Mr. Pinto has suggested that a time limit be established as to occupancy of the building. Mr. Ockerman is agreeable to this. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, it was #10- -6+ RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October Iii, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-206 by Kenneth D. Ockerman requesting permission to construct an auto electric garage in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, subject, however, to a two year time limit of occupancy, Mr. Peacock: Will you include also the condition that a protective wall be erected before occupancy of the building. Mr. Robinson: No. Mr. Peacock: I don't feel that I can support the motion then. 11[: Mr. Walker: The motion dies for lack of support. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #10- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuar.t to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-208 of Kenneth D. Ockerman, requesting permission 3004 to construct an auto electric service garage in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 22, subject, however to the following: (1) that the occupancy permit not be given to the petitioner until the protective wall is erected, 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. Mr. Walker: Mr. Pinto, are we legal in doing this? Mr. Pinto: I do not see any harm in this condition. We will hold him to the ordinance and it says the same thing. It serves the purposes of informing the Bureau of Inspection of this requirement. Mr. Okerstrom: What is the width of the lot immediately to the north? It was determined it was 40 ft. Nothing will be erected on that small area. If this gentleman wishes to expand, he will have to use this 40 ft. piece of property and he will have to go over the fence to do this. I do not feel that this wall would be a very good thing at this time. It was determined that in order for this 40 ft. piece of prcperty to be used for commercial purposes it would require a rezoning. Mr. Okerstrom: If someone did come in to request a rezoning of the 40 ft. to commercial, would the Commission be in favor of it? Mr. Peacock: The petitioner has agreed to a two year time limit, probably with the idea of trying to acquire this 40 ft. piece of property and asking for a rezoning. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson NAYS: Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker Mr. Walker: The vote has resulted in a tie vote, this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-211 by Lavon ry. Grimm requesting permission to construct and operate a practice golf range on property located on the North side of Six Mile Road between Newburgh and Haggerty Roads, approximately 600 feet West of Newburgh road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. I[: We have two communications. One objecting to the proposed use, the other not object.:. .. Mr. L. V. Grimm was present. Mr. L. V. Grimm: There will be a club house, 16' x 30' . Next Spring we intend to build a two-car garage for our equipment, such as the tractor, etc. I would like to start building this , r 3005 11) fall if possible in order to open up next April. Mr. Peacock: This is a practice golf range? Mr. Grimm: Yes, this is not a minature golf course. There will be club house for the customers. Mr. McCullough: How high are the lights going to be? Mr. Grimm: Twenty-five (25) feet. Mr. Walker: In which tray will they be directed? Mr. Grimm: Directly north, no lights will face east or west. A fence will be on the north end of the property and I have been requested to install one to the west, which I have agreed to. Mr. Okerstrom: Will this club house be a permanent building? Mr. Grimm: I have a lease for five years. At the end of five years, I will have to remove it if I do not wish to continue the business. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Okerstrom: This gentleman states that this will be a permanent building and this area might possibly be a nice residential section. It might cause a friction in the home buying. Is there anyway we can put a restriction on this? I am trying not to create a business in a high potential residential area. Mr. Pinto: This is a permitted use in this area subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Since it starts out that it is a permitted use I do not think that a tag date on this is in order. You either approve it or you don't. It is imprudent to approve it for a year or longer. This is something that is approvei or it isn't. Mr. Anderson: I feel that if the area goes residential, the land will be so valuable that this use will be eliminated at that time. If this land does become valuable, the club house will be sold in order to acquire the land. Mr. Robinson: We are jeopardizing the interest of the surrounding area after this property becomes valuable until the lease is up. It is hard to sell a home with a driving range behind it. I[: Mr. Peacock: What will the hours be? Mr. Grimm: I plan on opening at nine in the morning until eleven in the evenings. This is for six days. I will not be open on Sundays. Mr. Anderson: Do you plan on outdoor speakers? No. Mr. Grimm: 3006 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #10- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-211 by Lavon V. Grimm requesting permission to construct and operate a practice golf range on property in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Angevine and Anderson NAYS: Robinson, Okerstrom and Walker Mr. Walker: The roll call has resulted in a tie, therefore this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-210 by Texaco, Inc. , requesting permission to construct a gasoline service station on property loc ated on the Northwest corner of Ann Arbor Trail and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33. Mrs. Alelta Phipps was present for the petitioner. Mr. McCullough: I understand that Texaco, Inc. are going to build the station and that it will be of porcelain baked enamel. Mr. Peacock: Was this area recently rezoned for a large comae rc ial development? Mr. McCullough: Yes, but it was rezoned for only an area of 300 x 300. The Council concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr.Peacock: I would like to have the Texaco people come here to speak to us. I would like to see the gas station in brick so that it would blend in with the neighborhood. Mrs. Phipps: The other stations in this area are all of baked enamel. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Okerstrom: Are they only using a portion of the 300 ft. square area? This was determined true. Mr. McCullough: Would you be willing, Mrs. Phipps, to put up the protective wall? Mks. Phipps: The remaininb part of the commercial area is not being utilized at this time. We would not be next to residential. 11[: Mr. Walker: Since they are only :using part of the commercial, a wall would not be required. Mr. Peacock: The plan shows only twenty (20) feet from the property line to the pumps. Didn't we question this for some other station. Is it sufficient? M 3007 Mr. Anderson: I think the huge gasoline trucks are the only ones that would have difficulty turning in this area. Mr. Peacock: I feel this should be taken under advisement until the Texaco Company representative is present. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #10-220-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-210 by Texaco, Inc. , requesting permission to construct a gasoline service station in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, 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: Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: Peacock Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is an Application TA-77 by Raney Bros. , requesting permission to remove sand from a parcel located on the South side of Five Mile Road between Gary and Fairlane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21. A communication dated October 11, 1960 has been received from the Police Department. Mr. Raney was present. Mr. Raney: We have been requested by the owners of this property to fill in the water hole and grade the property up to where it should be and remove any e:!.cess. The area from which the sand is to be removed from is located south of where we are filling in. We will use Five Mile Road to remove this sand. It was determined that there were violations on this property to the owner because of the water hole and it being dangerous to the children. Mr. Peacock: Will you be fill'i'p the water hole prior to the removal of the sand? Mr. Raney: Actually, it will be done at the same time. Mr. Walker: Can we act upon this application in v{ew of the fact that there is a violation against this property? I[: Mr. Pinto: This would be a method of correcting the violation. I don't see how _t would do any harm. Mr. Okerstrom: I suggests that the violation be corrected first. Mr. Walker: Would you be willing to correct the violation and then come in and get permission to remove the excess. 3008 ing Mr. Raney: We have intentions of bring/dirt in and hauling sand out at the same time. Mr. Angevine: Doesn't the bond that is posted by the applicant take care of any kind of violation? I do not think there is any point of h ilding it up. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mrs. W. Barlow: We lived here when the sand was originally removed. We were 14875 Fairlane) never notified of the removal and our property was left with a 10 ft. drop. Two years after that they developed the Greenbriar Estates. It is approximately 4 ft. lower in the cpct that is in question now. They want to remove more sand again. My property is now level with the property that they -•.arlt to remove the sand from. If he removes this sand aga:n and bring it down to the level of the Greenbriar Estates Subdivision, I again will be left with a 4 ft. drop. Mr. Walker: Your pxaperty is to the east of the area that is to have sand K..-moved from? Mrs. Barlow: Yes. Mr. Walker: They will have to stay far enough back so as to blend in with your level, so that there is no drop by your property. Mrs. Barlow: What about the dust? Mr. Walker: We h?ve a condition in the resolution of approval to correct any dust situation. Mr. Peacock, what is the difference iu the level of the property at Five Mile Road and at the rear, further south? Mr. Peacock: There is a difference of one foot. It is lower at the rear of the property than at Five Mile Road. Mr. Anderson: You are not going to take off four feet? Mr. Raney: We do not intend to remove 4 feet. We are only going to correct the violation and fill in the water hole. It was determined that removal of sand would be from the southwest corner of the existing twenty acres. This will be approximately 103 ft. from Mrs. Barlow's property. Mr. Robert Mathers: Will the trucks be using Gary Lane? 15000 Gary Lane) Mr. Raney: No. IL: The question was raised as to whether or not Mr. Raney would seed the entire parcel or just the part from which the sand is removed. Mr. Walker: The intent of the ordinance was to seed where it was re- moved. 3009 Mr. Raney stated the reason for correcting the present condition of the property is because there are plans for subdividing the property. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #10-221-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant. to a Public hearing having been held the City Planning Comr.isa o. does hereby grant Application TA-77 by Raney Bros. , requesting ,ermission to remove -'and from a parcel located on the South side of Five Mile Road between Gary Lane and Fair lane in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, subject, however to the following conditions: (a) that the appl::_cant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate erai.na e; (b) that the applicant- ,,'.nail not excavate below the grade of any pro- posed subdivision c`_i.eeto; (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 Ez.1:s & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond that the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk, a corporate surety bond - t ;500.00 per acre for seven (7) acres, ($3,500.00) which bon2 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 rear or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as requi_ea ;.e.-ein, 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 hearin3 was sent to the property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and rec:;amendation having been obtained from the Police Department under date of October 11, 1960; said approval to be subject to receiving approval from the Department of Public Works. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. The City Planner was instructed to notify the Engineering Department of Mrs. Barlow's remarks and request that they be astute to see that her predicament is not aggravated. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the asenda is Petition M-213 by All Saints Lutheran Church requesting permission to construct a church on property located on the Northeast corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32. Rev. Schulz and Mr. Schulz were present. 3010 1110 kev. Schulz: This building will be of redwood and fieldstone. (Rev. Schulz presented a sketch of the proposed church to the commissioners. Mr. Walker: Has the off-street parking been checked? Mr. McCullough: It requires one parking space for every four seats; there are 225 seats which means there should be 60 parking spaces. The plan shows 52 spaces but they have sufficient amount of' land to take care of any parking. Rev. Schulz: The parking will be under the Edison tension lines since we can not build underneath these lines. Mr. McCullough: If you intend to have a school, it would be wise to acquire more land. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. & Mrs. Edward Howden, 37010 Joy Road asked if they could see the proposed plans. They did not object to the church. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #10-222-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held 11 on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-213 by the All Saints Lutheran Church requesting permission to construct a church on property in the 1 Southwest 1/4 of Section 32, 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. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopte, Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-214 by Trinity Baptist Church requesting permission to construct a church on property located on the East side of Middlebelt Road, approximately 330 feet South of Jamison, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24. Rev. Adams was present with the proposed church plans. Rev. Adams: Only a foundation permit has been issued. Nothing further has been done. Mr. Robinson: Is the parking sufficient? It was determined that there was sufficient parking area on the 5k acres. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Allan Campbell: The neighbors are all for the church. Our only question 29423 Oakley) is the matter of sufficient off-street parking. Mr. Walker: We have a requirement of off-street parking in our zoning ordinance which Rev. Adams wouldit:ve to comply with. Since he has 5k acres, he would have sufficient area for additions: 3011 1 parking. Mr. Anderson: Will this parking area be hard surfaced? Rev. Adams: For the present time it will be gravel but eventually the other building will go over what is now parking but it will be hard surfaced later. Mr. Walker: We are concerned with permits being issued before action is taken on certain uses by the Planning Commission. I would like to request Mr. McCullough to forward a letter to the Bureau of Inspection in protest of this. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, Supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #10-223-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-214 by Trinity Baptist Church requesting permission to construct a church on property in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24, 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. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-476 by James S. Bonadeo asking that the zoning classification on property located on the Northwest corner of Orangelawn and Middlebelt Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 35 be rezoned from R-1-B (one-family residential) and R-3 (multiple dwellings) to C-2 (commercial business). Mr. James Bonadeo was present. Mr. McCullough: What do you plan on doing with this property? Mr. Bonadeo: I have no plans as yet. Mr. McCullough: Is it a filling station? Mr. Bonadeo: No Sir. It is too small for a filling station, we have nothing in mind now. Mr. Peacock: I am concerned with the house to the west. They have just built a six foot chain link fence. Our ordinance calls for a protective wall between commercial and residential. Bow can we get around this? There will be a fence on two Ire sides of the property in question, with a masonry wall next to a chain link fence. Mr. Bonadeo: The chain link fence of the property to the west is within their own yard. Mr. Okerstrom: I would like to know if the petitioner would be willing to amend his petition to possibly a C-1 zone instead of C-2? 3012 • Mr. Bonadeo: Very reluctantly; although we have nothing in mind at present, we feel C-2 would be more flexible. M . Anderson: Wonderland Shopping Center is confined within a masonry wall. I feel that we are doing wrong extending the commercia It might be better as R-3. I do not feel that it is proper. Mr. Robinson: It is big enough for a PS district. Mr. Peacock: Mr. Okerstrom made a suggestion that the petitioner make a request for C-1 instead of C-2. I would like to see that too. Mr. Walker: The petitioner answered that already. Mr. Bonadeo: I would agree to C-1 but reluctantly. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Robinson: I feel we should examine this area first before action is taken. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-472 by Alton • B. King asking that the zoning classification on property located on the Northeast corner of Deering and Five Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 be rezoned from C-1 and R-1B to PS. Mr. A. King was present. Mr. Walker: You are rezoning to build or to sell? Mr. King: We are going to build a doctor and dental clinic. The entrance will be on Deering. The building will be 40 ft. by 81 ft. Mr. McCullough: Under commercial zoning a:.25 ft. side yard is required on a corner lot. He wouldn't have enough parking area but with a PS zoning the side yard is smaller, allowing him sufficient parking. It is crowded but it will work out. It eliminates the protective wall also. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #10-224-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-472 as submitted by Alton B. King for a change of + zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 from C-16 R-1B to PS, the City Planning Commission does hi:reby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-472 be granted for the following reason: 3013 (1) that it will permit the erection of a building with sufficient parking on the lot, which probably is not possible with the existing zoning of 55 ft x 100 ft of C-1. , FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of September 28, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petiti oner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-473 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether 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. There was a lengthy discussion as to the requirements propossgdfor certain uses. It was suggested that motel parking requirements be included/ that a change be made in the requirements of the school parking areas, Mr. Anderson: I think we should include in the ordinance the condition } that the parking areas should be surfaced and curbed. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until the corrections have been made. Mr. McCullough: I will have them made and forwarded to the commissioners. Mr. Walker called a recess at this time, 9:55 p.m. The meeting was called back to order by Mr. Charles Walker, Chairman, at approxi- mately 10:05 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called. Two It was decided at this time to take the next four items, Petition Z-479;/Petitions to amend Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Rehearing and Protective Wall) and Petition Z-477, under advisement due to the hour being so late. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on any of these four items? There was no one present who wished to speak in relation to any of the four items. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Angevine, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-225-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petitions Z-479, Two petitions amending the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and Petition Z-477, the City Planning Commission does hereby take these four items under advisement. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 3014 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #10-226-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing at approximately 10:10 p.m. on Tuesday, October 18, 1960. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is adjourned. Mr. Walker called the 120th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:12 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time the public hearing was adjourned. Due to the fact that there were a few members of the Rosedale Gardens Civic Association present to discuss Item #18, Petition Z-474 in relation to a proposed ordinance re community swimming pools in R-1, Mr. Walker suggested that this item be taken up now. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-474 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not to amend Section 11[] 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 pools in R-l. Public Hearing 10/4/60, item taken under advisement. Mr. Jack Quinn, President of the Rosedale Gardens Civic Association, 9612 Berwick was present, and asked that he be allowed to speak. Mr. Quinn: The proposed ordinance affects our project which we have had under way for approximately five or six years. We have just purchased the property and there are two con- ditions in the ordinance which would be impossible for us to comply with as far as putting in a swimming pool. No. 1 is the condition "at least two acres in land area" Adjoining the property we have purchases is the City school property. No. 2, "shall not be constructed within 400 ft. of any existing residences". There is no other land available which we could purchase in order to comply with the' ordinance. We would like you to advise us as to what steps we can take in order to see how we can comp]y with the ordinance so that we can have the swimming pool for the benefit of the people in the Rosedale Gardens Subdivision. IL: Mr. Walker: How much property do you have? Mr. Quinn: 200 ft. x 250 ft. Mr. Walker: What is the approximate distance from the pool to the residential area? 3015 Mr. Quinn: The pool itself will be 200 ft. , but the ordinance reads 400 ft. is necessary. 1E; Mr. Anderson: Are all the residents that are within the 400 ft. willing to waive this condition? Mr. Quinn: I could not give you a 100% vote on this. We assume that the majority will go along with it. Mr. Okerstrom: Ordinarily if the ordinance cannot be complied with, can't they appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals? Mr. McCullough: Yes, theoretically they would be able to appeal to the Zoning Board. Mr. Robinson: However, if we put a 400 ft. stipulation the appeal board would not agree to that much of a variance. Mr. Walker: The appeal board has the power to extend an area of 50 ft. I do not know if they could go beyond this. Mr. Okerstrom: If they have approval from the surrounding residences, I do not see why they would not agree to this. Mr. .Anderson: If the residences within 400 ft. agreed to this, could they build the pool then? li: Mr. Pinto: The stipulation is now 400 ft. The Council specified this distance. If people within the 400 ft. do not mind .this, it would probably carry some weight to the Board of Appeals. They could change it to 200 ft. if they thought it was a hardship case. The 50 ft, limitation is in regard to other matters, in cases of property owners whose property is divided into two different zonings and he wants to extend one. That 50 ft. limitation has nothing to do with this particular case. Mr. Angevine: It could .. be written in the ordinance that a provision be added that the distance could be modified with the consent of the people within the 400 ft. Mr. Anderson: Normally those close are against it and those who are farther away are agreeable. These people who live close and do object, should be protected. Mr. Robinson: But, do we mean 400 ft.? This is very long. Mr. McCullough: The length of a football field is 300 ft. as a comparison. The question was asked if the Board of Appeals approves this, then do the petitioners I have to go to the Council. Mr. Walker: If we deviate from this proposed ordinance, it would appear that we do not agree with it. Any recommendation from us is forwarded to the Council for their action. Mr. Anderson: The council can change it back if they so desire also. 3016 Mr. Robinson: I would like to discuss the amount of area required. Dave, are you familiar with the requirements of pools? Mr. McCullough: I do not think that two acres is any too much, but Mr. Harper Cunningham is in the audience.He is on the Board of Directors for the C & B Swimming Pool by Buckingham Village Subdivision. Perhaps he can answer your question. Mr. Cunningham, how much does the C & B Swimming Club have in property? Mr. Cunningham: We have 5k acres of land. The pool is on approximately two acre.. of land. We are not utilizing the remainder because the property is not prepared for this. My personal opinion is that two acres is very good. It de- pends upon the size of the cemented area outside the pool itself. Our particular pool is larger in area than the Kendalwood or the Birmingham. The cement and dressing room area is 160 ft. x 110 ft. This accommodates 300 families and the most we have had in one day was 617 people. We use the parking area of the school at present but it is not any larger than we will be providing. I feel two acres would be sufficient. One of the conditions of this ordinance that bothered me is the 400 ft. which is from the water to the residence. I personally live within 300 ft. of the water in the Buckingham pool and I can truth- -' fully say that within 175 ft. to 200 ft. of this pool you can hardly hear the noise on the busiest day. I would urge you to reduce the 400 ft. to 200 ft. , because it is going to be a hardship on anyone who wants to build a community pool in Livon a. I feel sincerely that 200 ft. or 150 ft. is adequate but that the 400 ft. is exhorbant. Mr. Walker: I feel that we should discuss this quite thoroughly before we take any action u; n this petition. Mr. Quinn: We have 1.03 acres. It is in a confined area surrounded by houses on the east and west. The 400 ft. is too much. We could possibly win an appeal on 200 ft. from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Walker: I would suggest that you review this again and if you have any su3 estions you can bring them to the Commission. Mr. Anderson: I do not particularly go along with the 517 consent f condition. r Mr. Walke • We will take this under advisement until we have discussed Walker: W it more thoroughly. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a discussion of possible revision of Biltmore Estates approval to permit the north 11[: part of one of the outlots to be plotted. The petitioner has asked that this be taken under advise- ment until the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 1, 1960. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement. • 3017 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-470 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, taken under advisement; Special Meeting 10/4/60, taken under advisement. It was determined that this item required further study. Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under further advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-473 by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended by exempting any church or charit- able organization from a filing fee in relation to zoning. Public Hearing 10/4/60, item taken under advisement. After a brief discussion it was decided that the exemption of the zoning fee would relate to churches only. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #10-227-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 4, 1960 on Petition Z-473 as submitted by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of Zoning Ordinance be amended by exempting any church or charitable organization from a filing fee in relation to zoning, the City 1_ Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-473 be granted but that said exemption is to be limited to churches only, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date ofSeptember 14, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Tele- phone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following vote: AYES: Peacock, Angevine, Robinson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #10-228-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 4, 1960 on Petition Z-475 as submitted by D. R. McCullough to determine whether or not Section 17.02 of Article 17.00 of the Zoning Ordinance should be amended by exempting any church or charitable organization from a filing fee in relation to land use, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-475 be granted, but that said exemption is to be limited to churches only, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of September 14, 3018 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was #10-229-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request. dated September 23, 1960 from S. Z. Wolack for a one-year extension on Meadowview Subdivision #4 in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request dated September 30, 1960 from the Bureau of Inspection for the release of topsoil bond for application TA-52 by A. K. Miller; area, south half of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. ILUpon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, it was 1 #10-230-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the report and recommendation of the Bureau of Inspection dated September 30, 1960, the City Planning Commission does herein authorize the release of the bond dated July 30, 1959, in the amount of $27,500.00 by the Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company posted with the city in connection with topsoil (Application TA-52) issued to A. K. Miller, Inc. , ; it appearing from the above report that all ordinance provisions and rules and regulations have been complied with; and the City Clerk is herein authorized to do all things necessary to the full pre- formance of this resolution; provided that the $5,000.00 bond, filed in connection with a portion of this pr:rerty must remain in full force and effect. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #10-231-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, October 4, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Irof 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 #10-232-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does here3019 by postpone the next regular meeting :,Lheduled for Tuesday, November 15, 1960 to Tuesday, November 22, 1960. MI . Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a discussion of the annual Christmas party. There was a brief discussion after which the secretary was asked to obtain informa- tion from various establishments. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 120th Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 18, 1960 at approximately 11:05 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION A e, `' W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTED: r7 Charl-s W. Walker, Chairman