Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1958-03-04 A-.01 MINUTES OF THE 82ND SPECIAL MEETING AND A PUBLIC 1956 HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On March 4 , 1958 the above meeting was held by the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia at the City Hall , 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Co-chairman, H. Paul Harsha called the public hearing to order at approximately 8:10 p.m. Members present : Leonard Kane Dennis Anderson William R. Robinson** H. Paul Harsha Robert Greene** Fred A. Lotz W. Okerstrom Charles Walker Members absent : Robert L. Angevine Charles J. Pinto , Assistant City Attorney , Bob Perry , Fire Department were present together with approximately 42 interested persons . Mr. Lotz acted as secretary in the absence of Mr. Angevine . The secretary announced that the first item on the agenda was Application TA35 by Holloway Construction Company requesting permission to remove top soil , located on the North Side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Henry Ruff in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14. Mr. Sidney Blatt , Attorney for Holloway Construction Company informed the Commission that this area as stated in petition was stripped last year under a previous application. The time limit had expired leaving no time to re- move the remainder, reason for a new application. 1: Mr. Walker of the Top Soil Committee also ascertained that the stock pile removed six months prior and that the committee had no objection to the approval of this application since it was only a renewal of the original permit . A public hearing had been held on the first and it had been granted Mr. Spanich, 30865 Five Mile Road asked what the "removal of top soil , sand , etc . " meant . The petition was read to Mr . Spanich which stated only topsoil stockpile would be removed. Mr. Harsha, confirmed this stating a permit would be issued to remove only this topsoil stockpile . There were no other comments from the Commission at this time and Mr. Lotz read letter from the Bureau of Inspection dated February 13 , 1958. Mr. Walker stated that when the original petition was presented, it was only for a definite 9 inches of topsoil and that only the stock pile was to be removed now. Mr. Harsha assured Mr. Spanich that only the topsoil stockpile would be removed. The Chairman then asked the Commission whether they wanted to approve or disapprove application. A motion was made by Mr . Kane to approve the re- moval of the present topsoil stockpile and Mr. Walker supported motion, and it was I: #3-40-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held March 4 , 1958 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA35 by Holloway Construction Company requesting permission to remove topsoil stock- pile located on the North side of Five Mile Road between 42 1957 Merriman and Henry Ruff in the South 1/2 of the Southwest , 1/4 of Section 14 . FURTHER RESOLVED, that the continuation of the present bond of $21 ,000 .00 remain in effect on the above applica tion and it is recommended that the Bureau of Inspection issue a permit to this effect , and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet , petitioner , City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recom- mendation having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of February 24, 1958 and from the Police Department under date of February 20 , 1958. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Anderson , Okerstrom, Walker , Kane , Harsha NAYS : Lotz NOT VOTING: Greene The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was Petition No . Z-265 initiated by City Planning Commission on its own motion whether or not to amend Section 4.27 of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No . 60 (Major Street Setback - Schoolcraft ) . Mr. Lotz read letter from City Clerk ' s office dated January 30 , 1958 and' also one from Mayor Brashear dated January 20 , 1958. Mr. Greene asked if there was anybody in audience who wish to be heard in regards to the proposed amendment . Mrs .. McNeil asked the Commission why a setback of 40 feet . Mr. Harsha stated that under the old ordinance only 40 ft . was required but because of the situation on Schoolcraft , it is better for the resi- dents to have their homes set back 75 ft . from the right-of-way. Mrs . McNeil asked why this was being done now. Mr. Lotz informed Mrs . McNeil if this street should ever become a thoroughfare we feel that if the buildings are set back it would be better kr the residents . Mr. Harold Nobel , 30711 Mason , Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision informed the Commission he was speaking for a large group which were present , who were in favor of the ordinance as presented. Mr. Art Fisher, 30408 Hoy, Greenacres Association stated that the Association had been after this proposal for some time . We find that the majority of homes are set back approximately 75 ft . , which gives a boulevard appearance . It is the only street in the City of Livonia that has a boulevard rating and recently it is becoming a truck route . We believe that if this set back is put in effect , this will protect the homes and give it uniformity and perhaps keep the trucks on the mile roads . 1958 Mr . Walker assured Mrs . McNeil that this proposal will not affect now existing homes on Schoolcraft . Since there were no other comments , Mr. Kane made a motion that the Com- mission adopt Z-265 and recommend it to the City Council; Mr. Walker sup- ported the motion and unanimously carried , it was #3-41-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on its own motion, does hereby adopt resolution to amend Section 4.27 of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No . 60, amended to read as follows : AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4.27 of ARTICLE 4.00 OF ORDINANCE NO. 60 AS AMENDED ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA" . WHEREAS, IVONIA" - WHEREAS, Schoolcraft Road is the only major thorough- fare of a boulevard character extending through the City of Livonia and WHEREAS , Schoolcraft Road divides a heavy industrial district from adjoining residential districts and in recent years has come to be used by an excessive number of automobiles and large industrial vehicles traveling to and from the City of Livonia as well as through the City; and 1: WHEREAS , in the judgment of the City Council of the City of Livonia it is to the best interest of the city and its citizens that front yard requirements be established for parcels adjacent to and abutting such boulevard. THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS : Section 1 • In order that neighboring property owners shall not be deprived of their rightful enjoyment of light and air by the undue proximity of buildings to lot lines and to one another , and in order that the view of the street shall not be obstructed or that the privacy and peace of residents shall not be destroyed by too great a proximity to a major street and boulevard heavily traveled by an excessive number of automobiles and many and varied large industrial vehicles , and in order generally to preserve a degree of openness around buildings appropriate to the dominant residential charac- ter existing on Schoolcraft and in order to maintain a uniform setback consistent with that presently existing Section 4.27 of Ordinance No . 60 as amended of the City Of Livonia entitled, "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia" , is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 4.27 Yards : Front Yard Exceptions . When buildings have been constructed on the majority of lots in a block at the time of the adoption of this ordinance , no building hereafter erected or altered 44 1959 shall project beyond the minimum building line , thus established , provided that no building ttl shall be required by this ordinance to set back [� more than forty (40) feet , and provided further that notwithstanding anything in this section or in the Zoning Ordinance , Ordinance No. 60 , to the contrary , where a residentially zoned lot or parcel is adjacent to or abuts on Schoolcraft Road in the City of Livonia , no building shall be erected, moved, enlarged or otherwise estab- lished on such lot or parcel closer than seventy- five (75 ) feet to the lot line abutting the major street , except that in cases where special hard- ships or inequities due to special conditions can be shown to exist , this setback provision may be adjusted by the City Planning Commission after a public hearing with notice of such hearing as provided for in Section 17 .03 of this ordinance . Section 2 . All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this ordinance full force and effect . Section 3 . Should any portion of this ordinance be held in- valid for any reason, such holding shall not be construed as affecting the validity of the remaining Portion of this ordinance. The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition M-100 by Plymouth Oil Company, R. M. Decker, President requesting approval of the use of the following premises for a retail gasoline service station on the Southeast corner of Elsie Avenue and Middlebelt Road in the Northwest i/,4 of Section 24. Mr. Raymond Munde present representing Plymouth Oil Company . Mr. Lotz read letter from Fire Department dated February 25 , 1958. Mr. Munde informed the commission that in April , 1957 we filed a petition for erecting gas station, it was presented to Commission on April 22 , 1957 at which time it was denied for the reason that it was poor planning to have this station place so close to three existing stations ( one on Five Mile Road and two on corner of Middlebelt and Five Mile Roads . Our petition was presented according to C-1 District Regulations , Section 10.02 , subsection f , which states "a gasoline and oil service station, when approved by the City Planning Commission" . When petition was denied by your Commission, a request for a building permit was taken. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied an appeal because based on the City Planning Commission this petition was poor planning. In December, 1957 , as I understand it , the Commission gave approval to the erection of a gasoline station across the street to a competitor of my client . We were amazed that you would refuse us permission and could not understand why the other was approved. We are back now to request your permission and approval to erect the gasoline station that we had in mind last April. The Chair asked if there were any other comments from the audience in regard to proposed gas station. There were none . Mr. Kane suggested that we take this under advisement . 41 °5 1960 Mr . Okerstrom asked Mr. Munde for a sketch of the gas station. Mr. Munde replied they did not have it with them that night but that they are the same as the original plans . At the time of the original petition, there was no problem in regard to the Plans . It was simply a matter at that time of the fact that it was not good planning to have so many stations competing with each other. Mr. Lotz stated he thought it would be a good idea if this item was taken under advisement and discuss it thoroughly at a Study Meeting. Mr . Walker asked Mr. Munde if he could give the exact size of this parcel of land he proposed to build on; Mr. Munde answered it was to be built on Lots 25 through 30. Five Elm Park Subdivision - 120' x 170 ' (120 ' fronting on Middlebelt ) . Mr. Harsha asked if 170 ' was from the right-of-way line and Mr. Munde stated he believed this was correct . Mr. Walker stated that the reason this was asked was because there were homes very near. Mr. Anderson stated that it was unfortunate that this petition was refused and then another one passed. Feels that he could not vote for this now and suggests that this be taken under advisement . Mr. Munde said that they did not desire this to be taken under advisement , would prefer a decision now and if plans were needed for decision, they could be rushed to the Commission. Mr. Harsha informed Mr. Munde that the commission would like to become more familiar with the case in regard to a competitor being approved. Also stated this would come up at a Study Meeting and then come up at the next Regular meeting . Mr. Munde stated that the lease may be in jeopardy because of the delay, but appreciated the request of the Commission to take this matter under advisement , although this has been on for a whole year. Stated he would like to make that statement for the record. Mr. Harsha informed Mr. Munde that this item would be taken under advise- ment , and that he would be notified when it would come up. The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition M-102 by Alexander Sinclair requesting permission to establish golf driving range and erect his residence and building ( combined) to serve said golf range in an Agricultural District on the North side of Six Mile Road approxi- mately 660 feet west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 . Mr. Lotz read letter from Mr. Sinclair dated February 18 , 1958 who was present at this hearing . Mr. Sinclair stated he would like to mention that he had contacted the residents immediately surrounding the piece of property in question and that they had voiced no objection. The one objection that he knew of was from the property owner diagonally across Six Mile Road. Informed Com- mission immediately adjoining property owners were present to answer any question that may be asked. Stated that one of the property owners had gone to his former golf driving range and had inquired as to Mr. Sinclair and his business . 426 1961 Mr. Claude Simmons , 37960 Six Mile Road stated he and his son owned '' property directly across said property and had no objection to they driving range . Mr. Lotz asked Mr. Pinto into what catagory did this driving range fall in and Mr. Pinto answered it was allowed in R-1 regulations , referred back from AG regulations . Mr. Kane wanted to know what Mr. Sinclair meant by "erect his residence and building (combined) " and Mr. Sinclair stated the building would be . residence in character but that he would use it for both his business and residence . Mr. Walker inquired as to size of property and it was ascertained by Mr. Sinclair approximately 15 acres . Also stated that the frontage on Six Mile Road was 660 feet . Mr. Anderson asked if there was anyone who lived behind said property who might complain regarding lights , but Mr. Sinclair answered it was all farm land behind his property . Mr . Lotz informed Mr . Sinclair that if homes were built there in the future a greenbelt would be in order to separate homes from driving range . Mr. Simmons informed the Commission that when Mr. Sinclair had come to .him to discuss buying property for driving range , he had taken upon himself to go back to the previous golf range owned by Mr. Sinclair at 8 Mile Road and Lahser and was completely satisfied with the information he received. Mr. Lotz made a motion that petition be approved and it was supported by Mr . Anderson . Mr. Robinson arrived at approximately 9 : 15 p.m . Yr. Okerstrom stated he felt this item should be taken under advisement but Mr. Harsha said that under RUF regulations this golf range was per- missible and there were no objections from the neighbors , so could not see any reason for doing so . Upon a motion duly made by Mr . Lotz , supported by Mr . Anderson, it was #3-42-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held March 4 , 1958 , the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-102 by Alexander Sinclair re- questing permission to establish golf driving range and erect his residence and building (combined) to serve said golf range in an Agricultural District on the North side of Six Mile Road approximately 660 feet west of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 7 , and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet , petitioner and City Departments as listed in Proof of Service . A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Anderson, Greene , Walker, Kane , Lotz , Harsha NAYS: None NOT VOTING: Okerstrom , Robinson 409 F4f The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. 1962 Mr . Robinson having arrived at 9 : 15 p.m. acted as Chairman for remainder of meeting . The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition M-103 by Al' s Sign Erection requesting permission to erect a flat sign 34" high by 19 ' long making a total of 55 square feet reading "Zalla 's Quality Shoes for the Entire Family" made of metal and illuminated with neon lights at 29203 Plymouth between Garden and Middlebelt on the South side of Plymouth in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36 . Mr. Lotz presented the sketch of sign to the commissioners . Mr. Martin Weinstein, Radiant Sign Company (Al ' s Sign Erection) was present . Mr. Harsha asked if building was 60 ' from the right-of-way line from Plymouth Road or is it 120' from the center of road. The Commission ascertained that the store was set back sufficiently . There were no other persons present who objected to proposed sign. Mr. Lotz inquired if sign was going to be flat against the building and Mr. Weinstein stated only 10" would be protruding - it was going to be hung flat against the building , and there would be no flashing of lights. Mr. Robinson stated a motion was in order to approve or disapprove peti- tion for the erection of said sign . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker , supported by Mr. Kane and unani- mously carried, it was #3-43-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held , March 4 , 1958, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-103 by Al' s Sign Erection re- questing permission to erect a flat sign 34" high by 19 ' long making a total of 55 square feet made of metal and illuminated with neon lights at 29203 Plymouth be- tween Garden and Middlebelt on the South side of Plymouth in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 36 , 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 . The Chair declared the foregoing resolution is adopted and the petition is granted. Mr . Weinstein asked if a flat sign, not illuminated , would be permissible at the back of the building 2 " x 18" and could it be approved tonight . Mr . Robinson informed Mr. Weinstein that that sign could not be acted upon tonight , it would have to go through the regular procedure , unless as Mr. Harsha stated , if sign was 2" x 172" the Building Department would issue a permit without having to be approved by City Planning Commission. The Chairman announced a recess at approximately 9 :25 p .m. The Chair called the 82nd Special Meeting to order at approximately 9 :35 p.m. with all present as named at the beginning and course of meeting . The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition M-99 Gulf Oil Company asking permission to erect a service station on the 43 1.4 1963 Northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Inkster St . in the Southeast 1/4 of eV Section 12 . Public Hearing February 18 , 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Mr. Robinson stated that Mr. Andrew, 27512 Vargo was present , represent- ing Civic Association, wished to speak to Commission, explained that Com- mission would make a motion whether or not to allow Mr . Andrew to speak at this time . Mr. Walker suggested that Commission allow one person representing Associ- ation to speak at this time . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson and supported by Mr. Okerstrom , i t was #3-44-58 RESOLVED that , Mr. Daniel Andrew, 27512 Vargo representing Civic Association be allowed to speak at this time in re- gard to Petition M-99 Gulf Oil Company. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Anderson, Okerstrom , Green , Harsha , Walker, Robinson NAYS: Lot z , Kane The Chair announced the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Roger Davis , 27258 Vargo , spoke for Mr. Andrew and stated the members of their Association had asked him to speak. We thank you for the opportunity to speak. This is a new subdivision and we have been going to all the people in the subdivision within 500 feet of the gas station. We would like to go on record at this time with a list of 64 signatures of these residents in objection to the gas station. Residents on Vargo who are living there presently are 100% against the proposed gas station. This is a new subdivision with homes valued at $16 ,500 to $$22 ,000 which borders the land on the corner of Inkster. We feel that by taking the corner' of that parcel of land for a gas sta- tion, that it will prevent proper development of the area for small stores . We are opposed to the gas station be- cause of its proximity to the subdivision . There is one directly across the street and the land diagonally across is owned by the Pure Oil Company. We are mostly concerned with the plan which has been submitted to the Commission for the entire area. Stated plan as it stands now would be too close to the homes on Vargo. This gas station will restrict the proposed plan for the development of the area and that any group of stores wanting to go in that area will not want to be next to the gas station. Feels that with the gas station located on this corner, they will want to sepa- rate the stores from it by parking next to the houses . Mr. Greene stated when the plan for the shopping center was first shown to the Commission, it showed the stores with the parking in front of them and if the space that a gas station requires is taken from it , it will make the parking limited for the stores . There were no other comments so that a motion was in order to disapprove or approve this petition. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Harsha to assume the Chair. 42 1964 Mr. Robinson informed the audience that with respect to the Civic Associa- tion, he felt sure that with the experience the Commission has had in the past , this was an ideal location for a gasoline station . It was located farther from the houses than 75% of the gasoline stations being erected, and therefore he made a motion that the petition be granted. The motion was supported by Mr. Kane , and it was #3-45-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held February 18, 1958 , the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-99 by R . M . Dilworth, Gulf Oil Company requesting permission to erect a service station on the Northwest corner of Six Mile Road and Inkster St . in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12 , and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the 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, Okerstrom, Greene , Harsha, Walker , Kane , Robinson NAYS : Lotz The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition Z-249 by Luther G. and Gladys L. Lentz asking for a change of zoning classifi- cation on Parcel 31Gld located on the North side of Ann Arbor Trail approximately 400 ' West of Ann Arbor Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 be changed from R-1-B to C-2 . No questions from the members of the Commission. Mr. Kane read a resolution prepared by the Law Department and made a motion that the petition be denied for the reasons as given in the pre- pared resolution; motion was supported by Mr. Lotz and unanimously carried, it was #3-46-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 21 , 1958 on Petition Z-249 of Luther G. and Gladys L. Lentz for a change of zoning classification of Parcel 31G1d located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 31 from RIB to C-2 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition No. Z-249 be denied for the following reasons : (1 ) That the commission does not believe it to be in harmony with future plans for the development of this area and further the commission does not wish to have the commercial district in this section of the com- munity extended any further west; and (2 ) That the commission believes there has not been a substantial enough change in the character of this area so as to warrant this change from the present resi- dential zone to a commercial zone , and further that the commission believes the present residential zone , or some other residential zoning , to be in harmony with the planned development of the community and in the public interest , and 3 1965 rnj FURTHER RESOLVED , notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonian under date of Janu- C*-) ary 2 , 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , The Consumer Power Company , City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service . The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted, and petition is denied. The secretary announced the next item on agenda was the Bai-Lynn Park Subdivision requesting a one-year extension on approval of preliminary plat located on the East side of Merriman Road between Lyndon and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 . Preliminary plat approved April 2 , 1957 . Mr. Lotz read letter dated February 17 , 1958 from David Lewis giving reason for request of extension. There were no questions from the Commission and upon a motion duly made by Mr . Walker and supported by Mr. Greene , it was #3-47-58 RESOLVED that , request dated February 17 , 1958 from David Lewis requesting a one-year extension on the proposed Bai-Lynn Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 , be taken under advisement . A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Anderson, Greene , Walker , Lotz , Harsha , Robinson, Okerstrom NAYS: Kane The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Harold Noble , Schoolcraft Manor Subdivision was present and stated he wished to speak in regards to Bai-Lynn Subdivision. They were present to ask that this extension be denied on the basis that since the previous item #2 regarding Schoolcraft Street Setback was approved by the Commis- sion, this would necessitate for an amendment of that plat as originally presented. Another point brought out was that recent developments have shown that there is a lack of drainage facilities and in regard to these drainage facilities , the builder has admitted that he would be putting in temporary facilities which he is asking the Commission to approve . Also the zoning classification was granted to the developer under duress and for these reasons we feel that this petition should be denied. Mr. Walker felt that the approval of the street set back will affect this preliminary plat without any amendment to it . Also asked Mr. Pinto , be- cause this subdivision plat has been litigated, if a denial by this Com- mission would reopen this case . Mr . Pinto answered that this plat had not been acted upon within the 60 days . A suit was started and the judge indicated that he would deem it approved because no action had been taken. I believe that is in the past and any consideration you give this plat at this time is based on your decisions at this moment . It is before you for an extension and only that . Mr. Walker stated when this plat first came before us , we had several 1966 meetings on it and made several recommendations to Mr. Lewis pertaining to the preliminary plat . Asked if plat that the court approved was the original one without the recommendations , and did we approve the original plat . Mr . Lewis stated that plat brought before the court was not the plat the Commission had approved. The plat that had been approved is essentially the one before the Commission at the present time . Mr. Robinson asked what the differences were , and Mr. Lewis said that this present plat showed the 9 subdivisions and incorporated space for the re- tention basin. Mr. Greene inquired how much it varied from the original , at which time the Commission looked the plat plan over. It was ascertained that on the original plat there had been 305 lots , now there were 287 . Mr . Walker stated that when they had approved the original plat he felt he was under duress and was not sure of the differences at that time when the case ended in court and of the plat presented now. Mr. Lewis stated that the original plat presented to the Commission was not the same as the one presented in court . Mr. Walker asked if it had 305 lots and Mr. Lewis stated it did not have lots there that were 77 ' to 80 ' in width. They had all been 64 ' approxi- mately . Mr. Lotz stated that it was his opinion that the plat we originally ap- proved is not the one being presented now for an extension. This is an entirely new plat and it should be acted upon as a new plat . It is not the original one that we had been forced to approve . Mr. Lewis stated that basically this plat was the same as the original except for the retention basin. Mr. Lewis then asked if original plat could have an extension. Mr. Greene asked Mr. Pinto if Mr. Lewis is asking for an extension on the original plat should we act on the original or the revised plat . Mr. Pinto answered that the request for an extension must be on the plat that was originally approved and the one approved by the Council . Mr. Anderson stated that he thought this item should be taken under advise- ment; he was not on the Commission when the plat was originally approved and would like more time to think it over. Mr. Robinson stated that this item would be taken under advisement . The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition Z-251 by I: . Richard Bleznak (Sunset Hills No . 2 ) asking for a change of zoning classi- fication on Parcels 11-LL3 , 11-LL4 , 11-LL5 , 11-LL6 and 11-LL7 located on the West side of Middlebelt Road approximately 1700 ' North of Six Mile Road and situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 be changed from RUFB 'to R-lA. Public Hearing February 18, 1958 at which time it was taken under advisement . There was no further discussion. Mr. Robinson stated a motion was in 414 19 67 order to approve or disapprove petition. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane that petition be granted because it conforms with the adjoining property , and supported by Mr. Walker , it was #3-47-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18 , 1958 on Petition No. Z-251 as sub- mitted by Richard Bleznak for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 from RUFB to R-1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition No. Z-251 be granted, and FURTHER RESOLVED , notice of the above hearing was pub- lished in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of January 30 , 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , The Consumer Power Company , City Departments and peti- tioner as listed in the Proof of Service . A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES': Okerstrom , Anderson, Greene , Harsha , Walker , Kane , Robinson NAYS : None NOT VOTING: Lotz The Chair declared the foregoing resolution adopted and petition is • granted. • The secretary announced the next item on the Agenda was Sunset Hills No . 2 located on the West side of Middlebelt approximately 1700 feet North of Six Mile and situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 asking for approval of the proposed plat . Public Hearing February 18, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Mr. Lotz read letter dated February 19 , 1958 in relation to having subdivision' s name changed from Sunset Hills Subdivision No . 2 to Butler Hills Subdivision. Mr. Bleznak, petitioner and Mr . V . B . Spaulding , Engineer were present . Mr. Spaulding stated that three points had been brought up at last meeting: 1 . Change street from Bennett to Mark Lane; 2 , Change name from Sunset Hills No. 2 to Butler Hills Subdivision and 3 , set back Lots 266 and 265 in conformance with others , which were 581 . Mr. Pinto stated that before this plat could be approved that the change in zoning would have to be official first . Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Bleznak if they would give us an extension of time and file a waiver to the effect . This plat would be considered immediately upon it being officially rezoned; Mr. Bleznak granted the • Commission the extension. Yr. Robinson asked about the flood condition because a few lots were on low ground in this area and Mr. Spaulding stated a high water mark had been taken and they did not seem to be too low. Mr. Marsha stated that Lot 24.5 lacked being the proper size and Mr. Spaulding answered that it had been changed to 61 ft . to conform it with the others . 1968 Mr. Robinson asked how much time should be requested in the extension and Mr. Pinto stated at least four months . Mr. Robinson informed Mr . Bleznak that the Commission will act upon plat as soon as possible after the rezoning is passed. Mr. Bleznak stated he would send in letter for waiver. The Chair stated that this item would be taken under advisement . The Chairman announced that if there were no objections , Commission will act upon Item Z-24.8 at this time . The Secretary announced that the next item was Z-24.8 Andrew LaPrese and Lois E. LaPrese asking for a change of zoning classification on parcel of land located on the South side of Eight Mile Road approximately 90 feet west of Hubbard Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 be changed from RUFB to M-l. Public Hearing February 18 , 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Mr. Robinson stated that a resolution had been prepared by the Law De- partment at the Commission ' s direction , at which time Mr. Lotz read resolution. There were no further questions from the Commission at which time Mr. Robinson stated that a motion was in order to approve or disapprove the petition. Mr. Greene asked to be briefed as to the reason for this denial since he was not at the meeting at the time this petition had been discussed. Mr. Robinson stated that the entire area in question was being considered for an overall rezoning and Commission did not desire any spot zoning at this time . Mr. Walker stated that he did not go along with the resolution as it was read, felt that it was in contrary with the study that was under way , and that a denial without prejudice until study was finished was all that was necessary. Mr. Pheney , Attorney for Mr. LaPrese , stated he ' nderstooc' a general re- zoning was coming up and would prefer that this item be taken under advise- ment rather than be denied, until the study is complete . Mr. Pinto explained that the study was not enough reason for denying petition. Mr. LaPrese asked how long would the study take , and he was informed some time would be necessary to complete study. ,Mr. Greene stated that petition could be denied without prejudice . Mr. Walker stated he could not see any other way than to deny because when the study is completed and we feel that there is a particular area that should be rezoned M-1 or M-2 , we would like to include the whole area for rezoning, not just one parcel . Mr. LaPrese said that perhaps this was better , because then they could have a decision upon which some action might be taken later on, since it was being denied because of the study . 4 1969 Upon a motion duly made by Mr . Greene that petition be denied without prejudice and supported by Mr. Walker, it was unanimously carried, that C`1 #3-48-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18 , 1958 on Petition No . Z-248 as sub- mitted by Andrew LaPrese and Lois E. LaPrese for a change of zoning in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from RUFB to Iv-1 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition No . Z-248 be denied without prejudice , at this time because the City Planning Commission at present is having this area studied by the Planning Consultant towards having a general rezoning re- classification. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was pub- lished in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of January 30 , 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , The Consumer Power Company , City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service . The Chair declared the foregoing resolution was adopted and petition is denied without prejudice . The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition No . Z-256 George Karabenick, Carey Homes asking for a change of zoning classification on parcel of land located on South side of Bretton, 230. 85 feet west of Middlebelt Road and situated in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 be changed from RUFB to R-1B. Public Hearing February 18, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . There were no further questions on this item and the Chair announced that a motion was in order to approve or disapprove this petition. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane that the rezoning in this petition is in conformity with the present usage of the land to the north that this petition be granted, and supported by Mr. Okerstrom , it was unanimously carried, that #3-49-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18, 1958 on Petition No. Z-256 as sub- mitted by George Karabenick, Carey Homes for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFB to R-1B , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition No . Z-256 be granted, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of January 30, 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , The Consumer Power Company , City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service . The Chair announced that the foregoing resolution is adopted and petition is granted. The secretary announced that the next item on the agenda was Petition No . Z-262 initiated by City Planning Commission on its own motion whether or not to amend Subsection ( c ) of Section 8.02 and Section 8.06 of Article p e 'F) 1970 8.00 of Ordinance No . 60 Public Hearing February 18, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Mr. Pinto explained briefly the amendment , regarding Section 8.02 , Sub- section ( c ) : Off-street parking facilities when such land is owned by an industry and lies between zoned industrial property and a highway upon the approval of the City Planning Com- mission; provided, however, that in all such cases a greenbelt screen planting strip not less than twenty ( 20) feet wide is created and maintained adjacent to resi- dential uses . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker and supported by Mr . Kane , it was unanimously carried, that #3-50-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18 , 1958 on Petition No. Z-262 as in- itiated by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not Subsection (c ) of Section 8.02 and Section 8.06 of Article 8.00 of the Zoning Ordinance , Ordinance No. 60 should be amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the following resolution be granted, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION (c ) OF SECTION 8.02 AND SECTION 8.06 OF ARTICLE 8.00 OF ORDINANCE NO . 60, AS AMENDED , ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA . " THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS: Section 1 . Subsection ( c ) of Section 8.02 and Section 8.06 of Article 8.00 of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, entitled "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia" , are hereby amended to read as follows : Section 8.02 Uses Permitted. In all RUF Districts no building or land, except as otherwise provided in this ordinance , shall be erected or used except for one or more of the following specified uses : (a) All uses permitted in R-1 Districts . (b ) Nurseries , greenhouses and truck gardens . ( c ) Off-street parking facilities when such land is owned by an industry and lies be- tween zoned industrial property and a highway upon the approval of the City Planning Commission; provided, however, that in all such cases a greenbelt screen planting strip not less than twenty (20) feet wide is created and maintained ad- jacent to residential uses . (d) On one-half (1/2 ) acre or more , fowl and rabbits may be raised and kept for owner ' s consumption only; on one (1) acre or more , two ( 2") horses may be kept for owner ' s use only; and on two (2 ) acres or more , two (2) horses and one (1 ) cow or three (3 ) horses may be kept for owner 's use only; dog kennels may be operated, and fowl and rabbits may be raised for sale; provided, however, that such 3 animals and fowl are properly housed, main- 1971 tained and fenced so as not to become a nuisance or detrimental to public health, r.r, safety or welfare . (e ) One (i ) non-illuminating sign not greater than nine (9 ) square feet in area pertaining to the sale or lease of the Premises or advertising the sale of the produce , raised thereof , shall be permitted on a lot ; not more than one (i ) non-illuminating trespassing, safety or caution sign, not over two (2) square feet in area, on any one lot . ( f) Accessory buildings or structures and uses customarily incidental to any of the above uses when located on the same property , but not more than one (1 ) temporary building for the sale of the produce , of any of the above uses , which shall be located not less than twenty-five ( 25 ) feet from the street or highway right-of-way line , and further that an open space for park- ing , twenty-five (25 ) feet off the street or highway right-of-way , be provided for patrons of the market . Section 8.06 Front Yards . Each lot in RUF Districts shall have a front yard of not less than forty (40) feet in depth. Section 2 . All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this ordinance full force and effect . Section 3 . If any part or parts of this ordinance are for any reason held to be invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance . FURTHER RESOLVED , notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of January 30, 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , the Consumer Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Z-234'a City Planning Commission on its own motion whether or not to amend Zoning Ordinance No . 60 to add Article 5 .50 R-L District Regulations . Public Hearing February 18, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane , supported by Mr. Greene , and unani- mously carried, it was #3-51-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18, 1958 on Petition No. Z-234a as in- itiated by City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Zoning Ordinance No. 60 to add the following article , Article 5 .50 R-L District Regulations , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the following resolution be granted, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60 OF THE CITY ENTITLED , "AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF LIVONIA; 'y� 4t TO REGULATE THE USE OF LAND AND STRUCTURES THEREIN; 1972 TO REGULATE AND LIMIT THE HEIGHT , THE AREA , THE BULK AND THE LOCATION OF BUILDINGS; TO REGULATE AND RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF TRADES AND INDUSTRIES AND THE LOCATION OF BUILDINGS DESIGNED FOR SPECIFIED USES; TO REGULATE AND DETERMINE THE AREA OF YARDS , COURTS AND OTHER OPEN SPACES; TO REGULATE THE DENSITY OF POPULATION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE -ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE; TO PROVIDE FOR A BOARD OF APPEALS , AND ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE TERMS THEREOF , " BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 5 .50 THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS: Section 1 . Ordinance No . 60 of the City of Livonia is hereby amended by adding thereto Article 5 .50 as follows : ARTICLE 5 .50 R - L DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 5 .51 Application of Article . The regulations set forth in this article shall apply in all R-L Districts . Section 5 .52 Uses Permitted. In all R-L Districts no build- ing or land , except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, shall be erected or used except for one or more of the following specified uses; (a) All uses that are permitted in R-1 Districts; pro- vided, however, that notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance , contrary hereto or in conflict here- with, every residential lot or parcel in an R-L District shall have the minimum lot area set forth in Section 5 .54 of this article . (b) All uses permitted under Article 6.00 and Article 7 .00 of this ordinance , that is R-2 and R-3 uses , are specifically excluded from and prohibited in the R-L District . Section 5 .53 Building Heights: No building hereafter erected or altered in R-L Districts shall exceed thirty- five (35 ) feet in height or two ( 2 ) stories except as provided in Sections 4.4.1 to 4.4.4 , inclusive , of this ordinance . Section 5 .54 Lot Area: Every lot in R-L Districts shall have a minimum of 9 ,600 square feet area and a minimum width of eighty ( 80 ) feet at the building line and a minimum depth of 120 feet . Any lot or parcel of record at the time of adoption of this amendment which is of lesser area than the specifications herein provided, and which cannot meet the requirements of area, side yard, front yard , and rear yard as provided in this article shall otherwise comply with all requirements of R-1 Districts . Section 5 .55 Percentage of Lot Coverage . One family dwellings together with accessory buildings , hereafter erected on any lot in R-L Districts shall not cover more than twenty-five (25 ) percent of the area of lot , 1973 provided that this requirement shall not apply fit, to any lot or parcel which at the time this ordinance becomes effective is lesser in area C") than the specifications herein provided if such lot or parcel was of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance . Section 5 .56 Front Yard. Each lot in R-L Districts shall have a front yard of not less than thirty- five (35 ) feet in depth. Section 5 .57 Side Yards in General .All lots in R-L Districts shall have two (2 ) side yards each having a width of not less than six ( 6 ) feet and the combined width shall not be less than fifteen (15 ) feet . Section 5 .58 Side Yards Abutting Upon Street . Houses on corner lots shall not be constructed less than twenty-five ( 25 ) feet from the street right -of- way lines adjacent to such lots . Section 5 .59 Rear Yards . Each lot .in R-L Districts shall have a rear yard of a depth of not less than thirty-five (35 ) feet . Section 5 .60 Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking facilities shall be provided as hereinbefore speci- fied in Article 4.00 , Section 4.37 to 4.40, in- clusive , of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance . Section 5 . 61 Exception. Notwithstanding any provi- sions of this article , uses permitted in RUF Districts shall be allowed and permissible in R-L Districts as to all lots and parcels of property in R-L Districts which, at the time this ordinance becomes effective , have an area of one-half (1/2 ) acre or more as may be required for such uses under Article 8.00 of the Zoning Ordinance and an average width of not less than one-fourth (1/4 ) the average depth; provided that such lot or parcel of land shall not be required for the purposes of this section to have a width greater than one hundred (100) feet . Section 2 . All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this ordinance full force and effect . Section 3 . Should any portion of this ordinance be held in- valid for any reason, such holding shall not be construed as affecting the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance . FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of January 30 , 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , the Consumer Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service . The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 i? 1974 The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Z-259 City Plan- ning Commission on its own motion whether or not to amend Article 7 .50 of Ordinance No . 60 as amended by adding thereto Section 7 .61 . Public Hearing February 18, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom , supported by Mr. Kane and unani- mously carried, it was #3-52-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18, 1958 on Petition No . Z-259 as ini- tiated by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Article 7 .50 of Ordinance No. 60 by adding thereto Section 7 .61 , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend the following to the City Council to be granted, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 7 .50 OF ORDINANCE NO. 60 , AS AMENDED ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA , " BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 7 .61 . THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS : Section 1. Article 7 .50 of Ordinance No. 60 , as amended, entitled "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia " is hereby amended by adding thereto Section 7 .61 as follows : Section 7 .61 Exception. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this article , uses permitted in RUF Districts shall be allowed and permissible in RU Districts as to all lots and parcels of property in RU Districts which , at the time this ordinance becomes effective , have an area of one-half (1/2 ) acre or more as may be required for such uses under Article 8.00 of the Zoning Ordinance , and an average width of not less than one-fourth (1/4) the average depth; provided that , such lot and parcel of land shall not be required for the purposes of this section to have a width greater than one hundred (100) feet . Section 2 . All ordinances or parts of ordinances in con- flict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this ordinance full force and effect . Section 3 . Should any portion of this ordinance be held invalid for any reason, such holding shall not be con- strued as affecting the validity of the remaining por- tion of this ordinance . FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was pub- lished in the official newspaper, The Livonian under date of January 30 , 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company , the Consum r Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service . The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was Petition No . Z-260 City Planning Commission on its own motion whether or not to amend Ordinance No . 60 by adding thereto Article 9.50 . Public Hearing February f 0 1975 18, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Lotz , supported by Mr. Kane and unani- mously carried, it was #3-53-58 RESOLVED that , pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on February 18, 1958 on Petition No. Z-260 as ini- tiated by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to add Article 9 .50 to Ordinance No. 60 , the City Plan- ning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the following resolution be granted, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 60 OF THE CITY EN- TITLED , "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA" , BY ADDING THERETO ARTICLE 9 .50 THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS: Section 1 . Ordinance No. 60 of the City entitled "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia" is hereby amended by adding thereto Article 9 .50 as follows : ARTICLE 9 .50 P-S DISTRICT REGULATIONS Section 9.51 Application of Article . The regulations set forth in this article shall apply in all P-S Districts . Section 9 .52 Uses Permitted. In all P-S Districts no building or land , except as otherwise provided in this ordinance , shall be erected or used except for one or more of the following specified uses : (a) All uses permitted in R-1 Districts . (b) Buildings when devoted to any one or more of the following professional occupations : Medical offices and/or clinics; convalescent homes; dental offices and/ or clinics; optometry offices; chiropractic offices and/ or clinics; attorneys offices; accounting offices; engineering and architectural offices; funeral homes , and any other professional , executive or administrative occupations; provided, however that any occupation or use not specifically listed in this subsection; includ- ing hospitals , shall require the express approval of the City Planning Commission. The above uses and any other use approved of by the City Planning Commission shall be subject to all the limitations contained elsewhere in this article. Section 9 .53 Uses Prohibited. In all P-S Districts no building shall be erected or used, or land used, in whole or in part , for any one or more of the following uses : (a) All dwellings , buildings and uses of every kind, except such dwellings , buildings and uses that are expressly permitted in an R-1 District . (b ) The outdoor display of any actual product for sale . ( c ) The outdoor storage of goods or materials irre- 1916 spective of whether or not they are for sale • (d) Warehouses or the indoor storage of goods and materials beyond that normally incidental to the above permitted occupations . Section 9 .54 Building Height . No building hereafter erected or altered in P-S Districts shall exceed thirty-five (35 ) feet in height or two (2 ) stories . Section 9.55 Percentage of Lot Coverage . There shall be no limitation as to maximum lot occupancy , except as such might be controlled by off-street parking re- quirements as contained in Sections 4.37 to 4.40 , in- clusive , of this ordinance , and front , side and rear yard requirements set forth in this article . Section 9 .56 Minimum Building Setback Requirements . (a) Hereafter, no building in a P-S District shall be constructed less than twenty-five (25 ) feet from the front line of the lot or parcel on which such building is being constructed. (b ) There shall be no minimum side yard requirements in P-S Districts , except in those cases where such district borders on a residential district , in which case there shall be a minimum side yard of not less than fifteen (15 ) feet . Section 9 .57 Rear Yards . Each lot in a P-S District shall have a rear yard of a depth of not less than fifteen (15 ) feet . Section 9 .58 Off-Street Parking Facilities . Off-street parking facilities shall be provided as hereinbef ore specified in Sections 4.37 to 4.40 , inclusive , of this ordinance . Section 2 . All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this ordi- nance full force and effect . Section 3 . Should any portion of this ordinance be held invalid for any reason, such holding shall not be construed as affecting the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance . FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper , The Livonian under date of January 30 , 1958 and notice of which hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company , Michigan Bell Telephone Company , the Consumer Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service . The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was the approval of invoice from The Livonian Publishing Company in the amount of $168.86 . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Lotz , supported by Mr. Walker, and unani- mously carried , it was #3-54-58 RESOLVED that , statement from The Livonian Publishing 442 1977 Company dated for January in the amount of $168. 86 be approved and forwarded to the proper department for payment . powewa The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The secretary announced the next item on the agenda was request from Theodore Crantz for approval of approximately 35 lots for septic tank use . Mr. Crantz was Present and stated that they were continuing with the sewers and that there was still a possibility of tying with the Levan sewer. But since this might take six months or longer , he was asking for approval of the use of approximately 35 septic tanks . Stated that this was not going to be permanent but that we are going to tie in with the sewers later when they are in; that they are going to be putting in the sewers . Mr . Lotz felt that a percolation test should be taken. Mr. Crantz felt that this was not needed and presented the plans to the Commission showing that in Subdivision Glenbrook Colony #1 he was re- questing Lots 1 through 27 for septic tanks and in Glenbrook Estates #1 Subdivision on Eight Mile Road he was requesting septic tanks for Lots 1 through 13 , plus Lots 30 , 31 , and 32 . Mr. Walker asked if Mr. Crantz wanted approval subject to the approval of the Board of Health and the percolation tests but Mr. Crantz thought this was not necessary . Mr. Anderson stated if the septic tanks were put in, it should be on record that they are only temporary . Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker , supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously carried, it was • #3-55-58 RESOLVED that , request by Mr. Theodore Crantz for approval of use of septic tanks on Lots 1 through 27 in the Glen- brook Colony #1 and Lots 1 through 13 , plus Lots 30, 31 and 32 in Glenbrook Estates #1 for temporary use only , be granted. The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. The Secretary announced the next item on the agenda was the discussion whether or not Commission should forward letter to Inspection Department regarding pending petitions relating to R-3 zoning . It was decided to forward letter to Inspection Department not to issue any permits until some action has been taken on pending R-3 petitions . Mr. Greene announced that the Regional Meeting at Veterans Memorial Build- ing would be held on the following Thursday, March 6 , 1958. Upon a motion made by Mr. Okerstrom and supported by Mr. Kane , the 82nd Special Meeting was adjourned at approximately 11 :15 p .m. , March 4 , 1958 . Fred A. Lotz , Secre aryr�:, tem ATZFS-T E William R. Robinson, Chairman H. Paul Harsha , Chairman pyo tem