Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-06-07 4 o MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND 2865 THE 116TH SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA _1 On Tuesday, June 7, 1960 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 116th Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Angevine, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:10 p.m. Members present: Leonard Kane, Dennis Anderson, Robert L. Greene, William R. Robinson, Charles Walker, Robert M. Peacock and Robert L. Angevine Members absent : H. Paul Harsha and Wilford E. Okerstrom** Mr. Rodney C. Kropf, Assistant City Attorney was present in the absence of Mr. Charles J. Pinto, along with Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and approximately thirty (30) interested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough announced the first item on the agenda is Petition Z-453 by D.R. McCullough, City Planner, pursuant to authority vested in him under Section 4 of Article VI of the Rules and Procedure of the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the West side of Middlebelt approximately 700 ft. North of Seven Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFB to C-2. Mr. Klein is unable to appear this evening. He is out of town. Mrs. Warner of the Library Commission is present tonight along with other members of the Library Commission. • ti This property in question ton ight will extend the C-2 zoning 10 more acres adjacent and north of the presently zoned C-2 property. It is land owned by the Archdiocese of Detroit. If this property is rezoned to C-2, Mr. Klein and the Archdiocese will exchange property so that the church property will front on Seven Mile Road. In addition,Mr. Klein has proposed a very advantageous site for the library also fronting on Seven Mile Road at a greatly reduced price. If there are any questions in relation to the library site, Mrs. Warner may be able to answer them. Mr. Robinson: I would like to see this property in relation to another on the East side of Middlebelt Road. The commissioners examined the plat book and it was determined that the post office and a nursery business are located across from the property in petition. Mr. McCullough: Mr. Klein has made a written offer to the Library Commission and they are going to have a meeting after this petition has been heard for the purpose of accepting his offer if the Planning Commission chooses to act favorably on this petition. Mr. Anderson: Is this property the property owned by the Archdiocese? 3 Mr. McCullough: Yes, they are going to trade with Mr. Klein for some property facing on Seven Mile Road. The Library Commission has tried to buy numerous properties in this general location and the selling price of these sites ran as high as $60,000. Mr. Klein is asking $13,000 for this particular site on Seven Mile Road. He is asking much less than what is generally being asked. r r 2866 Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Greene: Is the Library Commission in favor of this site? Mrs. Warner: Yes, we are. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Greene, it was #6-100-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-453 as submitted by D. R. McCullough, City Planner for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFB to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-453 be granted for the reason: (1) that it appears that the City will receive a substantial advantage in the form of a library site at a greatly reduced price, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of May 18, 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-454 by D. R. McCulbugh, City Planner, to rezone property located on the West side of Farmington approximately 700 ft. South of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. The City Council rezoned this property along with our recommendation of our Master Pattern which included Section 28. After you have heard from the people in the audience, you can probably table it indefinitely. **Mr.Okerstrom arrived at approximately 8: 25 p.m. Mr. Robinson: Why not remove it from the agenda? Mr. Kropf: All you need to do is withdraw the petition. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Joseph Vanzo: I understand that the property that has been rezoned by the City 12066 Boston Post) Council is only the property that is needed by the General Foods Road ) Corporation industry but what I do not understand is why it was rezoned to M-2 because the M-1 zoning was sufficient. We have no objection to the industry going in but we were a little bit concerned because it took in a little bit of R-2 and RUFB but I have been informed that this would be on only the property to be used by General Foods. As long as it did not affect any of the other property in the area there would be no objection to this on our part but we still feel it was not necessary to have M-2. . 28E7 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #6-101-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-454 by D. R. McCullough to rezone property in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28 from R-2 & RUFB to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-454 be withdrawn for the reason that this property has been rezoned by the City Council purusant to the City Planning Commission's recommendation on the Master Pattern, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of May 18, 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition 11201 by Franchise Enterprises Inc., requesting permission to operate a drive-in restaurant on the North side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Haller approximately 750 feet East of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25. Mr. McCullough presented photographs of the proposed drive-in restaurant. Mr. Albert Sugar, present for the petitioner. Mr. Okerstrom: What is the size of the proposed building? Mr. McCullough: The specifications show it to be 50'x 50' . Mr. Sugar: There will be no car hops. The customers will come in and purchase their items and then either take it off the premises or possibly eat in their cars. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Walker: Do we have a report from the Police Department on this petitioner? Mr. McCullough: We have written a letter asking for a report. I was told verbally that they find no objection to the concern. At this time, the Planning Commission members examined the specifications and plans I: for the proposed building. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, it was #6- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, June 7, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby table Petition M-201 by Franchise Enterprises Inc. , requesting permission to operate a drive-in restaurant in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 until the City Planning Commission has further 286„. investigated with the Health Department and until the letter requested from the Police Department has been received. is Mr. Sugar: The company latch /going to build on this property is going to build in conjunction with another building in Detroit. It is desirable to have both buildings going up at the same time. Originally it was thought that this use would not have to before the Planning Commission because of the fact that this business is not going to have car hops. If this matter is prolonged the operation will not be advisable for this company for the reason that they will miss the summer business. It is my understanding that regardless of whether a permit is given, police and health approval will be necessary before the business is opened. Mr. F. Markey, who is in Hammond, Indiana is not here tonight because he felt that he had complied with all the requirements of the City. There has been a verbal report from the Police Department as to the company. Time is of an essence to these people. Mr. Greene: Since this isn't a drive-in it is not necessary for them to come be- fore us for approval. Is that right? Mr. Kropf: There was a conflict of opinion on this particular type of business involved here. I originally felt that the petitioner did not need Planning Commission approval. Mr. Pinto was inclined to go along with me but he felt that it might be better to go before the Planning Commission in case there were any property owners surrounding the property objecting to this specific use. Apparently there are no objectors present tonight. Mr. Greene: He could withdraw this petition right now. Mr. Peacock: I understand there will be no food served in the cars? Or will the customers be served in their cars and inside? Mr. Sugar: The food would be dispensed from the restaurant. It will not be served in the cars by any one. But, if the food is taken from the restaurant they could eat in their cars on the premises but it is not intended that they eat in their cars. There will be no curb service. Mr. Walker: I would like to address our legal department. It seems to me we are going to set a precedent by hearing this petition. If the legal department does not say that this is a drive-in .then I don't see why it is before us. Mr. Kropf: If there were a number of home owners objecting to this tonight stating that the city is not protecting their interests because this is like a drive-in that would be the reason it is before the Planning Commission. I do not feel you will get a great number of these kind of businesses in the City so that this will not set a precedent. i 1[ Mr. Walker: It seems that this is a border line case; the legal department says it is not a drive-in and our zoning ordinance states if it isn't a drive-in the petitioner does not have to be heard before us. I believe it should be one way or the other. If it is a . drive-in we should take action; if it isn't the petition should be withdrawn. c 2869 Mr. Kropf: For the purposes of this petition, it is a drive-in. II1 Mr. Greene: On what basis? Mr. Kropf: Because the cars drive in to buy the food. Mr. Greene: But cars come into any restaurant. Mr. Kropf: We do not know what type of business this will be. For this reason, is is a drive-in. They are on the premises and eating there. Mr. Anderson: Are we going to act on all carry-out service? Mr. Okerstrom: Have we heard from the audience? (Mr. Angevine stated they had and there had been no objections) I do not think we should have to take action on this. We shouldn't have to vote on it at all, this petition should be removed from the agenda. Mr. Greene: I concur with Mr. Okerstrom; we should permit the petitioner to withdraw his petition from the agenda. Mr. Kropf: I feel that the petitioner would feel better if the Planning Commission did take official action. Mr. Peacock: I would like to withdraw my motion to table this petition. IL: Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #6-102-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, June 7, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby allow the petitioner of Petition M-201, the Franchise Enterprises, Inc. , requesting permission to operate a drive-in restaurant on the North side of Plymouth Road between Middlebelt Road and Hailer in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 25, to withdraw said petition for the reason that the Planning Commission does not feel that this is a drive-in restaurant and,therefore, they have no jurisdiction to take action on this matter, 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: Has the petitioner i.ny objection to this? Mr. Sugar: We do not as long as a building permit can be obtained. Mr. Okerstrom: If the petitioner does get his permit, he will be subject to the protective wall between the residential and commercial properties. Mr. Sugar: There will be a 100 ft. depth north of the boundary of the 1[70 restaurant property which will not be leased to the petitioner at all. They have approximately 165'in depth with a frontage of 97.5' . Their property will not abut any residential area. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom and Angevine 2870 NAYS: Kane Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-65 by Hugh Caverly requesting permission to remove topsoil located on the Northeast corner of Five Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the proposed Country Homes Estates Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. Letters of recommendations have been received from the DPW and the Police Department dated May 10, 1960 and April 15, 1960 respectively. Mr. Hugh Caverly was present. Mr. Walker: This petition is for removal of topsoil for the same area as in the original application. There has been no change since the first one was approved. It is before us due to the 6 month's period having expired. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? It was determined that there were 45 acres involved in this application. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #6-103-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA=65 by Hugh Caverly requesting permission to remove topsoil located on the Northeast corner of Five Mile Road and Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17 (proposed Country Homes Estates Sub.) subject, however, to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the Bureau of Inspection a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for 45 acres (or $22,500), which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; and 1[: THAT, the period for which the permit herein authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as required herein, whichever is the shorter period, and THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, and 2871 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 recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of May 10, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of April 15, 1960. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-70 by P. L. Kozub requesting permission to remove topsoil from property located on the North side of Schoolcraft Road and South of Meadowlark approximately 1300 ft. East of Middlebelt Road in the proposed Mar-Git Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24. Letters have been received from the Engineering Department and the P)lice Department dated May 31, 1960 and May 26, 1960 respectively. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Walker: Is this area before us just north of the area you previously asked permission to remove topsoil? Mr. Kozub: Yes, there are approximately 15 acres. Mr. James Stimson: Where will the trucks go in and out? 29154 Meadowlark) Mr. Kozub: They will use the ingress and egress on Schoolcraft. Mr. Walker: Have you discussed the matter of a culvert with the Engineering Dept. ? Have they approved? Mr. Kozub: Yes, as long as it was during the dry season and that it was a big enough culvert. We intend to use only the ingress and egress off Schoolcraft. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #6-104-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-70 by P. L. Kozub requesting permission to remove topsoil from property located on the North side of Schoolcraft and South of Meadowlark approximately 1300 ft. East of Middlebelt Road in the proposed Mar-Git Subdivision in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 24, subject however, to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; (b)that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic '. 1[10 requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and • 2872 FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant deposit with the Bureau of IL: Inspection a corporate surety bond at $500 per acre, for 15 acres (or $7,500) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; and THAT, the period for which the permit herein authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as required herein, whichever is the shorter period, and THAT, the applictat shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of May 31, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of May 26, 1960. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-71 by Fattore Company requesting permission to remove sand on parts of Lots 12-15 in the Newman Schoolcraft Farms Subdivision located on the East side of Stark Road between School- craft Road and the Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, approximately 950 ft. South of Schoolcraft in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28. Letters have been submitted by the Engineering Department and the Police Department dated May 31 and June 2, 1960 respectively. 1 Mr. Fattore was not present but the owners of the property involved were in the audience. Mr. Walker: It appears that topsoil is to be removed from DPW property. It was determined that no topsoil is to be removed from said property. The property involved in the removal of the topsoil consisted of three acres. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Vanzt : Has it been established that the trucks will use Stark Road? 12066 Boston Post) . Road ) Mr. Peacock: It has been suggested. (Mr. Walker concurred with Mr. Peacock.) Mr. Walker: Mr. Kropf, can we make it a condition in our approval to force the contractor to use Stark Road north to Schoolcraft and not south? Mr. Kropf: Yes. Mr. Peacock: We are taking a chance of tearing up Stark Road with these IL loaded trucks. I would like to ask our Engineering Department whether this road can take this kind of traffic. Mr. McCullough: We can suggest to the Police Department to reconsider their ingress and egress. Mr. Walker: We should find out if there is any other way than using Stark Road to Schoolcraft and if not whether the Department 2873 of Public Works agrees to using this road. Mr. Peacock: Mr. Kropf, is there any way that we can make this contractor responsible for repairing Stark Road if he tears it up? Mr. Kropf: I do not think so Mr. McCullough: The lumber company uses this road all the time. Mr. Vanzo: Could the contractor be made to use something to settle the dust? Mr. Kropf: No. Mr. Walker: I would like to discuss this further with Mr. Meinzinger and Mr. Fattore and take this item under advisement until this has been done. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Idyl Wyld Estates Subdivision #3 located on the East side of Levan Road between Lyndon and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. Submitted by John F. Uznis Builders, Inc. Letters have been received from the Fire Department, Bureau of Inspection and the Livonia Public Schools, dated June 1st, June 3rd and June 7th respectively. The letter from the school board states that the proposed subdivision is a designated school site in their records. There is also a question as to whether the lots in this section should be 60' or 70' . There is a petition to rezone this section to 70' minimum scheduled for our June 21st meeting. Mr. Uznis, developer was present. Mr. Uznis: The School Board is negotiating at this time to determine whether or not they will need this property. I would like to receive tentative approval because of Subdivision #2 which runs into this proposed plat. I understand if the School Board decides to purchase any property in this area, it will take all of my plat. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Angevine read the letter from the School Board to the audience and commissioners. Mr. McCullough: Mr. C. Alfrod from the Livonia Public Schools is in the audience. Perhaps you would like to ask him some questions. (0 It was determined by the plat book where the designated site for the proposed new high school was located. It appeared to take all of Mr. Uznis' proposed plat. Mr. McCullough: The plat could be approved subject to the school purchasing it or indicating that they no longer are interested in it. 2874 Mr. C. Alfrod: The Livonia Schools must have this site. We will have to purchase it even if it means foregoing the purchase of another site in order to purchase this one. Mr. Uznis: I would like to just have tentative approval in the event that it is not purchased by the school. Mr. Alfrod: If the Planning Commission indicates in the resolution to approve this plat that the School has the right to purchase it or designate it, I see no objection to this plat being given tentative approval. Mr. Kropf: If you cannot buy it, you can always condemn it. Mr. Walker: Mr. Alfrod, is there any more difficulty to purchasing a site that is already platted than one that is not platted? Mr. Alfrod: No, except maybe in the purchase price. Mr. McCullough: It will not affect the value of this property in the Court's decision as long as the improvements are not in. It was determined that the School Board would know by June 14th whether or not they would be able to purchase said property. The election for the new bond issue is on the day before - the results of that election will determine the answer. 11[: Mr. Peacock: I can not see why we can not take this under advisement until our next meeting at which time the election will be over. (Mr. Robinson concurred) Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #6-105-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, June 7, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby give approval to the preliminary plat of the Idyl Wyld Subdivision #3 located on the East side of Levan Road between Lyndon and Five Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20 subject, however, to the following: (1) that the School Board forward a letter to the Planning Commission indicating whether or not they are going to purchase property in plat for a proposed new junior high school site, and (2) that the developer does not do anything further on this plat until such time that this letter has been submitted, FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice having been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation Department and Members of the Plat Committee. 1 Mr. Greene: I feel this is fair enough; if the school board does decide to purchase this site, this proposed plat will then be null and void. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Walker, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane andAngevine 2875 NAYS: Peacock and Robinson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-72 by Leo Volpe requesting permission to remove two stockpiles of topsoil from property in the proposed Fairway Farms Subdivision located on the North side of Five Mile Road and East of Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Walker: The reason this is before us is because the original permit has expired. This application is in order to remove the stockpiles. We have no objection for this removal. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #6-106-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-72 by Leo Volpe requesting permission to remove topsoil from property located on the North side of Five Mile Road and East of Levan Road (Fairway Farms Subdivision) in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 17, subject, however, to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and FURTHER RESOLVED that, the applicant deposit with the Bureau of Inspection a corporate surety bond at $500 per acre, for two acres ($1,000) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; and THAT, the period for which the permit herein authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as required herein, whichever is the shorter period, and THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the I[: property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of June 7, 1960. 2876 Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was #6-107-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby duly adjourn the Public Hearing at approximately 9:25 p.m. on Tuesday, June 7, 1960. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The Public Hearing is hereby adjourned and a recess is called. Mr. Angevine called the 116th Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:45 p.m. with all those present who were present at the time recess was called. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a letter dated May 16, 1960 from Robert B. Davy, Chairman of the Country Homes Property Owners Association requesting a reconsideration of Petition M-194. Mr. Davy is present, also Mr. Boehms, representative of the original petitioner. Mr. Kane: I was absent when this was discussed, therefore, I did not vote. I read through all of the minutes on this matter and I see no good reason for bringing up this item again. I object to reconsidering this petition. Mr. Peacock: I concur with Mr. Kane. Mr. Robinson: Have these people any new information or reasons? Mr. Walker: I have no objection to hearing any new evidence. I do not want to open the matter up into a general public hearing again. We should have a representative from each side speak and give any new evidence to the commission. Mr. Robinson: I suggest that we complete this agenda and then take up this item. There would be more time. Mr. Okerstrom: I do not think this is necessary. There has been a public hearing. I feel it should be taken up as it appears on the agenda. Mr. Walker: I concur with Mr. Okerstrom. Mr. Peacock: I think we should poll the commission as to whether or not these men should be heard and whether or not the commission should reconsider the item. Mr. Robinson: We should have a poll on whether or not we should allow the two different parties to speak. Mr. Angevine asked Mr. Kane to take the poll. 2877 IA: AYES: Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom and Angevine NAYS: Peacock and Kane Mr. Robinson to Mr. Davy: I would like to know if you have any new points we should consider. Mr. R. Davy: We feel the evidence which we have here is more clear cut than was presented last time. During the hearing we got the impression that it was 50 for and 50 against the pool. Our petition indicates otherwise. On that basis we had hoped to present that evidence tonight. Our most important factor in support of our viewpoint is that there is no ordinance to cover the location of this pool in relation to the residences. We feel in view of our little chart which we have attempted to draw with the private home pool in mind with these conditions in the chart they are hardly met at all. Our new evidence is in regard to the location of the pool in accordance to swim- ming pool ordinance established by other communities surrounding Livonia. The opposition is overwhelming within the 500 ft. limit as established by other communities. We feel in view of some of the statistics we have gathered on this chart we would like to have a reconsideration before the minutes of April 19th and May 10th are approved. The private pool ordinance states there should be 20 ft. IL: between the pool and the secondary road. There should be 50 ft. between this pool and Levan Road. If the 50 ft. limit is used in our case the pool will be located 160 ft. from my home. I am sure the dimensions as shown on our chart would not be allowed in the swimming pool ordinance of other communities. It was determined that the swimming pool ordinance for Livonia was in the process of being drafted. Mr. Robinson to Mr. Kropf: Have the standards been set in this ordinance? Mr. Kropf: I think they have but I am not familiar with the terms. Mr. Davy: We feel that the evidence presented by the opposition was not a true representation of Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 and we are only recommending that this be further examined and that a poll be made of these subdivisions as to who is in favor of the pool. We have that evidence. Mr. Davy presented a map to the Commission and the audience. Mr. Davy: The red represents those people in Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 who were against the pool. The green represents those who are opposed. There are approximately 650 homes in' that area, 272 objected to the pool, 75 were in favor and 147 were neutral. 52 were not contacted because for some reason or another they were not at home. Most of the people who were in favor of the pool lived in the Minton Street area. They do not live on the single street access to the pool. The first 2878 time we only presented the west side of the chart (Subdivision #3) but at your suggestion we polled the rest of the two subdivisions. On the basis of this information and the fact that an ordinance is being made as to standards this should be given due reconsideration before granting permission or accepting the minutes of April 19, 1960. Mr. L. Boehms: I would like to know why the 52 were not polled? 31560 Minton) Mr. Davy: We contacted these people three or four times but for some reason or another, they were never home. Mr. Boehms: I question the validity of this poll. There should be two people present one from each side. We did not poll the sub- division since our petition was given approval and we felt it was not necessary. If there are any questions I will be glad to answer them. Mr. Robinson: Do these people objecting to the pool have any assurance you will not sell memberships out of the subdivision? Mr. Boehms: We will not construct this pool until we have 200 and we will not go out of the subdivision until we have the 200. Mr. Robinson: What guarantee do they have that this will be handled this way? Mr. Boehms: I can give them the guarantee. Our Board of Directors has decided this. We intend to stay in the subdivision. Mr. Angevine: Any other questions, gentlemen? Mr. Greene: It seems to me in view of the statement you have made regard- ing the 200 subscriptions I can see no reason for reconsid- ering this item. Both sides are protected on this assumption. Mr. Walker to Mr. Kropf: I have been in with Mr. Pinto on the standards for the swimming pool ordinance and I also have discussed it with the Mayor and a few Councilmen. The Council is quite concerned about drawing up a set of standards. I was wondering, is it legal to designate in a standard that it would require a certain percentage of home owners within a certain radius of the pool to participate as a requirement of a standard? Mr. Kropf: Yes, that would be legal. Mr. Walker: I would like to see a pool go in a subdivision and have at least 50% of the subdivision agree to it. I definitely think that a set of standards is the answer to this in the future. We have had another request for approval of a swimming pool in a subdivision which was withdrawn by the petitioner. I understand there will be others coming before us and I feel that the evidence presented tonight at the public hearing should be held in abeyance until the set of standards is presented to us. It seems to me in fairness to both sides that the Chair should consider taking the evidence presented and place it itatorbiltnualwow""0465---- �i • 2879 on record until such time that the Planning Commission adopts a set of standards and then at that time we would take it up again. We have nothing to offer in lieu of it now. Mr. Kane: In view of the fact that he does have to sell 200 memberships within the subdivision itself I see no reason to reconsider this petition. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #6- -60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby move not to reconsider Petition M-194 by James Klink requesting permission to operate a swimming pool in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 32 as requested by Robert B. Davy, Chairman of the Country Homes Property Owners Association in a letter dated May 16, 1960. Mr. Peacock: Will it be written in the by-laws about obtaining 200 sub- scriptions from the subdivision itself? Mr. Boehms: We will be glad to write it in. If we cannot sell 200 in the subdivision, we will not go through with it. Mr. Peacock: In the event that I should withdraw my support from the motion and the motion dies and as Mr. Walker has suggested, that this evidence be filed, will that permit Mr. Boehms to go ahead with the construction of the pool? IL: Mr. Walker: Yes, it only means the City Planning Commission can recon- sider this later. Mr. Peacock: I withdraw my support. Mr. Kane: My motion still stands. Mr. Angevine: There is no support to Mr. Kane's motion, therefore, it has died for lack of support. Mr. Walker: I suggest that we take this under advisement until we receive a set of the standards. Mr. Kropf: The petitioner requesting the reconsideration would like to know if it will be reconsidered and the original petitioner of M-194 would also like to know if it will be reconsidered. If you take it under advisement, that places a cloud upon their efforts. Mr. McCullough to Mr. Boehms: Would you agree not to get a building permit until a set of standards has been decided upon? Mr. Boehms: We cannot sell memberships that way. Mr. Peacock: I recommend that this item be taken under advisement. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-199 by Michael J. Caffery requesting permission to construct and operate an automobile wash on the E. side of Farmington Road, approximately 135 ft. Southcf Five Mile Road in the • 2880 Northwest 1/4 of Section 22. Public Hearing 5/10/60, item taken under advisement. 1[11 We have a letter dated May 19, 1960 from the Police Department objecting to the proposed car wash; we also have a letter dated June 6, 1960 from the Traffic Commission stating that they see no immediate problem with traffic hazards in relation to the proposed use. I have been informed that there have been nine property damage and one personal injury accidents in this area within the last five months. The church wants me to inform the Commission that the petitioner has asked them to remove the playground equipment from their property. Also, the Police Department uses Westmore Avenue continually. It was determined that the church has done nothing about purchasing the property in the petition for their own use. Mr. Caffery: I've spoken to the Traffic Commission. The Police Commissioner did not call me or possibly he did not examine the plans. We have 52 parking spaces, with room for 7 or 8 cars inside of the building. That is twice as much property as we will need. We will not park on Farmington or Westmore Avenue. We have not asked for that privilege from the Traffic Department or from the Wayne County Road Commission. We have enough property, more than what the ordinance or the City Planning Commission has asked for. At this time there was a general discussion between Mr. Caffery and the Planning Commission. Mr. Peacock: I believe the opposition should have two minutes to speak now. Rev. Koelpin: Our concern is with Farmington Road. Our argument is a moral one, not a legal or financial argument as far as our children are concerned. Our concern is not with Westmore Avenue. We are blocking off Westmore. We were ordered to remove our playground equipment. It is located now so that our people will not be using Westmore. As a church we are very much concerned with Farmington Road which is heavily traveled upon and not so much with cars being parked. They are still entering and exiting on a very busy intersection. That is our greatest concern. Our argu- ment is a moral argument. We have any number of children every day and a good many of them do not come to us by bus. Our concern is with Farmington Road. Mr. R. Puckett: How many cars per hour can leave the car wash? 15997 Southampton) It was determined that 50 cars could leave per hour. Mr. McCullough: The Livonia Schools submitted a letter in which they stated 2881 that because of the many busses that go in and out of their property across the street to pick up school children, they feel this proposed car wash would delay the flow of school busses and also create a safety hazard for busses .already loaded with children. Mr. Caffery: But these are empty busses. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Greene, i t was #6-108-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, May 10, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby deny Petition M-199 by Michael J. Caffery requesting permission to construct and operate an automobile wash on the East side of Farmington Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 approximately 135 ft. South of Five Mile Road for the following reasons: (a) that the noise, dirt and movement of autos which inevitably would accompany the proposed use would unreasonably interfere with the conduct of the elementary school and church on the adjoining property; (b) that the traffic generated by this use would tend to cause a traffic hazard for children entering and leaving the building and those engaged in recreational activities; (c) that the proposed use might tend to hamper the city's fire fighting capacities as they relate to the school; (d) that conflicting traffic movements between autos leaving the building and those entering from Farmington Road could be obviated by placing the building in a different position on the land, if possible; (e) that the Police Department has objected to this use on this property for various reasons as stated in their letter dated May 19, 1960; (f) that the carbon monoxide fumes could endanger the health of the school children on the adjacent premises; (g) that the proposed use would interfere ingress and egress of police vehicles through Westmore; (h) that the public school board feels that it would hamper the move- ment of public school bussesthroughout the City as stated in their letter dated May 10, 1960. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom NAYS: Kane and Angevine Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock, and unanimously adopted, it was #6-110-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, May 10, 1960 by the City Planning Commission, said 2882 Commission does hereby grant Application TA-66 by John Migut requesting permission to remove sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of Parcel Illb located on the North side of Seven Mile Road approximately 650 ft. East of Gill Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, subject, however, to the following conditions; (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the Bureau of Inspection a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for 17 acres (or $8,500) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; and THAT, the period for which the permit herein authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as required herein, whichever is the shorter period, and THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, 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 recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of April 26, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of May 3, 1960. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #6-111-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, May 10, 1960, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-67 by John Migut requesting per- mission to remove sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of Parcel JJ2 located on the North side of Seven MileRoad and West of Farmington in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, subject, however, to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; 2883 (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements establoshed by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the Bureau of Inspection a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for 22 acres (or $11,000) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; and THAT, the period for which the permit herein authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the bond as required herein, whichever, is the shorter period, and THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution 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 recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of May 3, 1960. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Evelyn Burns Subdivision located on the North side of Six Mile Road, approximately 1450 ft. East of the proposed Wayne Road between Farmington and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9. Submitted by Donald Burns. Public hearing 3/15/60, item taken under advisement; study meeting 5/10/60, item taken under advisement. Mr. Robinson: I would like to see the original proposal made by Mr. Burns at the time the objecting property owners purchased their land from Mr. Burns. It was determined that these property owners objected to the homes in the proposed subdivision facing east and west when their homes all faced north and south. They also objected to the size of the lots. It was stated in their deeds that no home would be built on less than 1/2 acre lots. It was suggested that the City Council be asked if they would allow black top streets with 1/2 acre lots. Mr. Anderson: That was one of Mr. Burns' arguments, that he couldn't afford concrete streets with 1/2 acre lots. Mr. Robinson: The other property owners should pay for their own black top surface for that part of the street in front of their homes. Mr. Peacock: I believe they have stated that they would go along with the 2884 black top surface but not the concrete. )1[ Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement until Mr. McCullough has obtained the necessary information. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Parkview Manor Subdivision submitted by Kaufman & Broad Dev. Corp. , located on the East side of Farmington Road approximately 175 ft. N. of Rayburn and immediately South of Bell Farm Subdivision approximately 2,000 ft. North of Five Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Public hearing 4/19/60, item taken under advisement. The area in which the subdivision is located has recently been rezoned by the Council to 80 ft. lots, consequently the Commission has no jurisdiction on this plat because it is platted into 60 ft. lots. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Walker and unanimously adopted, it was #6-112-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 the City Planning Commission does hereby deny the preliminary plat of the proposed Parkview Manor Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 for the reason that the area in which the subdivision was to be located in has recently been rezoned to 80 ft. lots, consequently the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction on this plat because it is platted into 60 ft. lots, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed It in the Proof of Service and copies of the plat together with notice having been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation Department, and Members of the Plat Committee. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council's Res. #265-60 requesting the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 17.02 of Article 17.00 of Ordinance No. 60 (Authority to Approve Uses; Appeal to Council) It was determined that this item would be taken under advisement for further study. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Greene and unanimously adopted, it was #6-113-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60 as amended, the City Planning Commission at this time on its own motion does Chereby provide for a Public Hearing to he held to determine whether or not to amend Article 10.00 of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, entitled, "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia", and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. i 2885 Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Greene and unanimously adopted, it was #6-114-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60 as amended, the City Planning Commission at this time on ±ts own motion does hereby provide for a Public Hearing to be held to determine whether or not to amend Article 11.00 of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, entitled, "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia", and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Greene and unanimously adopted, it was #6-115-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Zoning Ordinance No. 60 as amended, the City Planning Commission at this time on its own motion does hereby provide for a Public Hearing to be held to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance No. 60, be adding thereto Article 11.50, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and that notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Walker and unanimously adopted, it was #6-116-60 RESOLVED that, final plat of Lyndon Meadows Subdivision #2 located North of Schoolcraft Road between Middlebelt and Henry Ruff Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23, be given final approval, and FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission June 30, 1959; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with the plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public Works under date of November 6, 1959; and it further appearing that a surety bond in the amount of $82,800 and a cash bond in the amount of $9,200 have been filed in the office of the City Clerk under date of June 2, 1960; such bonds having been approved by R. C. Kropf, Assistant City Attorney on June 2, 1960 it would therefore appear that all the conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 2886 11[: Mr. McCullough: A letter has been received from the City Council requesting the City Planning Commission to refuse granting plat extensions for all subdivision located in areas wherein the zoning has been changed to provide larger lots in accordance with the City's master plan of rezoning. None of the following subdivisions are in such areas. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was #6-117-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to resolution from the City Council dated May 31, 1960 requesting the City Planning Commission to refuse granting plat extensions for all subdivisions located in areas wherein the zoning has been changed to provide larger lots in accordance with the City's master plan of rezoning, the City Planning Commission does hereby request a legal opinion on this matter from the Department of Law. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #6-118-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated May 16, 1960 from Carey Homes, Inc. , requesting a one-year extension on the preliminary plat of Melvin Gardens Subdivision approved on June 16, 1959, the City Planning Commissinn does hereby grant said request. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #6-119-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated May 16, 1960 from Carey Homes, Inc. , requesting a one-year extension on the preliminary plat of Bretton Gardens Subdivision #2 approved on June 2, 1959, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, it was #6-120-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated May 20, 1960 from Benz Home Building Co. , requesting a one-year extension on the pre- liminary plat of Curtis Acres Subdivision approved on June 16, 1959, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Walker, it was #6-121-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having duly held a public hearing on February 16, 1960 for the purpose of amending Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled, "Master Thoroughfare Plan", the same is hereby amended so that the relocation of Harrison Avenue between 2887 1[1: Schoolcraft and Lyndon Roads in the South 1/2 of Section 24, City of Livonia, should designate the center line thereof to read as follows: The description of the center line of the relocated Harrison Avenue is described as beginning at the E. and W. 1/4 line, Section 24, T1S,R9E, City of Livonia, Wayne County, a distance of 166 feet west of the Center Corner of said Section 24 and proceeding thence SO° 07' 35" E, 1417.99 feet; thence along the arc of a curve concave westerly 340.87 feet whose radius is 950 feet, central angle is 20° 33' 30", long chord is 339.04 feet and long chord bearing is S10° 09' 10" W; thence along the arc of a curve concave easterly 340.87 feet whose radius is 950 feet, central angle is 20°33'30", long chord is 339.04 feet and long chord bearing is S10° 09' 10" W; thence SO° 07'35" E. , 445.00 feet to a point on the North line of Schoolcraft Road (204 feet wide) which point is 282 feet west of the N & S 1/4 line of said Section 24, and having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Thoroughfare Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission under date of April, 1951, with all amendments thereto; and further that this amendment shall be recorded on said map by the identifying signatures of the chairman and secretary of the commission and an attested copy shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission; and a copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne with the following certification contained thereon; "We certify that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission held on Tuesday, June 7, 1960 by the following vote: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Kane and Angevine NAYS: Okerstrom Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. At the suggestion of Mr. Robinson, it was determined that the Master School & Park Plan should be brought up to date. Mr. McCullough statedthis was being prepared for the Commission's approval. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda was a request from the Northville Zoning Commission whether or not the Livonia Planning Commission wishes to attend a meeting on June 14, 1960 in relation to possible rezoning of property on the Northwest corner of Five Mile and Eckles Roads in Northville, from residential to industrial. This is property located on the western boundary of Livonia. After a brief discussion it was determined that as many of the planning commission members who could possibly make it, would attend said meeting. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Kane, and unanimously adopted, it was 2888 #6-122-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve I: minutes for meetings held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 and Tuesday, May 10, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom , Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. At the suggestion of Mr. Peacock, Mr. McCullough stated he would forward a letter to the City Council requesting an increase in the car allowance for next year's budget. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Robinson and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned the 116th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, June 7, 1960 at approximately 11:20 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4 'iicat1etary ATTESTED: / '' R. L. Ange ne, Chairman