Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1958-10-07 2186 MINUTES OF THE 95t:. ' t/TING AND A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On October 7, 1958, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 95th Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Robert L. Angevine, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:40 p.m. Members present: Robert L. Angevine, H. Paul Harsha, Leonard Kane, Wilfred Okerstrom, Dennis Anderson, William R.Robinson, Robert L. Greene and Robert Peacock Members absent: Charles Walker Mr. David McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Rodney Kropf, Assistant City Attorney were present along with approximately 300 interested persons. Mr. Angevine informed those present that due to the large number of people present, it is suggested that any remarks made be limited to 5 minutes. This public hearing is being held in order to hear the opinions of the property owners effected by the proposed Master Pattern and the proposed Industrial Road, Mr. McCullough announced the first item on the agenda was Petition Z-317 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to rezone Sections 9, 10, 11 and the North halves of Section 14, 15 and 16 in accordance with the zoning indicated on the proposed Master Pattern of the Re-evaluation of Zoning Study. Mr. Angevine informed those present that a form will be passed out to the property owners present on which it is suggested that any comments be written stating their opinion. These can be submitted to the secretary before leaving the building. It was further stated that Section 9 will be discussed first. It is proposed to rezone a major part to RL (Residential Large Lot). There is one development that is ex- cluded, North of Curtis, West of Farmington and Norwich which will remain R-1 (One Family Residential). Mr. Angevine asked if there was anyone present who had property in Section 9 who wished to speak at this time. Mr. Richard Cooper, 18570 Whitby objected to the R1A zoning as it does not, conform with the present large lots in the etrrr.• rding property in the Northwest section. It was stated that the area zoned R1 was already platted. Mr. C. L. Thompson, 19012 Norwich asked re the Rasak Subdivision, if it would have to conform with the RL zoning since it was not final as yet. Mr. Angevine informed him that the Rasak Subdivision had been given final approval and this zoning would not have any effect upon it, but that the balance of the section is proposed to be re- zoned RL. Mr. William Seaforth inquired as to size of RL zoning - Mr. Angevine stated RL required 9600 sq. ft. per lot, 80 foot frontage. Mr. Seaforth stated he felt that the majority of the property owners preferred the 100 x 105 size. I: It was asked if the new zoning meant that any land which is not developed would have to conform c-rith the 9600 sq. ft. minimum - and if the parcel is large enough would . 2187 Dino it be permissit;le to split if eat . ,.._ ,moi das no smaller than the 9600 sq. ft.'. Mr. Angevine stated this was correct - the parcels could be split once. It was then asked if private subdivision restrictions could prevent splitting of parcels. Mr. Angevine stated that they would supersede any zoning regulations. A property owner asked if there was going to be a district created for larger areas than RL and RU. Mr. Angevine stated that the restrictions were amended so that they would permit the large area uses in the new areas, and that this new zoning is only for smaller areas. The Chairman announced that the next section was Section 10. This was similar to Section 9. All of the area is proposed to be rezoned to RL with the exception of the Northwest corner which corresponds with theNortheast of Section 9. The current zoning in this corner is Rl. It is expected to remain in that category. The balance is proposed to be RL. The question was asked what is anticipated for the Northwest corner of Six and Merrimar Road. Mr. Angevine stated that the present master pattern map shows it to be C-2 but that since the map was printed, the C-1 has been removed and is now proposed to be RL to conform with the remainder of the section north of it. It was then asked why was this change made since the map was printed. Mr. Angevine state it was felt that since there will be commercial zoning on Six Mile Road and Farmington and there is an existing commercial area on the corner of Five Mile and Merriman, there was adequate commercial zoning in this area. Mr. Rodman M. Myers, 1990 National Bank Building, ))etroit, Michigan objectito the removal of the commercial zoning - stating that the immediate surrounding neighborhood would have to go further than a mile for staples and if the zoning is approved on this basis that litigation will be started. Mr. Harvey Moelkte, 31740 Curtis, stated he lived in the particular section and that the property owners would definitely oppose any C-2 zoning in that area. Mr. Hern, of the Boysland Company opposed the RL zoning on the Northwest corner of Six Mile and Farmington - approved the C-2 zoning. Stated traffic could be kept at a minimun. by using marginal access roads. Mr. Arthur Bruckert, 16366 Bell Creek Lane, associated with the Bell Creek Farms Association, located in the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15, stated that at present their section was zoned RUF. The northern boundary of their area is on Six Mile Road which abuts Section 10. The property owners on Six Mile and adjacent are very interested in how Section 10 is zoned. They were wholly in favor that Section 10 remain as now zoned, RUF. Mr. Walter Sherman, 31601 Vargo, stated his objection to RL - preferred RUF because of the size required. Mr. Moelkte stated the master pattern indicates that one-half of his property is to be I: used as a City park which he objected to. Mr. Angevine stated thatthis master pattern is only proposed and that nothing has been definitely determined. Mr. Robert L. Greene, 18150 Fairfield, Greenbrier Estates Civic Association, stated he had been asked by the President of the Association to submit the viewpoint of the . 2188 Association. The area to the West of the subdivision is proposed to be changed to RL. sue association would prefer it to have .. mn imam of the RU Classification or RUF - but nothing smaller. Mr. Gilbert, 10700 Wilshire Blvd., LosAngeles, Califmti.a, stated he ownedffRP8Mion 10 since 1926 and objected to any change in zoning on the corner of Six Mile Road and Merriman. Mr. Angevine stated that Section 11 would be discussed next. This entire section is proposed to be changed to R1 with the exception of the Southeast corner and the North- east corner of Section 10 which is to be commercial. These are the intersections at Six and Seven Mile Roads and Middlebelt. Mr. Angevine stated that the reason for this proposed change is because there are numerous platted areas of R1 size which would be in conformity with the proposed change. The question arose that the property between Doris and Henry Ruff was not sufficient for R1 zoning, and that any change for this area from RUFB would be objected., Mr. Anthony F. Bruce, 18275 Doris opposed any change in zoning. Mr. H. Haley, 17545 Middlebelt, concurred with Mr. Tegel. Mr. 0. Hedges, 30320 W. Six Mile Road owner of property on Six Mile Road stated he favored the new zoning. The question was asked if the zoning is charged from RUF to R1 would the property owners be allowed to sell produce. Licenses are issued from a year to year basis. Mr. Kropf, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this would have to be provided for in the ordinance. Mr. Clem Ziegler, 29600 Clarita, asked if it is zoned R], would animals be allowed as they are in RUF. Mr. Angevine stated if it is zoned R1 it would not be allowed. The question was asked in relation to the designated park area surrounding the Tara- basi Drain in addition to the park site designated by each school. Mr.Angevine stated that the park area around the drain was to preserve it for flood control, that the City would be taking care of it. Further stated he did not know how the City would secure it. Mr. Kropf stated he thought it could be secured through bond issues or condemnation. Mr. Angevine stated he would like to repeat at this time that nothing definite has been decided in relation to the rezoning. This is only a proposed pattern and the public hearing is being held to obtain the opinions of the property owners. Property owner objected to making Bell Creek area into a parkway. Mr. William Morgan objected to the R1 rezoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Angevine stated that if it is rezoned to R1, it did not mean that the property owner with a larger amount of property would have to conform with the R1 zoning. But 1[1: any future development would only need a minimum of 60 foot frontage. Mr. Hedges asked if the smaller pieces of property would come under a non-conforming use provisions. Mr. Kropf stated that non-conforming uses are undesirable but the right could be obtained in the ordinance. 2189 The question was asked if an owner sells his property which is one-half acre or more In size, after the rezoning to R1 is der:uaLe, would the new owner be allowed to keep horses as the present owner is doing, if the use is discontinued temporarily. Mr. Kropf stated if there is a year between the ownership, that is, if there is a period of one year in which no horses were kept, the new owner would not be allowed to have a horse in the R1 zoning even though the area involved would be of a RUF zoning. Mrs. David Jones, 18335 Sunset objected to parkways along Bell Creek. Also asked if Sunset Avenue is proposed to be continued through. Mr. Angevine stated that the master pattern does now show future streets and that the Master Thoroughfare Plan does not show it to be through either. Mr. Angevine stated that the North half of Section 14 would be discussed now. Mr. Ralph Niska, 16927 Oporto objected to the R1 rezoning, stating that the smaller new lots would not conform with the large ones presently developed. Mr. A. Racicot, 29771 Greenland objected to the R1 rezoning stating he felt that it would lower the value of the present homes. Felt also if any public parkways were developed it would ruin the privacy of the present property owners. Mr. Angevine stated that the North half of Section 15 would not be discussed, there was no change in this section. Mr. Homer Sington, 16900 Mayfield approved of the present RUF zoning. Mr. Bruckert, 16366 Bell Creek Lane objected to the proposed parkway if they are public parkways. Mr. Angevine stated his understanding in relation to the proposed parkways. There is no immediate plan for these parks. We may take all or part of this present plan. This is planning for the future and the purpose for these parkways is for flood drainage. They would not be opened up for public use. No structures would be allowed to be erected upon this area. I am sure the planning consultant did not have a public park in mind. Mr. E. J. Baluff, 16781 Merriman stated that his civic association objects to any kind of a park along the creek. The statement was made that the property owners would like to see the parkways removed from the master pattern map altogether. Several other property owners concurred. Mr. Angevine stated that the North half of Section 16 would now be discussed. It is presently zoned AGE, proposed change is to rezone it to Rl. There were no questions in relation to this portion of Section 16. Mr. McCullough submitted letter from Mr. Munson. The Chairman declared that this first part of the Master Pattern would be taken under Advisement. 1[1: At approximately 10:30 p.m. Mr. Angevine called recess. The Chairman called the public hearing again to order with all those present now as at the time recess was called. • 2190 The Chairman stated that the next item on the agenda was the proposed Amendment to ^alt 1 of the Master Plan to determine :.:_ tl.,,_ Dr not to designate highway or thorokt fare 86 feet in width, commencing at a point approximately 1300 feet South of School- craft on the West side of Middlebelt extending westerly from such point approximately parallel with Schoolcraft Road to Newburgh Road and being generally located no closer than 500 feet or farther kthan 1300 feet from Schoolcraft, designated roadway to traverse the North 1/2 of Sections 26, 27, 28 or 29 of the City of Livonia. Mr. Angevine informed those present that one section will be taken up at a time in order that each section can be discussed more thoroughly, Section 26 being first. The question was asked what distance was the road from Schoolcraft in Section 26. Mr. Angevine stated approximately 600 to 800 feet. This area is presently zoned RUF. It is proposed to have approximately 200 feet of RUF and then 150 feet of R1T and thereafter zoned Ml. The industrial road map nay not conform with the master pattern map because the master pattern map was started approximately two years ago while the present map of the industrial road was compiled after the recent mile to mile study meetings held with the property owners and is dated August of this year. The question was asked if it is definite that the road will be designated as on the map. Mr. Angevine stated it must be understood this designation is not definite, only proposed because it was felt that a road is necessary in this area for any future industrial business. Mr. Fishery 30408 Hoy asked for what reason the proposed road jogged as it did. Mr. Angevine stated that this was done because of the existing platted property. Mr. Fisher objected to road as presented, preferred a straight road. F 1 The question was asked why cut through the smaller parcels, why not go through the larger ones. Mr. Angevine stated that this was was designated after the Planning Commission had asked the Planning Consultant to study the comments that the various property owners had made at the recent mile to mile basis meetings and it had been felt that the larger area by the railroad should be retained. Mr. GeorgeLeonard, representing Kroger Company, stated he wished to object to the road as it is now located on behalf of the Kroger Company. Explained the plot area of Krogerts to the Commission, present and future. As it is proposed on their expansion map, a bakery is planned on the back of the property approximately 2600 ft. from Middlebelt, which it is found out now, will be somewhat on the proposed industrial road. It was estimated after examining the industrial road map that it would be situated about 43 feet on the property of Kroger's. Mr. Leonard continued that they are requesting that the Planning Commission consider other locations for the road, possible 43 ft. further north. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Leonard if at the time the Kroger Company completed their expansion plans had they contacted the City Planning Commission to determine if there was anything proposed in this particular location. Mr. Leonard stated they had. The statement was made by a property owner that his suggestion is that the road be proposed or designated on the quarter section line. IreMr. Fisher objected to road jogging but stated that the need for the industrial road is great and it is very necessary to open up the property that presently cannot be utilized. Felt that it a road is so designated, it may maintain a balance in the property taxes, Did not feel that the property owners objected to a road, but did . 2191 object to it being as shown tonight. Mr. George Holmes, 31231 Schoolcraft suggested that the road be designated on the section line and it would then cut through fewer properties. The question was asked about having roads leading from Schoolcraft into the parcels that are landlocked. Mr. Angevine stated that this was felt to be detrimental to the many residential properties on Schoolcraft and would create a traffic problem on Schoolcraft. Mr. Angevine stated that Section 27 would now be considered, the road being designated approximately 700 ft. from Schoolcraft. Mr. Howard J. Hiles, 32541. Schoolcraft suggested road at least 1200 ft. from School- craft Road. Stated there was a greenbelt behind his property put there by the Aggregate Company and the present road is designated on his property and not on the greenbelt. Mr. Harsha stated this greenbelt had been put there by the Aggregate Company in order to have a buffer between the company and the residential property on Schoolcraft. Mr. Gaubis, 31901 Schoolcraft stated he would like to see road designated 1200 feet from Schoolcraft. Mr. Robinson stated that the Planning Commission has had several study sessions at which time notes were made of the objections by the property owners. These objections were sent to the Planning Consultant to obtain a sol ution to the many problems presented at these meetings. This present road is a result of the objections. The Commission may not comply with the suggestions and it does not mean we will approve it as it is presently designated. The question was asked, who would pay for the utilities and sewers which will have to go in when the road is designated. Mr. Robinson stated the cost will be assessed to the industrial property. Mr. V. Laurie 32391 Schoolcraft suggested the road be designated through the industrial parcels in order to preserve the valuation of the residential properties. There were several more objections to road as designated, all suggesting that road be designated on the section line. Mr. Angevine stated that Section 28 would new be discussed, road being designated approximately 650 to 700 feet from Schoolcraft. The question was asked how soon road would be put through. Mr. Angevine stated that the road was being designated to determine if it will be attractive to any future industrial businesses. No date has been set for putting the road through. There were several property owners who stated that they prefer to have the road designated on a straight line not jogged as it is at present. Mr. Angevine stated that Section 29 would now be discussed, road being approximately Ire700 ft. from Schoolcraft. Mr. Roy Little stated the designated road would be of no value to them except to take the heavy truck traffic from Schoolcraft. Felt that the logical place for the road would be on the section line reserving the residential properties facing School- craft. 2192 Mr. Greene left at approximately 12:00 pm. Several other property owners present concurred with Mr. Little. Mr. Angevine stated he wish to thank those present for their comments and thatthis item would be taken under further advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously adopted, this public hearing was duly adjourned at approximately 12:05 a.m. Mr. Angevine called the 95th Special Meeting to order with all the Commissioners present now as at the beginning of the Public Hearing, with the exception of Mr. Greene. Mr. McCullough stated that the first item on the agenda was the Fairfax Subdivision submitted by Spalding, DeDecker and Associates for Eskay Builders, located on the East side of Purlingbrook Road between Bretton Road and St. Martins Avenue and situated.,in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Date submitted June 16, 1958; public hearing September 2, 1958; taken under advisement. Mr. Harry B. Wright was present and submitted revised plans of the proposed subdivision. Mr: Angevine stated that this itemvauld be taken under advisement until the revised plans are studied. Mr. McCullough stated the next item was the proposed Brentwood Gardens Subdivision located on the East side of Brentwood Avenue approximately 300 feet south of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, submitted by Carey Homes, Inc. Mr. Karabelnick was present. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom it was #10-275-58 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on September 2, 1958, the City Planning Commission does hereby give approval to preliminary plat of the Brentwood Gardens Subdivision located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, and 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 and Recreation Department and Members of the Plat Committee. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Okerstrom, Anderson, Peacock, Kane, Harsha, Robinson and Angevine NAYS: None IliThe Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCullough stated the next item was the proposed Midas Subdivision located South of Five Mile Road approximately 1000 ft. west of Ashurst Road situated in the North- west 1/4 of Section 21 submitted by Howard B. Tripp, for Nat Rosenberg. Mr. Rosen- berg had informed the City Planner that the revised plans had not been completed. 2193 He has asked for additional time and has signed a 90 day. waiver to the statutory ciU day limit. Mr.McCullough stated the next item on the agenda was Petition M-128 by Roman J. Miotke, ServiceSign Company, requesting permission to erect a 152 4'• x 11? 9, ground sign on steel columns as per print submitted, at 35323 Plymouth Road located on the Southeast corner of Plymouth and Yale Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33. Public Hearing September 23, 1958 at which time item was taken under advisement until Mr. Miotke presented revised plans because sign does not conform with the zoning ordinance. It was the feeling of,the 8omnission that they were opposed to a decision made by Mayor Brashear in regard to allowing a permit for this sign. Mr. Kane stated he felt that the Commission should write a letter to the Mayor stating their position on this matter. Mr. Peacock asked what could be done if the sign is larger than the permit designates. Mr. Harsha stated that no one but the Commission has the right to determine the size. Mr. Kropf stated that is the way the ordinance reads. Mr. Angevine stated that if there was no objection, he would draft a letter to the Mayor stating the Commission2s feelings. Mr. McCullouglj stated the next item was Petition M-129 submitted by Roman J. Miotke, requesting permission to erect an identical sign as presented in previous Petition M-128 with the exception it is located on the Northwest corner of Inkster and Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 12. Item had been taken under advisement at the public hearing September 23, 195F, because of the size of the sign. Mr. Davis of the Livonian Homes Association was present to submit their objections to this sign. Mr.Robinson informed Mr. Davis that a permit has been issued for this sign but that as stated before a letter will be written to the Mayor stating that the Commission does not approve the size of the sign. Mr. Angevine stated this item would be taken under advisement until letter has been written. Mr. McCullough stated that next item was the final plat of the Meri-Lynn Farms No. 2 submitted by Irving Levin, Burt Homes, Inc. located on the West side of Merriman between Lyndon and Schoolcraft .Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22. It was determined there had been no changes made since the approval of the preliminary plat had been granted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Harsha and unanimously adopted, it was #10-276-58 RESOLVED that, final plat of the Meri-Lynn Farms No. 2 located on the West side of Merriman Road between Lyndon and Schoolcraft Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22 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 April 3, 1956; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with the plans and specifications for improvements therein have been 2194 approved by the Department of public dorks under date of June 20, 1958; and it further appearing that a bond in the amount of 426,000.00 to cover the installation of improvements has been filed in the office of the City Clerk under date of October 1, 1958 pursuant to Council Resolutions No. 414-58 and No. 632-58; such bond having been approved by Charles J. Pinto, Assistant City Attorney on October 1, 1958 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 stated that the motion is carried and final plat is approved. Mr. McCullough stated that the next item was a motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of Ordinance No. 60 as amended, entitled Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia. This ordinance was in relation to filing fees of zoning petitions, etc. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Harsha, and unanimously adopted, it was #10-277-58 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 Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, entitled, c'Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia.,, as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20.01 OF ARTICLE 20.00 OF ORDINANCE NO. 60, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED "ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA." THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 20.01 of Article 20.00 of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, entitled "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia", is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 20.01 Amendments. This ordinance may be amended, from time to time, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4, Act 207, Public Acts of Michigan of 1921, as amended. All amendments shall be made in the manner provided in this section and Section 305 of this ordinance. Procedings to amend this ordinance or the Zoning Map of the City of Livonia shall be initiated or commenced by any one or more of the following methods: (a) By resolution of the Council wherein the question whether or not a particular amendment should be made is referred by the Council, on its own motion, to the City Planning Commission; and wherein such commission is requested to hold a public hearing on 1[40 the question and to thereafter make a report and recommendation to the Council: (b) By resolution of the City Planning Commission wherein such commission, on its own motion, provides for a public hearing on 2195 the question whether or not a particular amendment should be made and for a report and recommendation thereon to the Council; or (c) By written application in triplicate, addressed to the Council, duly signed by the owners of fifty per cent (50%) or more of the frontage in any district or part thereof, duly acknowledged by each owner substa ntially in accordance with the statutory provisions for acknowledgment of deeds, and accompanied by the filing fee herein- after fixed. Each procedding, whether originating by resolution or application, shall be designated as a "petition", shall be submitted to the City Attorney for his approval as to form and on such approval, shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk and given a number. Where a petition is presented by a property owner or property owners, such petition shall state the names and addresses of the owner or owners, a complete description of the property involved, the existing zoning classification of such property, the change or amendment desired and the reasons for such change or amend- ment. Each petition of a property owner or owners shall be accompanied by a filing fee in accordance with the following schedule: Zoning from any classification to: R-1, RU, RL or RUF - Thirty five Dollars ($35.00) plus an additional Five Dollars .00 for each 7 200 s.uare feet or fraction thereof in excess of 7,200 square feet; R-2 - One Hundred Dollars (;100.00) plus an additional Ten Dollars ($10.00) for each 7,200 square feet or fraction thereof in excess of 7,200 square feet; R-3 or P 3 - One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) plus an additional Ten Dollars ($10.00) for each 7,200 square feet or fraction thereof in excess of 7,200 square feet; C-1 or C-2 - One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) plus an additional Ten Dollars ($10.00) for each 4,000 square feet or fraction thereof in excess of $,000 square feet; and IL: M-1 or M-2 - Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) plus an additional Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for each acre or part thereof, not to exceed a total fee of Fifteen H1ndred Dollars 1.1 500.00 ; , . , 2196 provided, however, that each sucsequent petition involving substantially the same subject matter and parties as a prior petition shall be considered merely as a petition for rehearing on such prior petition and shall be given the same number as such prior petition; and provided further that an additional filing fee shall be required on the first petition for rehearing of a prior petition in the amount of twenty (20) percent of the original filing fee and a filing fee of thirty (30) percent of such original filing fee is hereby fixed for each additional petition for rehearing of such prior petition. All filing fees shall be paid to the City Treasurer. On receipt of a petition for amendment in due form and on payment of the required filing fee, the City Clerk shall forthwith refer such petition to the City Planning Commission. Such Commission shall, within ninety (90) days following reference to it of a petition, hold a public hearing on the petition, grant any person interested an opportunity to be heard thereon and make a report and recommendation on such petition to the CouncilAnT,M less than fifteen (15) days? notice of the time and place of suc hearing shall first be published in the official newspaper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Livonia, and not less than fifteen (15) days notice of ll: the time and place of such public hearing shall first be given by regis- tered United States mail to each public utility company and to each railroad company owning or operating any public utility or railroad with- in the district or zones affected. The Council shall either approve or reject the recommendations of the City Planning Commission; provided, however, that all amendments to this ordinance or to such zoning maps shall be made by ordinance; and provided further, that incase a protest against a proposed amendment be presented, duly signed by the owners of twenty (20) percentum or more of the frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of twenty (20) percentum or more of the frontage immediately in the rear thereof, or by the owners of twenty (20) per- centum of the frontage directly opposite the frontage proposed to be altered, such amendment shall not be passed except by the three-fourths vote of the Council. 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 effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The Chairman declared the foregoing resolution adopted. 2197 Mr. McCullough stated the next item on the agenda was a motion to adopt Rules and Procedure for the Planning Commission. After a brief discussion it was decided that this w:>uld be referred back to the committee for revision. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, and unanimously adopted, this 95th Special meeting was duly adjourned at approximately 12:55 P.M. Wednesday, October •7, 1958. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION p� `` William R. Robinson, Secretary ATTESTED: bert L. Ang ' e, Chairman David R. McCullough, City Planner