Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1960-05-10 ._A MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND 2842 THE 115TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING C1MMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 11: On Tuesday, May 10, 1960, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a Public Hearing and the 115th Regular Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Angevine, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:05 p.m. Members present: Robert L. Greene, Robert M. Peacock, Robert L. Angevine, Charles Walker, Dennis Anderson, H. Paul Harsha, Leonard K. Kane, William R. Robinson, Wllfrod Okerstrom. Members absent: None Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Charles J. Pinto, Assistant City Attorney were present along with approximately 200 interested persons. Mr. Angevine: Due to the large number of people present in the audience interested in Item No. 2, Petition M-198 by Coventry Gardens Improvement Association requesting permission to build a swimming pool in their subdivision, we would like to dispense slightly with the order on the agenda and start the public hearing with Item No. 2. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the public hearing is Petition M-198 by the Coventry Gardens Improvement Association requesting permission to build a swimming pool on roperty located on the Southern portion of Outlot A, on the North side of Rayburn between Myrna and Edington in Coventry Gardens, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16. We have received a letter from the attorney representing the Coventry Gardens Improvement Association requesting permission to withdraw Petition M-198. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5-83-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby allow petitioner for Petition M-198 requesting permission to build a swimming pool on property located on the Southern portion of Outlot A in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 16, to withdraw said petition. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Greene, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: A gentleman in the audience has requested that I read the letter requesting the petition to be withdrawn. Mr. Angevine complied with the request. LIr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-199 by Michael J. Caffery : permission to construct and operate an automobile wash on the East side of ?armington Road, approximately 135 ft. South of Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of ection 22. Mr. Michael Caffery, 24712 Carlysle, Dearborn; Mr. L. Kliza, 6750 Norwood, Allen Park and Mr. Gillmore, attorney for Mr. Caffery, were present. 2843 We have received a letter dated May 10, 1960 I. McCullough: from the Fire Department stating that because of - the school that the 16 ft. allowed between the proposed auto wash building and St. Paul's School building is not sufficient. They would prefer at least 30 ft. Also a letter dated May 10, 1960 from the Livonia Public Schools objecting to the auto wash because they feel it could delay the flow of school busses to pick up the school children and it would create a safety hazard for these busses. We have another letter dated May 3, 1960 from St. Paul's Lutheran Church objecting to the proposed auto wash for several reasons. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mrs. Edwin Rose: My children attend St. Paul's Lutheran school and I object to the 15507 Surrey) proposed auto wash because I feel it will be dangerous to the children going to this school. Rev. W. Koelpin, Pastor for St. Paul's Lutheran Church: Several of my parishoners 15218 Farmington) are present tonight. We have lodged a protest with the Planning Commission during the last two weeks. We are now stating our protest against the auto wash. I live in the parsonage right next to the school and church and I represent both phases of our work. Why do we protest very strongly against this auto wash? We do for several reasons. There is a traffic hazard at the present time due to cars being lined up for a mile every day at 4:00 p.m. and 8:30 1[440 a.m. Even if they widen Farmington there will be a definite traffic hazard with the auto wash. I do not know how it is planned to locate this auto wash but on this map (Rev. Koelpin presented a map to the audience and commissioners) we do know that it would be in very close proximity to our school and church. I do not know of a public school in the City of Livonia that would have a car wash within two or three feet of their school endangering the lives of the children. The traffic is very congested on Farmington and who knows better than I. We have a large number of the church members present tonight who are protesting strongly against this auto wash. Mr. Robert Puckett, Chairman of the Board of Education for St. Paul's Lutheran Church: 15997 Southampton) I would like to back up Rev. Koelpin's arguments. Our rear door is about six feet from our property line which is used more ex- tensively by children. There would definitely be a hazard here with the younger children who have not learned yet the danger of traffic. We do not want the possibility of any accident to any one of our children. Mr. Robinson: Mr. Chairman, may we have a show of hands of those present who are objecting to the auto wash? Mr. Angevine: Those who are objecting to the proposed auto wash, please raise your hands. 1[0 ;here were approximately 100 persons objecting to the proposed use. Ir. Angevine: Those who are in favor of the proposed auto wash? There was no one in the audience who was in favor of the proposed auto wash. Mr. Roland Kluth: The traffic hazard is very bad on this corner without adding a car 34102 Coventry Drive) wash. On Sunday we have two services and Sunday School ,y `` 2844 which makes the traffic even more congested. 1[411 Mr. Angevine: Any discussion from the Commissioners? Mr. Gillmore,Attorney representing Mr. M. Caffery: Perhaps a lot of thinking has been based on a lack of knowledge as to what is being planned. Statements have been made which are not necessarily true in this case. In the first place the plan that is contemplated has no openings on the side toward the Church. There aren't any windows to speak of. The light will come through glass block windows which are solid. The entire length of the building has no openings whatsoever. At the back of the building is a five foot wall which again will block any access from the school side. The car washing itself again is on the side away from the school. Any traffic on the property itself would be on the opposite side of the building. So far as the traffic hazard on Farmington Road, other than cars going in and out, there would be very little likelihood of any traffic whatsoever because of the fact that due to this piece of property being 60 ft. wide, there is plenty of room for at least 35 or 40 cars on the property itself. The plan is to pave the entire piece of property occupied by the building and have plenty of room for waiting cars. As far as noise is concerned, we have been assured by the people furnishing the machinery for this auto wash there will be no noise heard on the outside of the building. With the doors closed, as they 1[10 will be most of the time, there is no noise from the building. The main thing is the fact that it is completely isolated and insulated from the church property. I can see no factor of where there is a likelihood of children wandering onto this property. There is no way of getting into it. The wall is solid. It is a face brick building. It is intended it will be a very attractive building. It is not going to be a shack. Mr. Gillmore presented a picture of the proposed auto wash to the audience and the commissioners. The entire affair will be inside of the building and there will be an absolute minimum of disturbance of any kind. I think if the commission has any questions we would be very happy to answer them. Mr. Kliza: I have been in the auto wash business about ten years. The present day machinery is pretty well mechanized. We do operate with a minimum of help. We will get our help locally if we can and if we can't we will get them from Detroit. They have their own quarters on the premises. We have mostly automatic machinery which results in less help. The wall next to the church wall will be solid brick. They are exposed to a gas station at the present time. Our operation will be in the building. We do have more parking space proposed than any other auto wash in the City of Detroit. Ir. Caffery:1[10 I observed your church Sunday. I want to build a building for Mr. Kliza so he can operate his auto wash. You had 71 cars in the parking lot. Eighteen were on the southern part of your residence. The balance were on Westmore and upon property on Westmore. Two- thirds of the 71 went north on Westmore and one way or the other on Five Mile Road. Ten cars went out of the parking lot 150 ft. south 41. 2845 of our property and went pass our property. Two parked in the 1[40 half-moon driveway. Two more came to park by the parsonage. One car came from the other side of Farmington. I do not believe there will be a traffic hazard as stated tonight. It is stated in the lease that there will be no signs, either painted on the wall or otherwise. Rev. Koelpin: I appreciate all of your remarks. I appreciate the picture and the effort to try and alleviate our fears that they would put up an auto wash that would be better than the majority. I appreciate all of this. We discussed this at the Church Council. Our attendance was close to 400 last Sunday. We have two services and a Sunday School class. Seventy-five cars could not have taken care of all of these people. We have services at 8:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. I think I am the authority on how much traffic goes in on Westmore. I am not realistic that the children will not go on Westmore after 3:15 p.m. when they are no longer under our supervision. I know where they are during the school hours. As to the parking lot - where will they go in the parking lot? Mr. Caffery: We are located approximately 136 ft. South of Five Mile Road. There will be a 20 foot driveway which would accomodate two individual lanes coming in to the rear of the building. The rear is facing Westmore. If we park them as close as possible there is room for 52 1[40 cars. They will come in and out on Farmington Road. Westmore is just a secondary road. Rev. K'clpin: Cars in and out of Farmington would be a very definite traffic hazard to our church. Many is the time I have waited four or five minutes to get into our own driveway. As much as I appreciate your remarks my fears have not been alleviated one bit and our protest still stands. Mr. Peacock: Are the automobile tires cleaned by steam on the outside of the building? Mr. Kliza: Yes, at the rear entrance of the building. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, it was #5- -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, appr.:ximately 135 ft. South of Five Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22 for the following reasons: (1) Traffic congestion would endanger safety of school children (2) Noise and confusion would interfere with the peaceful pursuit of worship. . Anderson: Would you include the objections of the Fire Department and School Board? Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was 2846 #5- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, May 10, 1'60 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 for the following reasons: (1) Traffic congestion would endanger safety of school chilren, (2) Noise and confusion would interfere with the peaceful pursuit of worship, and (3) Fire Department requests thirty (30) feet between buildings and not 16 ft. as specified on plot plan, Mr. Harsha: Is this property zoned C-2? Mr. Angevine: Yes. Mr. Harsha: Is this where some playground equipment is located? Mr. Caffery: It is on the property in the petition. Mr. Harsha: Has the church tried to purchase this property for their own protection? Mr. Caffery: The property has been for sale with a sign for over a year. I[::r. McCullough: They feel it is too expensive. roll call vote on t2-e foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Greene and Anderson NAYS: Robinson, Harsha, Kane and Angevine NOT VOTING: Okerstrom Mr. Angevine: The motion is not carried, therefore the resolution is not adopted. Mr. Greene: This is a face brick building; could it be adapted later for office use? Mr. Caffery: I am signing a ten year lease with Mr. Kliza but it is being designed in this manner for future professional offices. Upon a Motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5-84-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition M-199 by Michael J. Caffery requesting permission to construct and operate an automobile wash on the East side of Farmington in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 22, the City Planning Commission does hereby duly table said petition for further study. 1[1: roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Greene, Robinson, Marsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 2847 Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-69 by the City of vonia or its contractor, and as authorized by City Council's Resolutions #225-60 Pd #226-60 to remove topsoil from a forty (40) acre parcel in connection with the ' velopment of the same as a park site, said property being located on the Southwest corner of Lyndon and Farmington and known as the Grennada Park Subdivision in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21. We have received a letter dated May 6, 1960 from the Engineering Department and also one dated May 10, 1960 from the Police Department. Mr. Robinson: Mr. Pinto, at the time the City leased this property from Wayne County, wasn't there a stipulation that no topsoil was to be removed? Mr. Pinto: The lease makes no mention of sand removal. It merely states that the City of Livonia is to improve the park site within 10 years after which the deed of the property will go to the City. In order to continue this improvement, though, we must remove some sand. This hearing is only so that we can comply with the City Ordinance. Mr. Walker: The contractor that gets the permit to remove this sand will be responsible for posting the bond. I have spoken to Mr. Meinzinger (Director of Public Works) and I suggested to him that the ingress and egress be located on Farmington Road because of the surrounding residential property on Lyndon Road. He said they would be willing to go along with this provided that this would be during periods when the weather would permit. I would like to suggest that this be included in the resolution when it is approved. L. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. L. Coopersmith: The trucks are at the present time going in and out of the park 33470 Lyndon) area in front of our house. There is a continual dust storm. We have two ro three inches of mud every time it rains. Also the trucks are in and out as early as 5:00 a.m. I have complained and they are in sympathy with me but nothing has been done about it and because of this I would like to have the ingress and egress along Farmington Road and not Lyndon Road. Mr. Okerstrom: There is nothing stipulated on what grade the contractor is suppose to bring the grade up too. Mr. McCullough: The Engineering Department will specify that. Mr. Peacock: Can the Planning Commission stipulate the time to start. Five o'clock seems very early. Mr. Walker: That subject came up last night at the Council meeting. This matter would have to be taken up with them. They would be the only power to regulate the hours and I am in favor of referring this to them. 1[:. Anderson: Normally we approve the release of the bond and if this is a per- formance bond under the contractor we would have no jurisdiction as to the release of this bond; I feel this should be made a part of the resolution. Mr. Walker: I think that would be very good, we should be notified. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Robinson, it was 2848 #5-85-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-69 by the City or its contracts remove sand to the grades to be established by the City Engineeringr77trom property in the Grennada Park Subdivision 1[40 in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, and pursuant to this resolution the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt for its bond the bond which has been provided in the plans and specifications prepared by the Engineering Division, provided,that said bond shall not be re- leased by the City Council until the City Planning Commission previously by resolution concurs in such release, and FURTHER RESOLVED that,the City Planner is instructed to request the Police Department to provide for ingress and egress on Farmington Road whenever the weather permits, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the property owners with 500 feet, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of May 6, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of May 10, 1960. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Greene, Robinson, Marsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. tit.. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-63 by Harold E. dwards who is requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil located on the West side of Farmington Road between Six Mile and Oakdale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 16. Mr. McCullough: A recommendation dated April 25, 1960 has been received from the Engineering Department and another dated April 15, 1960 from the Police Department. Mr. Walker: This is a stock pile of topsoil. There is a bond, established at the time the topsoil was removed. We will have to state a new reasonable bond for the stockpile. 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 #5-86-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-63 by Harold E. Edwards requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil located on the West side of Farmington Road between Six Mile and Oakdale in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 16, 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 2849 proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks and Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond, the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the Bureau of Inspection a corporate surety bond in the amount of $1,000 (2 acres) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period; THAT, the period for which the permit herein authorized shall be issued 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; 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 property owners within 500 feet, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been •-btained from the Department of Public Works under date of April 25, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of April 15, 1360. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Ir! . McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-64 by A. K. Miller, nc. , who is requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil located on the orth side of Seven Mile Road and West of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. A. K. Miller was present. Mr. McCullough: Recommendations have been received from the Engineering Department dated April 25, 1960 and May 3, 1960 and from the Police Department dated April 15, 1960. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Walker: This is for the removal of a stockpile. It is a renewal. We will have to establish a new bond for this application. Mr. Pinto: I am wondering what the term "renewal" means. The ordinance does not provide for a renewal. This is a public hearing. If a permit is issued at this hearing it is to be a new bond also. The old bond must be released and a new one started. It is a new permit. It is not a renewal. Mr. Walker: It is your opinion that if we approve under these conditions, if wanted to apply any action on the bond it would be invalid. ir. Pinto: What you should do is if you are going to issue another permit, issue a permit subject to the deposit of a bond on the condition that the permit is issued within thirty days. It causes confusion in the Bureau of Inspection to extend the permits because it gets involved with the time limit of the bond. .4 2850 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the 1[1: City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-64 by A. K. Miller, Inc. , requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil located on the North side of Seven Mile Road and West of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, subject, however, to the following conditions: (1) 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 Bureasof Inspection a corporate surety bond in the amount of $5,000 for 10 acres of land at $500 per acre, which bond shall be for at let a one-year period; and IL: 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; Mr. Okersttom: The first application was approved because of the preliminary approval granted on the proposed subdivision for this property. I do not think the plat has come back to us for an extension of time. In the past we have not permitted any topsoil to be removed unless it is determined if it will be platted. Mr. Harsha: I think the present bond on the permit has expired. If it has, have all the conditions been met and has the bond been discharged by the Council? Mr. Pinto: I do not know whether a bond for the improvements on the proposed subdivision has been set. Mr. Harsha: I am wondering whether the conditions of the removal of the topsoil that is presently stockpiled have been met and if they have left the land in a good condition. Mr. Pinto: Mr. Miller has a topsoil bond filed with the City now. It has to 1[111be released by the Planning Commission. Jr. McCullough read the recommendations of the Engineering Department. The recommenda- ion dated April 25, 1960 stated the Engineering Department felt that a sand condition that currently existed should be corrected before the stockpile is removed. The recommendation dated May 3, 1960 stated that Mr. Miller had reseeded the area and that 2851 that the sand condition should be corrected by it. Mr. Walker: Possibly we should investigate this area again and have further information on the area. I would like to withdraw my motion until the Topsoil Committee has made another examination of this property. Mr. Peacock: I concur with Mr. Walker and I will withdraw my support. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The present permit on this property expires before our next scheduled meeting. Mr. Miller: This permit was issued last August. I think I have complied with all the regulations of the City. As you know you can not load topsoil it the winter. We have it in a stockpile and I think we have complied with everything. We are carrying the bond for approximately another six months. Mr. Angevine: The bond is still good for six months? Will a permit for the duration of the bond be satisfactory? Mr. Miller: Yes, that would be all right with us. Mr. Angevine: Can we give a permit for the duration of the bond? It was determined that the bond would expire in August. Er. Pinto: Is this correct? You are going to issue a permit from now until August? In August the bond will expire and the petitioner will be back here for another permit. Mr. Walker: Suppose we set another bond? Mr. Pinto: That is what I have been suggesting. A new permit and a new bond. Previous to this new ordinance on topsoil, the permits were issued for only six months. The Planning Commission has not indicated the length of the permit in their resolutions. I do not believe the surety bond companies will attach a rider on their surety bonds. They will file new bonds but they will not extend the old ones. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #5-87-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-64 by A. K. Miller, Inc. , requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil located on the North side of Seven Mile Road and West of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, subject, however, to the following conditions: 1[111 (1) 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; (2) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; 2852 (3) 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 1[11 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 in the amount of $5,000 for 10 acres of land at $500.00 per acre, 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 property owners within 500 feet, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of April 25 and May 3, 1960 and from the Police Department under date of April 15, 1960. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Ia . McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-66 by John Migut ho is requesting permission to remove sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of arcel 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. This property is immediately adjacent to property in TA-67 (next item on the agenda) which is a request to remove sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of Parcel JJ2 located on the North side of Seven Mile Road and West of Farmington in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. Mr. Migut was present along with a Mr. Walter Muller, owner of JJ22 and a Mr. Rubin who owned Parcel Illb on land contract. Mr. Muller: I am the owner of the parcel in Application TA-66, the next item on the agenda. Mr. Migut has_been removing the topsoil from our property. Inspection has shown that he has been doing a very good job of removing the topsoil, replanting the seed and pre- venting any dust from blowing. I would like to speak on both of the petitions together (TA-66 and TA-67) . Our engineer has found that we would be better off for subdivision purposes if we balance the land by taking sand from both parcels. Our engineer made a new topo of our property together. Mr. Rubin is the owner of this property to the west. 1[41 Our permit will expire January, 1961. It is all right with Mr. Migut to cancel his present bond and let him apply for a new one. Mr. Rubin is the equitable owner, of property in TA-66, he is purchasing the land on land contract from Mr. Lloyd Gullen. Mr. 2853 Gullen was asked for permission to remove the topsoil. He wants to be paid for his land before the topsoil is stripped but in order to pay him Mr. Rubin needs the permit to remove the sand in order to sell it. Mr. Okerstrom: I feel that this is a personal affair between these two men. Mr. Walker: I would like to further investigate the property in TA-67. Mr. Greene: Since Mr. Walker has said that he would like to further investigate TA-67, how can we act on both TA-66 and TA-67 together? Mr. Walker: Mr. Migut, you can continue your operation on the original permit for this property in TA-67 but anything else should be held up until we are satisfied with the other area. Some of the other commissioners and myself question the elevations that exist. We are not objecting to it, we only want to have more information on this. Mr. Muller: Your own engineering department has approved these two applications. Mr. Walker: This is something we would like to have more information on before taking action. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr.W. Thorup, 18597 Norwick, asked various questions concerning the amount of - iproperty from which topsoil is to be removed from; how long this operation would take; what measures were going to be taken to insure dust control; and to what depth would the topsoil be removed. Mr.Thorup further stated that they were concerned about the children playing in this area. They want control as far as the dust and the safety of the children is concerned. Mr. Migut answered that topsoil would be removed from 17 of the 30 acres; that the operation would take about a year; that the roads were oiled and that seeding is done as they remove the topsoil and that the greatest depth would be six feet. Mr. Lloyd Gullen: I live in the middle of TA-66. I do not think it would be a wise 34004 Seven Mile) thing for me at this time to release them of the contract after the topsoil has been removed. I think there should be a definite plot plan of the property so that the Planning Commission would know what the plans are for the develop- ment of this property so it can be determined if it is wise to remove this topsoil. Mr. Pretucci: I object to the removing of the topsoil because of the sand and 19066 Whitby) dust in the summer and the snow in the winter. It is almost impossible to grow grass here. Mr. Walker: I would like to say that we are quite competent in having grass grown in areas where topsoil has been removed and where there is sand, for example at Lyndon and Farmington. The petitioner present has complied with all the regulations of the City. All the con- ditions are satisfactory in this area. ::Mr. Muller: If you are going to table this, I would like to know when it will be brought up again. It was determined that this could be brotght up again on June 7th, 1960. Mr. Peacock: Mr. Migut cm continue the work on his present permit for TA-67. There is plenty to remove before the June 7th meeting. I would 2854 1: strongly advise tabling this until we have more information from the Engineering Department. It will be based on both petitions, TA-66 and TA-67. Mr. Marsha: Mr. Angevine, has the audience been heard on Item #7 also, TA-67? Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on Item #7? If not, these two petitions will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-68 by Steve Polgar for William Jamens who is requesting permission to remove sand, and topsoil from parcel F4H which is located between Schoolcraft and the C & 0 Railway approximately 2400 ft. West of Stark Road and also from Lot #807, Supervisor's Livonia Plat #14 which is located approximately 1325 ft. South of Schoolcraft and 800 ft. West of Stark Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28. Mr. Steve Polgar and Mr. William Jamens were present. Mr. McCullough: We have received recommendations from the Engineering Department dated May 10, 1960 and from the Police Department dated May 1, 1960. Mr. Walker: There are no objections from the Topsoil Committee. Mr. Angevine:1[40 Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr.Cl 'ter : I own the adjoining property. There is a creek bed on this StarkRd.) property. Will it leave this property in a swamp condition if the topsoil is removed? Mr. Polgar: The drain will be opened up so there will be no obstruction of the drainage area. The natural flow will be maintained. Where it is low, no topsoil will be removed. Mr. Walker: As far as the drainage is concerned during the time of removal, the Engineering and Bureau of Inspection work together and they see to it that the natural flow and elevation of the drain is protected. This is a standard procedure of these two departments. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Walker, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #5-88-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-68 by Steve Polgar for William Jamens requesting permission to remove sand, and topsoil from Parcel F4H which is located between Schoolcraft and the C & 0 Railway approximately 2400 ft. West of Stark Road and also from Lot #807, Supervisor's Livonia Plat #14 which is located approximately 1[40 1325 ft. South of Schoolcraft and 800 ft. West of Stark Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, 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; 2855 (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; I: (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 in the amount of $10,000.00 for 20 acres of land at $500.00 per acre, 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 property owners within 500 feet, City DeFcrtments 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 May 1, 1960. Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-447 by Margaret Larson who is asking that the zoning classification on property located on the East side of Newburgh Road approximately 475 ft. South of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5 be changed from RU to PS. Mrs. Margaret Larson was present. Mr. McCullough: Mrs. Larson has a hospital which presently has 50 beds and it is at present a non-conforming use. She is planning to use a home at the rear of the hospital, formerly used as a nurses' home, for additional ten to twelve beds. The property was zoned RU at the time this petition was published, in the meantime it was rezoned to RUF. Mr. Walker: I understand that at the present time you have 50 beds. Is that the maximum allowed by the State? Mrs. Larson: Yes, in the present hospital. Mr. Walker: I have found upon investigating this hospital that it seems to be quite crcwdcd. Rather than expansion, I feel that your place needs a lot of repairing. Your front porch ramp is not very safe. I would like to see something done to make it a little safer for the patients. Mr. Peacock: I saw no fire extinguishers when I visited the hospital. Something should be done to fix the place up first before granting this petition. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak. 2856 Mr. Walker: I would like to take this under advisement until the other members I[: and I have had an opportunity to investigate this further. It is in an area good for this use provided it is maintained properly. It certainly needs a lot of work on it to make it such. Rather than deny this petitioner, perhaps we could encourage her to improve the conditions and I suggest that we take it under advise- ment until it is taken care of. Mr. Peacock: I concur with Mr. Walker. Mr. Angevine: This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a petition 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 adopted on October 14, 1958 to determine whether or not Part I of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, that is, the Master Thoroughfare Plan, should be amended so as to designate three roads, said roads to be located in the South half of Section 27. Mr. Angevine: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. McCullough: The C & 0 Railway heartily endorses the designation of these roads. Mr. Steve Polgar: I would like to recommend that you approve this petition. Industrial ) ECommission ) Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Walker, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-89-60 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 Tuesday, May 10, 19f0 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 as to add thereto the designation of three (3) roads, 86 ft. in width, said roads to be located in the South half of Section 27 of the said City of Livonia : (1) Designate an 86' right-of-way in the South 1/2 of Section 27 by extending Hubbard Road northerly from the South line of said section to the C & 0 Railway right-of-way, (2) Designate an 86' right-of-way in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 27, said right-of-way to begin at the point where the Shaw Drain intersects the West line of Section 27 and running from that point eastwardly along the South side of the Drain a distance of 2,640 ft; (3) Designate an 86 ft. right-of-way which begins at a point on the 1[0 West line of Section 27, said point being 1,673 feet North of the South line of said section and running easterly a distance of 1570 feet thence south to the Shaw drain, snd 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 in- 2857 corporated 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, May 10, 1960 by the following vote: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Greene, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5-90-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, May 10, 1960 at approximately 10:04 p.m. =A roll call vote cu the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Greene, Robinson, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the public hearing is adjourned. li: Mr. Angevine called a recess at approximately 10:05 p.m. Mr. Angevine called the 115th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 10:15 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-440 by Joseph Slavik who is asking that the zoning classification on property located on the Southwest corner of Six Mile Road and Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 16 be rezoned from C-1 to C-2. Public Hearing 4/19/60, item taken under advisement; study meeting 5/3/60. Mr. McCullough presented specifications of a dental clinic which is to be built on property in petition if approval is obtained for the C-2 zoning. Mr. Greene: Is this to be in place of the gas station on the corner? Mr. McCullough: No. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Greene, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5-91-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 on Petition Z-440 as submitted by Joseph Slavik for a change of zoning in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 16 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby 2858 recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-440 be denied for the IC: following reasons: (1) the uses which the owner could make under the existing zoning are sufficient to insure that the land can be utilized for purposes of the due process clause; (2) the master plan contemplates that this land shall be a neighborhood shopping facility and to permit a wider range of uses would defeat this purpose. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of hcrch 30, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesa- peake & 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, Greene, Robinson, Harsha, Angevine NAYS: Walker, Okerstrom and Kane NOT VOTING: Anderson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-441 by Herbert Spoon = on behalf of Donna Development Company who is asking that the zoning classification on property located on the East side of Merriman approximately 900 feet North of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 be rezoned from RUFB to R1 A. Public Hearing 4/19/60, item taken under advisement; study meeting 5/3/60. Mr. Robinson: How many homes are adjacent to the area to be platted? Mr. McCullough: Most of the lots in this area are 60 ft. minimum. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 on Petition Z-441 as submitted by Herbert Spoon on behalf of Donna Development Company for a change of zoning in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 from RUFB to R1A, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-441 be granted, subject, however, to the following: (a) that the west 240 feet of this parcel and the South 120 ft. be rezoned R L A and the remainder of the land to be zoned R 1 A. Mr. Peacock: I would like to withdraw my support to the motion, I did not realize that the 120 ft. abuts the pencil 1: strip of land. I will go along with the 240 ft. along Merriman. I will support it if the other is eliminated from the resolution. Mr. Greene: I will support the resolution as read by Mr. Okerstrom. I would like to see that the character of the neighborhood is maintained as at present and that a buffer is provided in order to protect this pattern. 2859 Mr. Herb Spoon: I would go along with the 80 ft. minimum on Merriman but I IC: rather not on the South 120 ft. Mr. Anderson: I would like to hear a definite answer from the petitioner if he would go along with the resolution of approval as stated? Mr.Spoon: On Merriman, Yes; on the South 120 ft. , Io. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Greene, Harsha, Anderson and Okerstrom NAYS: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Kane and Angevine Mr. Angevine: The motion is not carried, therefore, the resolution is not adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #5-92-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby allow petitioner, Mr. Herb. Spoon to verbally amend Petition Z-441 requesting a zoning change from RUFB to R 1 A, by requesting a R L A zoning for the west 240 feet of property in said petition, and the remainder to be R 1 A. LA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Greene, Harsha, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: None Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Walker, it was #5-93-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 on Petition Z-441 as submitted by Herb Spoon for a change of zoning in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11 from RUFB to R 1 A and R L A, as amended by Resolution #5-92-60, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-441 be granted, for the reason that, (a) much of the square mile is already platted into 60 foot lots and the alternative suggested will assure big lots along the western boundary of the property in petition, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of March 30, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , IL, 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, Harsha, Anderson, Kane and Angevine NAYS: Greene and Okerstrom t . 2860 Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. ( Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-443 by Clarence Charest on behalf of Floyd Oaks and Norman Liebert who is asking that the zoning classification on property located on the Southwest corner of Shadyside Road and Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 be rezoned from C-2 to M-1. Public Hearing 4/19/60, item taken under advisement; study meeting 5/3/60. The north side of Eight Mile Road in Farmington Township in front of property in petition is zoned industrial. Mr. Charest (Attorney for petitioner): It is shown on the site plan that the building is intended to be built ten (10) feet from the existing lot line. We find this is illegal. In view of the present con- dition we wculd have to construct the building 20 ft. from the lot line and provide for a greenbelt. We are attempting to get another 10 ft. If we are able to do this, it will be C-2 and it will be used as part of our greenbelt. It is our understanding that there will be an industrial belt along the entire length of Eight Mile Road on the north side and that the Planning Commission is contemplating zoning the south side of Eight Mile Road to industry. We are possibly jumping the gun. It might be suggested that the Planning Commission may want to rezone this entire area to M-1, including this property. But at the present time we are here for the property in the petition. ll:Mr. Peacock: You said that the 10 ft. as shown on the site plan is wrong. Is that the only part that is wrong? Mr. Charest: We show 10 ft. but actually it should be 20 ft which will be a greenbelt. Mr. Peacock: Is the parking on Shadyside to be discontinued? Mr. Charest: Yes. Mr. Peacock: We examined this area with the City Planner from Shadyside to Farmington and I feel it should be industrial. Across the street it is zoned M-1 and there are several industrial plants going in. Mr. Walker: The major complaint against this petition is the fact that some of the traffic finds its way into the residential section, plus the people working in the plant parking their cars on Shadyside. One logical solution would be to have our Traffic Department stop the flow of industrial traffic going south through the subdivision and designate their ingress off of Shadyside and their egress off of Eight Mile Road and this would keep the flow of traffic out of the existing subdivision. It also seems to be that the business place could be rehabilitated so that it is a little nicer looking I: to the surrounding residential neighborhood. Regardless of what position we take on this petition, we can not hold back industrial or commercial zoning on Eight Mile Road. We have all this to contend with and the only thing we can do is try to come up with some kind of an agreement whereby we can make it a little better than what it is presently. Mr. Charest: There are many uses in C-2 that this property could be used for that would create more problems than this present use. c Y. 2861 There was a further discussion as to whether or not there would be sufficient side and area and also sufficient property to establish a greenbelt. tr . Charest: If you gave approval to this petition subject to the petitioner obtaining the additional land needed, and he found later he could not comply with the resolution of approval, he could then go to the Board of Appeals. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, it was #5- -60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 on Petition Z-443 as submitted by Clarence Charest on behalf of Floyd Oaks and Norman Liebert for a change of zoning in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from C-2 to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-443 be granted, subject, however, to the following: (1) that the owner of the property in petition can purchase the additional ten (10) feet to the west necessary to establish a greenbelt, and (2) that the entrance to the parking lot will be off Shadyside and the exit to the parking lot will be on Eight Mile Road, Mr. Peacock's motion died for lack of support. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was li: #5-94-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, April 19, 1960 on Petition Z-443 as submitted by Clarence Charest on behalf of Floyd Oaks and Norman Liebert for a change of zoning in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from C-2 to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-443 be granted, for the following reasons: (1) that an area extending from Farmington eastward a distance of 2,000 feet is zoned for Light Industry along the north side of Eight Mile Road; (2) that the petitioner has agreed to remove parkin g off Shadyside on to his land and this is a cause of considerable difficulty presently. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of March 30, 1960 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and petitioners as listed in the Proof of Service. [Mr. Harsha asked if there should be some provision for the off-street parking since what is shown is not good enough. Mr. Robinson: I feel it is a police problem in relation to the off-street parking. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: 2862 AYES: Peacock, Walker, Robinson, Anderson and Angevine NAYS: Greene, Harsha, Okerstrom and Kane Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, and unanimously adopted, it was #5-95-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to letter dated April 27, 1960 forwarded by the Nelson Homes, Inc. , requesting an one-year extension on the preliminary approval granted on the Pickford Gardens Subdivision located South of Seven Mile Road in the Northwest and Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, 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. Peacock and unanimously adopted, it was #5-96-60 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter dated April 22, 1960 forwarded by The Woodbury Building Company, requesting an one-year extension on the preliminary approval granted on the Arbor Estates Subdivision located between Ann Arbor Road and Joy Road approximately 600 ft. West of Hix Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request, provided, however, that the conditions of the preliminary approval are also extended. 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 to determine whether or not Sub-section (g) of Section 10.02 of Article 10.00 and Sub-section (h) of Section 11.02 of Article 11.00 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60, should be amended. This pertains to signs in commercial zones. After a brief discussion it was determined that the proposed ordinance needed to be redrafted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the proposed Evelyn Burns Sub- division located on the North side of Six Mile Road approximately 1450 feet East of the proposed Wayne Road between Farmington and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Sectic 9. Submitted by Donald Burns. Public Hearing held 3/15/60; item taken under advise- rcnt. Study meeting 5/3/60. Mr. & Mrs. Donald Burns and Mr. Clarence Charest, their attorney,were present. Mr. McCullough presented a proposed revised plat of the subdivision which he felt the 1[11 objecting property owners surrounding the area would be more agreeable to than the original plat presented by Mr. Burns. Mr. Charest: This revised plat does not meet with Mr. Burn's approval. We realize that it is desirable to allow some access to the property north and west of the proposed subdivision. We com= plied with a street but then the problem came up that two of these homes that are already erected, known as Outlots A & B on the plat, was not enough to compensate anything more than Y 2863 Ca gravel road. Mr. Toth, one of these property owners said that he would be willing, if he was allowed in the subdivision, to pay his share of the paving. As of this evening, Mr. Toth is not willing to pay his share nor are the other property owners. We feel that we can work out something to be agreeable to these property owners when the property immediately east of this proposed subdivision is platted. We would like to ask consideration on our original proposed plat as submitted by Mr. Burns. It is unfortunate some agreement can not be made between these property owners and Mr. Burns but if they are willing to pay for their share of the paving, we may have been able to go along with them. Mr. Toth: At the time I purchased my property I was informed that only 1/2 acre parcels were being sold. At this time I am concerned with what will happen to my well and septic tank with the new subdivision coming.in. I am, also, willing to pay my share of the paving if the other two property owners are willing to pay theirs. Mr. Walker was excused at 11:20 p.m. for the remainder of the evening. ll:Mr. McCullough: Several of the lots are under a fraction of the 80 ft. minimum. They will have to be changed. Mr. Harsha was excused at 11:22 p.m. for the remainder of the evening. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5-97-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby table the Evelyn Burns Subdivision plat until the petitioner has submitted a revised plat of said subdivision designating lots of no less than 80 ft. minimum frontage. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom and Angevine NAYS: Robinson and Kane Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was #5-98-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, April 5, 1960 except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. ILA roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Greene, Robinson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Angevine NAYS: None NOT VOTING: Kane Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 2864 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was Ire #5-99-60 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby permit the City Planner to attend the ASPO National Planning Conference in Miami, May 22nd through May 26th, 1960 and the World Planning Conference in Puerto Rica, May 27th through May 30th, and in order to do this, he is authorized to spend up to the full amount in the Travel and Education Account. A roll call vote on the f oregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Okerstrom, Kane and Angevine NAYS: Robinson Mr. Angevine: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Robinson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby duly adjourn the 115th Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, May 10, 1960 at approximately 11:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IL: 54---ml-45"1/12&44-1` onard K. Kane, Secretary ATTESTED: bert L. Angevi e, Chairman