Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-03-07 3117 MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 127TH SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 7, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 127th Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman called the public hearing to order at approximately 8:05 p.m. Members present: James Cameron, James Watson, Jr. , Robert M. Peacock, Robert L. Angevine and Charles W. Walker Members absent: *Wilfred Okerstrom, Robert L. Greene **Dennis Anderson and Leonard K. Kane Mr. McCullough, City Planner was present along with approximately 35 interested per- sons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is the proposed Lyndon Estates Subdivision being situated on the East side of Melvin Avenue, approximately 400 feet North of Schoolcraft Road. Sub- mitted by Warner & Warner for Fairfield Development Co. Mr. Richard Bleznak was present. . McCullough:Ir Letters have been received from the Dept. Public Safety, Division of Police dated March 1, 1961; Fire Department, dated March 2, 1961; Bureau of Inspection dated March 2, 1961 and the Department of Parks & Recreation dated March 6, 1961. They all recommend approval. Mr. Walker: Has the zoning of this property been approved by the City Council? Mr. McCullough: Yes, it has from RUFB to R-1A. The Law Department has been instructed to prepare an ordinance. *Mr. W. E. Okerstrom and **;vIr. Dennis Anderson arrived at approximately 8.06 p.m. Mr. Bleznak: These lots are situated across the street and in relation to the Lyndon Meadows Subdivision. The streets are paved and the storm and sewer lines are already in. The question came up in regards to the ditch in this area. Mr. Bleznak said that the rerouting of the ditch had been approved by the Engineering Department of the City. He submitted the approved plan to the commission. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. & Mrs. Edward Boris, 30010 Schoolcraft objected to the proposed plat because they felt that it would landlock the rear portion of their property. 1EWalker explained to Mr. & Mrs. Boris that this question had come up at the ring for the rezoning of this property and the petitioner had been asked to sub- mit a proposed layout of this property to show how it could be developed. The petitioner submitted a solution which seemed to be the only solution. He asked Mr. Boris if he had any other suggestions as to how this property could be subdivided. Mr.. Boris said that at one time they had been informed that Gaylord Court would be 3118 extended further west after the retention basin was eliminated. But if the proposed 111 yndon Estates Subdivision is given approval, Gaylord Ct. will not be able to xtend to Melvin. Mr. Bleznak : The retention basin is owned by the City. What the city does with it after it is eliminated is the prcpagative of the city. Also because the sewers are already in on Melvin, this can be developed but as long as the sewer ban is on this other property can not be built upon. Mr. Walker: Could you have picked up this property along with what you have and developed it if the sewer ban was not on? Mr. Bleznak: Yes, it could have been as this is my business and I am always looking for property. Mr. Walker: Would you be willing to hold one lot up in the event that a road is needed to open up this property? Mr. Bleznak: There are other owners involved also. How do we know if the others would be willing to sell their property? Mr. Okerstrom: Would you be willing to give up a lot? E. Bleznak: No, because for one thing there is another owner involved in the Lyndon Meadows Subdivison #2. Mr. Walker: I suggest that we hold this up for a week in order to determine if there is some other solution of subdividing this property. This item will be taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: The petitioner for the next item, Petition M-218 has not arrived as yet. Can we go on to the next item? The next item is Petition M-219 by William Lindhout on behalf of the Board of Trustees, Livonia Methodist Church who is requesting approval to erect a church on property located on the North side of Six Mile Road approximately 1020 feet East of Merriman Road between Merriman and Stamwich in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. There is no correspondence. Mr. William Lindhout was present. Mr. Lindhout explained the site plan to the commission. He stated the church is only purchasing four out of the ten acres available. It is intended to purchase the remainder later. The adjacent property to the east is also a church site. The Hope IIItheran Church is situated on the east side of their property, ours is proposed to on the west side of our property. There will be approximately 800 to 900 feet tween the two. The purchase of this property would be contingent on a number of items, as well as the approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. McCullough: What is the set back in comparison to the other property? Mr. Lindhout: Very near the same. There is to be a set back of 150 ft. The 3119 Parking will be at the rear to the natural drain that is located at the extreme rear. IE. Peacock: What is the size of the congregation? Mr. Lindhout: There is a present membership of 400. The capacity of this present church as shown is in the neighborhood of 325 seats. We have shown only 100 cars in the parking area. Mr. McCullough: There is ample room for more parking. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Pastor Moldwin, 14300 Bramell, Detroit, pastor of the Hope Lutheran Church questioned the advisability of constructing another church adjacent to the present one. He said it was true that they were located on the east side of their property but their plans are to expand to the western boundary of their property. ed Mr. Lindhout: This church has been present/to the Council of Churches and it has been approved by them. Rev. Moldwin stated it was his impression they were not in favor of it. Mr. Anderson: They do not own the property as yet so that this is just the first step of acquiring the land by seeking permission to erect a church. To date we have never turned down anyone permission to construct a church. 1[40 pon a Motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #3-43-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, March 7, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-219 by William Lindhout on behalf of the Board of Trustees, Livonia Methodist Church requesting approval to erect a church on property located on the North side of Six Mile Road approximately 1020 ft. East of Merriman Road between Merriman and Stamwich in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Dkerstrom: Will there be a time limit? Mr. Angevine: No, if they don't buy it they won't build upon it. This approval is only for a specific use. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Angevine, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None . Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. . McCullough: Our next item is Petition M-218 by Joseph Cyr requesting approval to erect a Catholic School on the North side of Lyndon Road, approximately 360 feet West of Farmington Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21. 3120 Mr. Joseph Cyr was present. lr. Walker: A letter has been received from Mr. Milton Holley, 14821 Farmington Road, dated March 7, 1961 which has several questions in it that should be answered. Unfortunately the assistant city attorney hasn't arrived yet and unless he does during the discussion we will hold it in abeyance because these questions certainly should be answered. Mr. Walker proceeded to read the letter to the commission and those present in the audience. He then asked Mr. Cyr if he could answer these for Mr. Holley. Mr. Cyr: No. 1 is a legal question, I cannot answer it. No. 2, Lyndon Road, I believe is a county road, unpaved. I am not an attorney but I assume that if Lyndon Road were to be paved at some time in the future, the City might probably put it on a county wide assessment. On No. 3, the students will be traveled by bus. The storage of the vehicles has been planned for but not on this present plan. There will be no student automobile traffic problem. On No. 4, I would say, at the moment, Mr. Holley, that we would be tapping into the sewer on Lyndon which does tap into the one on Farmington Road. On No. 5, I can not answer this. I do not know what will IL: happen in ten years. Mr. Walker presented the plot plan to the audience. Mr. Cyr: We are proposing to develop a 12 acre site for a Catholic Central High School. At the present time we are considering plans for a school for 2,000 students on a co-educational basis. The development of this school will be in character with the development of the school in metropolitan Detroit to afford education to students in this area of that faith. The area involved would be Livonia, Plymouth, Farmington, Nankin Township, Garden City, Redford and the outside areas of Detroit. More land is desired and will be, I am quite sure, acquired. We are appealing to the City of Livonia to grant approval of the land use for a school so that the land can be purchased. We have tried to represent a true picture tonight and we consider this as an advancement for this City. Mr. Peacock: Is it proposed to procure land on Farmington Road? IC. Cyr: No. . Cameron: Does the school intend to use the facilities of the Recreation Department? Mr. Cyr: Yes, this has already been taken care of. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? 3121 Mk. Milton Holly: We have .no objection to onghigh school. •As to the-question 14820 Farmington Road) of the street being pavedf= ie resident on this street. If he is assessed for the paving, he will have to sell his land (This was property owned by Mr. Coopersmith) We feel we are being landlocked due to the civic center in front of us and the high school in back of us. We are wondering if the high school would object to us requesting a different zoning - other than residential, in -the future. And is the present sewer adequate for this school? Mr. Holly also stated that he thought there was an error in the dimensions shown on the plot plan. Mr. Cyr stated there was but it had not been done intentionally. He would see that it was corrected. Mr. Walker: We will have the preliminary plat corrected and we will take this under advisement until we have obtained the answers on the questions not answered tonight. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-79 by William H. Jamens requesting permission to remove sand and topsoil from a parcel located on the East side of Merriman Road (if cut through) and approximately 300 feet South of Eight Mile Road in the North-west 1/4 of Section 2. C. Jamens was present along with Mr. Roman Halanski, his attorney. . Halanski: There are approximately 23 acres involved. This property runs to the centerline of the future Merriman Road. There will be 20 acres involved in the excavation. The land is considerably above grade. The topography survey shows the existing grades and the proposed grades after the removal of the sand and topsoil. Mr. Peacock: Where will the egress and ingress be? Mr. Halanski: We feel we would like to use Merriman Road. It was determined that an oral communication had been received from the Engineering Department objecting to the removal until more information had been received. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Thomas H. Clayton: I live right across the street from this property. We can 20421 Merriman Road) hardly use our road now. Half the time we have to park our cars on Eight Mile Road because of the condition of the road. If these trucks use Merriman, tris will make the condition of the road even worse. IL . Also, grass should be grown on this property as soon as possible because of the east winds,otherwise the sand will blow into our homes. Any hill they make of topsoil should be removed within a certain time. Mr. Walker: We have a form resolution in which it states that after the sand and topsoil is removed, the applicant must seed it with some type of rye. This is a requirement. 3122 Clayton: The road is not taken care of by the City because it is a County road. j . Halanski: There will be a bulldozer in the area and we will see to it that the road is graded down for the use of the property owners. We are only proposing to use approximately 350 ft. from Eight Mile Road. Mr. Raymond Heath: When topsoil was removed at Seven Mile Road and Middlebelt 20179 Sunset) Road it looked like a Kansas dust stcr: . Mr. Walker: There were two separate removals in that area. One came in on Seven and ar ther came in on Middlebelt Road, north of Seven Mile. It was stockpiled after that. When the first operation was completed this area was seeded down. Then they came in last Fall to remove the stockpile. This stirred up a lot of dust but not much could be done about this. Mr. Peacock: There is grass growing where the first stockpile was removed. Mr. Heath: There is a natural drain on this property in this present petition. We have to keep it clean ourselves. Mr. Heath presented a map of the area to the commissioners for their examination in relation to the natural drain. r. George Nikorak: I live due west from the property they wish to remove the 0315 Merriman) topsoil. On the notice it said "if cut through" in relation to Merriman Road. What is the full significance of this? Mr. McCullough: This was done to pin point where the property is located. Mr. Nikorak: We are giving 60 ft. for the road - this is in our deeds. I would like to know if the city would stop them from removing the topsoil by using this road. Mr. Halanski: Although Mr. Jamens is buying this land on contract, it is subject to the rights of the people using that road. And we have to see that they are able to use it. Mr. Walker: This request has nothing to do with the road. But the Commission is planning on having Merriman cut through. We feel it might begin at Seven Mile Road this summer. It will definitely go through to Eight Mile in the future. Mr. Nikorak: I have nothing against the removal of the tope.•il. I only want to make sure that it is reseeded after the stockpile is removed. We would like to know the reason for the removal of the topsoil. Is it for building sites or just for sale of the topsoil? tr. Halanski: There are no definite plans at the present time. The land is high, it would have to be brought down. It is zoned residential - PUrB. Mr. Nikorak: Where will they maintain the grade? Will they use the Eight 3123 Mile Road grade or what? 11:*Ir. Walker: The Engineering Department will establish the grade of the proposed development of Merriman Road. The grade level in this particular case will be in relation to the level at Eight Mile Road. Mr. Nikorak: The trucks will be using Merriman Road. It is really in bad shape and worse every spring. If they start using it, we will not be able to use it at all. Mr. Walker: The petitioner has stated that he will attend to the road. He will go in only 300 ft. on Merriman Road and then turn onto his own property. He will use his own equipment to maintain the road and keep it in shape to enable the other property owners to use it. It should be an improvanent after this. The question was asked if there was a time limit on the removal. Mr. Walker: The bond and permit are for a period of a year. The bond is for $500 per acre, in this case it would be $10,000. This is to guarantee us that the conditions after the removal will not be detrimental to the surrounding property onwers. Most of this removal will be for sand. There is very little topsoil. They usually take about three or four months but we have had them drag out for a period of two 1[40 years, but this isi.s wally for topsoil. be Mr. Nikorak asked how could Merriman/ put through? It was on his deed and abstract. He couldn't understand why the City didn't accept it. Mr. Walker suggested that he contact the City Attorney and that he would help Mr. Nikorak start proceedings. Mr. Nikorak then asked if the petitioner, Mr. siemens, who now owns the property across Merriman, would consent to have Merriman put through along with the other property owners along Merriman? Mr. Walker answered that this property would be of no value to Mr. Jamens without a road. He did have access to Eight Mile Road but it isn't sufficient to develop. the twenty-three acres. Mr. Peacock: Where do you intend to stockpile the topsoil? Mr. Halanski: On the high ground which consists of about two acres. Mr. Watson: Do you have any idea how long it will be stockpiled? Mr. Halanski: It should be removed by November of this year. Mr. Peacock: Would you seed the stockpile? Mr. Halanski: It will grow by itself. I:. Walker: What about the sand? . Halanski: Mr. Jamens has a considerable order for sand for the James Couaens Highway. His entire project should be for about a year. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Anderson 3124 Irl'3-44-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-79 by William H. Jamens requesting permission to remove sand and topsoil from a parcel located on the East side of Merriman Road and approximately 300 feet South of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, subject, however to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond that the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, (e) that the applicant shall work very closely with the City Engineer on the drainage problem; (f) that the applicant has agreed to maintain Merriman Road for that portion he uses in his removal operations; (g) and that the applicant must obtain the approval from the Police Department as to the ingress and egress, FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk, a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for twenty acres (20), ($10,000.00), 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, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Angevine, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. L1ion a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was -45-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on Tuesday, March 7, 1961 at approximately 9:40 p.m. 3125 roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Angevine, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9:41 p.m. * * * * * * Mr. Walker called the 127th Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:55 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called. Mr. Walker: At the study meeting held by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 28, 1961 it had been agreed by those present at the meeting that Items 5, 6 and 9, Petitions Z-491, Z-490 and the proposed Canbros Buckingham Plaza Subdivision, respectively, would not be on tonight's meeting due to the many questions that had been raised and as yet not answered. The Commission feels that more information must be submitted before action can be taken upon these items. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom and unanimously adopted, it was II:3-46-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby remove Items 5, (Z-491), 6, (Z-490) and 9 (Canbros Buckingham Plaza Subdivision) from the agenda of the127th Special Meeting for the reason that more information is needed before action can be taken. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. It was determined that there were persons in the audience interested in Item #5, Petition Z-491. Mr. Walker explained to them the reason for not taking action on said petition and stated if one of those present would leave his name and address with the secretary, the Planning Commission would contact him prior to any action being taken on the petition. Mr. F. Schoup asked that he be notified. 27530 Long) Mr. Walker informed Mr. Manns, petitioner for Z-490, Item #6, that the Planning Commission had discussed his petition with the Wayne County Board of Health. There appeared to be a question as to whether or not they would approve the proposed use with a septic tank. Because of this it is felt that it would be wise until the necessary information has been submitted by the Henith Department. Mr. Manns asked if he would be notified when his petition would be on an agenda? Mr. McCullough stated he would contact him. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-494 by the City li: Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend sub-section (b) of Section 9.52, Article 9.00 PS District Regulations so as to require approval of the City Planning for convalescent homes and funeral homes. Public Hearing 2/21/61, item taken under advisement It was thought at the last meeting that it would be wise to add a standard to this amendment so as to require the 3126 applicant for a funeral home to show how it is possible to line up a funeral procession of 25 autos on the land 1E: sought to be used for the funeral home. It is the intention of this requirement to prevent lining of these cars upon Mile Roads and thereby restricting the movement of traffic thereon. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #3-47-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, February 21, 1961 on Petition Z-494 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend sub-section (b) of Section 9.52, Article 9.00 PS District Regula- tions so as to require approval of the City Planning Commission for convalescent homes and funeral homes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-494 be granted, provided, however, that the following standard is added thereon, (1) that the applicant be required to show how it is possible to line up a funeral procession of 25 autos on the land sought to be used for the funeral home; for it is the intention of this requirment to prevent the lining of these autos upon Mile Roads and there y restricting the movement of traffic thereon, FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in I: the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of February 1, 1961 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 petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Angevine, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None The question was asked if it wouldn't be necessary to hold another public hearing on the above standard for the reason that at the time Petition Z-494 was advertised, this standard had not been included. Mr. McCullough stated he would check with the Law Department to determine if another public hearing is necessary. In order not to hold this amendment up, it was decided to make a motion for another public hearing including the standard. If it is found that this is not necessary, this motion can be rescinded at a later meeting. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was 3-48-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission pursuant to Section It20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend sub-section (b) of Section 9.52 of Article 9.50 PS District Regulations as follows: (b) Buildings when devoted to any one or more of the following professional occupations: medical offices and/or clinics; dental offices and/or clinics; optometry offices; chiroprac- 3127 tic offices and/or clinics; attorneys offices; accounting offices; engineering and architectural offices; and any other professional, executive or administrative occupations; provided, however, that any occupation or use not specifically listed in this subsection, including convalescent homes, hospitals and .- funeral homes, shall require the express approval of the City Planning Commission and further that the applicant for a funeral home can and will comply with the following requirement: (1) that such use shall show how it is possible to line up a funeral procession of 25 autos on the land sought to be used for the funeral home, FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report sub- mitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson, Angevine, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Er. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-495 by the City Planning Commission asking that the zoning classification on property located on the South side of Eight Mile Road approximately 670 ft. East of Farmington Road in the North- west 1/4 of Section 3 be rezoned from C-2 to M-l. Resolution to refer this item to the Industrial Commission for their recommendation. Public Hearing held on 2/21/61 and item taken under advisement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, it was #3-49-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-495 requesting a zoning change on property located on the South side of Eight Mile Road, approximately 670 ft. East of Farmington Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3 from C-2 to M-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby refer this matter to the Industrial Commission for their recommendation to determine if it is possible to help the property owner on his present property q or to relocate him elsewhere in the City. . Angevine: What do you want to know from the Industrial Commission? r. Okerstrom: Maybe it is possible to relocate the property owner in another part of the City so that he would not have to move in the event the Planning Commission does not recommend approval on the zoning petition. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 3128 11 i on a motion duly made by Mr. Anderson, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously dopted, it was #3-50-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant request from the Fort Investment Company dated February 22, 1961 for a one-year extension on the preliminary approval granted on the Rosemor Manor Subdivision located in the South half of Section 22. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was #3-51-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the 125th Regular Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, 1961 will be held on Tuesday, March 14, 1961. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Watson and Okerstrom NAYS: Angevine, Anderson and Walker tr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the :ero?.ution- instructing the City Planner to discuss informally with the City Council the feasibility of buying two sites along the south side of Plymouth Road for parking. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Anderson and unanimously adopted, #3-52-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby instruct the City Planner, D. R. McCullough to discuss informally with the City Council the feasibility of buying two sites along the south side of Plymouth Road to alleviate the parking problem along said road. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mi. Peacock and unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 127th Special Meeting held on Tuesday, March 7, 1961 at approximately 10:15 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ' 1[4/ (X.g ( Qieez --,-;----- W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary a). 66,a104./ Charl s W. Walker, Chairman