HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-03-14 3129
MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE
..E 125TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, March 14, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
a public hearing and the 125th Regular 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 8:07 p.m.
Members present: Robert L. Angevine, W. E. Okerstrom, James Cameron, Charles
W. Walker, Robert M. Peacock, James Watson and Robert L.
Greene
Members absent: Leonard K. Kane and Dennis Anderson
Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner along with approximately 30 interested persons
was present.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-499 by Gordon-
Begin Company asking that the zoning classification of
property located on the Northeast corner of Lyndon and
Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 24; on the South-
east corner of Middlebelt and Lyndon in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 24 and on the Southwest corner of Middlebelt and
Lyndon in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from RUFB and
R1A to PS.
There was no one present in the audience on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. H. Stanbury: I represent the Compton Village Subdivision Civic Association.
29118 Barkley) I have been instructed to register a protest or objection
at this meeting. The Association wishes to go on record that
they do not want this rezoning to occur. They do not think
it is desirable. We feel that the property was residential
and that the people in that neighborhood bought homes there
with that understanding. Now that the homes are sold, the
builder wants to change it. It will not enhance the property
at all.
Mr. A. F. Korney, Jr.:
29231 Lori St.) I concur with the representative of Coi28ton Village. I would
like to add that I was misrepresentedf Gorden-Begin Builders.
I was told that these corners were residential and what type
of home would be built upon these lots. There is certainly
no need for PS buildings because there is one on the corner
of Middlebelt and Five Mile Road, two blocks away. There is
one two blocks south on the west side of Middlebelt and I
do not know how many there are on Five Mile Road and on
Plymouth Road within a two mile radius of our homes.
Mr.Brachiano: I would like to object also. I concur with the Mr. Korney.
29219 Lori) I live next door to the north of Mr. Er:aey.
Mr. Cameron: The size of these lots as shown on the site plan does not
show the portion of Middlebelt that has not been dedicated
as yet. Is that right?
.
• 3130
(Mr. McCullough: Yes, that is right. 27 ft. has to be deducted from the
size for the dedication for Middlebelt Road.
Mr. Walker: That would make the lots quite a bit smaller. They aren't
large enough to begin with and when you take away 27 ft.
it makes them even smaller. They wouldn't be able to
comply with the off-street parking requirements.
Mr. Greene: I would like to have the petitioner here in order that he
could let us know what he plans to do with these lots and
how he plans to do it. There are a lot of questions in
my mind that I would like to ask him.
Mr. Angevine: It is very indefinite.
Mr. Walker: There are a lot of questions the commission would like
to ask the petitioner. Also, the commission would like to
pull out the original plat of this area and see what it was
platted for.
If there is no objection from the commission, the Chair will
take this under advisement until we can have our Planner
obtain the original plat and in addition study the size
of the lots after the 27 ft. is taken off for the widening
of Middlebelt Road, to determine what is the best possible
use of these lots.
II:Mr. Lorney: I would like to be informed as to when this will be taken
care of.
Mr. Walker: If you will give your name to the secretary, she will inform
you as to the next meeting on this petition.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-500 by Sheldon
Futernick asking that the zoning classification of property
located on the Northwest corner of Lathers and Seven Mile
Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 be rezoned from
RUFB to PS.
Mr. Sheldon Futernick was present.
Mr. Futernick: We are proposing a one-story brick building for a medical
clinic. We have adequate parking facilities. There is
commercial across the street from this proposed building.
Mr. Walker: Gentlemen, are there any questions you would like to ask the
petitioner?
Mr. Peacock: Where will the parking be? At the rear or the front?
1[4,Mr. Futernick: The egress and ingress on two sides for a circular drive.
0 Our plan calls for 7 or 8 offices.
Mr. McCullough: How many doctors? How much do you estimate it will cost
to construct this building?
Mr. Futernick: Seven or eight. Approximately $200,000.
3131
. Futernick presented a proposed site plan to the commission for their examination.
I::
. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
There was none.
Mr. Futernick: I contacted the neighbor on the immediate west and east of
this property which are residences and they feel the neigh-
borhood is changing and have no objection. I have letters
of approval from these neighbors.
Mr. Walker accepted the two letters from the adjoining property owners.
Mr. Walker: These two property owners feel their property will become
more valuable with this rezoning.
Mr. Greene: Are there homes directly north of this proposed rezoning?
Mr. Futernick: There is one home. It is owned by the person from whom we
purchased this property.
Mr. Watson: In relation to the property across the street - is it
a non - conforming use of commercial or is it zoned commercial?
It was determined that it was zoned commercial.
; Jpon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was
#3-53-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-500 by Sheldon Futernick for a change of zoning in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 1 from RUFB to PS, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition
Z-500 be granted for the following reasons:
(1) It is presently zoned commercial on the SE and SW corners of
Seven Mile Road and Lathers and the property owners immediately
abutting the property in question have informed the commission
that they have no objection and that this will be an asset to
their property,
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of February 22,
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, Okerstrom and Walker
ILNAYS: Greene
. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-501 by Perry & Bahen,
attorneys for Rev. Father Edward Pilarowsky of St. Damian's
parish are asking that the zoning classification of property
located on the Northwest corner of Louise and Joy Road in the
3132
Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 be rezoned from RUFB to C-1.
ILOr. Perry and Mr. Bahen were present.
Mr. Perry: We propose to erect a building residential in nature but
it will be used for a credit union to serve St. Damian's
parish across the street.
Mr. Peacock: Only part of the present parking lot has been developed
across the street, isn't that correct?
Mr. Perry: Yes, that is right.
Mr. Peacock: Wouldn't there be sufficient room behind the parking lot
and to the west also to have the credit union, utilizing
the parking lot from the parish?
Mr. Perry: The church does not permit any business on that property.
Mr. McCullough: What is the size of the proposed building and of what con-
struction will it be?
Mr. Perry: The depth is 58 ft. , the width is 26 ft. , and it will be
brick.
Irk. McCullough: How many employees?
r. Perry: Right now it is only on a part time basis. There would be
one full time employee and possibly one part time employee.
It is a small organization. There are only 1200 families
in the parish and approximately 650 members in the credit
union at the present time. It will not develop into a big
commercial business.
Mr. Walker: Have you talked to the property owner to the west?
Mr. Perry: The property owner to the west is the owner of this property.
Mr. Walker: Have you checked out if any part of the property would be
needed for a right of way on either Louise or Joy Road?
Mr. McCullough: Louise is fully dedicated, however, 7 ft. comes off the
property for Joy Road.
Mr. Walker: That makes the lot 68 ft. x 93 ft. What standard do we
have set up for this type of use for parking? Is there
sufficient room for parking?
Mr. McCullough: They would need one parking space for every 100 sq. ft.
There would be room for approximately 12 cars.
Er. Walker: That is not too large a lot for a commercial use, 68 x 93.
Mr. Angevine: Unfortunately, we can not zone it for the credit union use,
only as commercial. Anything could come in after it is
rezoned in the event it is not used for a credit union.
It was determined that the alley had not been dedicated and that there was one garage
3133
coming out into the alley.
r. Walker: Could you possibly use the land on the one side of the
parsonage?
Mr. Perry: The rest of the property on this side is generally all
built up between Middlebelt and Merriman.
The chancellery does not permit any part of the church
property for any use other than religious.
Mr. Walker: We are sympathetic with what you are doing but there is a
problem. This is a parcel which is strictly residential
at the present time. To rezone it would be creating spot
zoning. If we were to allow this, that would leave the
door open for someone to come in next door and ask for
a rezoning for a barber shop or some kind of a little
store and in no time we would lose control in this area.
This creates a problem for us. We certainly want to be fair
about it and we certainly would like to grant it if it were
possible.
Mr. Greene: Why not go into a commercial zone where you would be allowed
to have this type of business?
Mr. Perry: One ream n is price and another is to find a piece of
property close to the church itself.
. Greene: Why so close to the church? The credit union business is
not transacted at the same time as the church. I do not
see any objection to being located somewhere else.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Carl Rosati: I am representing the Bonaparte Gardens Civic Association
9801 Hugh St.) and I am also the treasurer of the credit union. I feel that
the building will enhance the property. The Bonaparte Gardens
Subdivision is one of the oldest in the city with homes in
the $13,000 class. We are thinking of this as a service to
our people and also to enhance the area we are going to serve.
Mr. Walker: Do you have any objection to an entire strip of commercial
on Joy Road?
Mr. Rosati: There are only 12 lots between Hugh and Henry. We have
contacted the people and they have no desire to sell their
property for any reason. We would object to a commercial use
going in because it would not enhance the area.
Mr. Walker: If we rezone it to commercial we have no control as to what
is going on the property. If we rezone this now to C-1 for
1[40 the credit union, and it is not used for such, anything
allowed in C-1 could be put on this property. This is what
I am trying to point out now. There are very few uses that
require the City Planning Commission approval in a C-1 zone.
In the PS zone there are a variety of uses. At the present
time we have no control as to what is allowed other than what
•
3134
is permitted, therefore we have determined that an amend-
ment should be made to the ordinance to establish more con-
trol.
Mr. Okerstrom: I would like to point out that there was a petition a short
while ago requesting a PS zone in this area and the property
owners asked that it be denied.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
#3- -61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-501 as submitted by Perry & Bahen, attorneys for Rev.
Father Edward Pilarowsky of St. Damian's parish for a change of
zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 from RUFB to C-1, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition Z-501 be denied for the following reasons:
(a) it is a request for spot zoning, the nearest commercial zoning
being 930 feet away;
(b) if denied it will discourage other land owners in the area to
ask for similar treatment of their land. Being largely built up,
if granted, the consequence would be an area of 120 ft. deep
commercial zoning which results in too many buildings and too
little parking;
1[40 (c) new houses have very recently been erected along both sides of
Joy Road, thus negativirg any argument that the land cannot be
sold for residential uses;
Mr. Walker: Any discussion on the motion?
Mr. Cameron: I would like to ask that the following reason be added to
motion:
The area is too small for sufficient parking for the .
requested use.
Mr. Okerstrom and Mr. Watson agreed to the additional reason for denying the petition.
The resolution now stated:
#3-54-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-501 as submitted by Perry & Bahen, attorneys for Rev.
Father Edward Pilarowsky of St. Damian's parish for a change of
zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35 from RUFB to C-1, the
City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that Petition Z-501 be denied for the following reasons:
(a) it is a request for spot zoning, the nearest commercial zoning
being 930 feet away;
(b) if denied it will discourage other land owners in the area to
ask for similar treatment of their land. Being largely built up,
1[40 if granted, the consequence would be an area of 120 ft. deep
commercial z ning which results in too many buildings and too
little parking;
(c) new houses have very recently been erected along both sides of
Joy Road, thus negativing any argument that the land cannot be
sold for residential uses;
(d) the area is too small for sufficient parking for the requested use, and
3135
RESOLVED FURTHER, notice of the above hearing was published in the
official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of February 22, 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, Greene, Watson, Angevine, Okerstrom and
Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-502 by the City
Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 4.45 of Article 4.00 of the Zoning Ordinance No. 60
by changing the type of protective wall required by the
ordinance.
Mr. Peacock: This is in addition to what we already have in the ordinance.
Right?
McCullough: Yes, that is so. It is in addition to the other two types
4 of walls required. The petitioner could use either type.
. Peacock: I would like it to read "precast protective wall".
It was determined that the specifications indicated this.
Mr. Okerstrom: Should the painting be specified as a requirement?
Mr. Cameron: I feel that after it is erected the people themselves would
paint it without it being required.
It was determined that the present existing walls are not painted, and that once it is
painted, it has to be repainted.
Mr. Angevine: I do not think it should be part of the requirement at all.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Cameron and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-55-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Petition Z-502 as submitted by the City Planning Commission to
determine whether or not Section 4.45 of Article 4.00 of the
Zoning Ordinance No. 60 should be amended so as to include a
third type of permitted wall construction in addition to concrete
and hard burned brick, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the ordinance be amended to
permit the flexicore type of wall according to the attached
specifications, for the following reasons:
•
3136
I: (1) that the type of construction envisioned here will permit
sections of the wall to be repaired with minimum effort;
(2) that this will tend to reduce the per lineal foot cost of
the required wall from $12.00 to $9.50 without sacrificing the
purpose of the wall;
(3) that this type of construction will permit tunneling under
the wall for sewer and water connections with a minimum of
expense, and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of February
22, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit
Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan
Bell Telephone Company, The Consumers Power Company, City
Departments and petitioners as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is proposed College Gardens
Subdivision submitted by John T. Murphy and located on the
North side of Six Mile Road approximately 1350 feet West of
Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 9.
Letters have been received from the Police Department dated
March 10, 1961; from the Parks & Recreation Department and
li: Bureau of Inspection dated March 13, 1961 and from the Livonia
Fire Department dated March 14, 1961.
Mr. John Murphy and Mr. Wivo were present.
There was a lengthy discussion on the submitted plat and a new variation of this plat
which had not been examined by the different departments as yet. The petitioner
was asking permission to have less than 75 ft. on the frontage of those lots on the
eyebrows and cul-de-sacs. These particular lots had an average frontage of 68 ft.
with approximately 14,000 sq. ft. in the lot. Mr. McCullough explained that this
subdivision would have a service drive on Six Mile Rcad similar to the one in the
Burton Hollows Subdivision. It was also felt that there should be a barrier between
the service drive and Six Mile Road.
Mr. Murphy: I would like to scale these lots down so as not to have so
much area in the lots.
Mr. Walker: You mean, bring them all down?
Mr. Murphy: Wherever there is an eyebrow or a cul-de-sac.
Mr. McCullough: I suggested Mr. Murphy receive approval from the Planning
Commission to cut these lots down before submitting a new
plat.
Mr. Walker: Do you see anything wrong in doing this?
Mr. McCullough: No, it is generally done.
Mr. Peacock: I would like to have him draw up a revised plat to submit
to us to show us what kind of a street pattern he would
have with the eyebrows and cul-de-sacs.
3137
Ur.
Okerstrom: If you are going to change the plat submitted to us, it
will require another public hearing, right?
Mr. Forrest: As long as you air out any possible objection or as long
as the final plat has one of the things you are discussing
tonight, you would not be required to hold another public
hearing.
Mr. McCullough: Would the Planning Commission be agreeable to cutting down
the frontage of these lots, as long as the petitioner
maintains 80 ft. at the building line which is in effect
25 ft. behind the lot line?
Mr. Walker: As long as he maintains at least 68 ft. at the lot line.
Mr. McCullough: The submitted plat has a half street in it with the school
owning property across the street. The difficulty with
this is that the school will not pave the other half.
Mr. Watson: We are talking about cutting down the dimension of the
front of the lot. Are we bound by this decision for
future plats? Cutting down to 68 ft. ?
Mr. Forrest: This is for advisement only. It all depends on whether you
will approve or disapprove the plat when it is brought
forward again.
.IL
Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Donald Burns: I would like to raise a question. I have the property to
34850 Six Mile Road) the west. It was approved by the commission. At that time
I was compelled to put thrct'gh an E/W . street because of
the length of the blocks. I lost several lots on that
account. Why isn't it required for this plat. Their
length is even greater.
Mr. McCullough: This plat has not been corrected as yet. When the revised
plat is submitted the streets in the plat will have to tie
in with those streets already existing.
Mr. Walker: When this plat is submitted again, give us a site plan so
we can see how Mr. Burns' property fits in with your plat.
Mr. Burns, you will be notified when a new plat is submitted.
Mr. Murphy, I would like to suggest that you submit your
plat at least two weeks before it is to be scheduled for
a meeting.
Mr. D. Hermann, 34810 Evelyn objected to the proposed subdivision because of the
aved streets and sewers. He stated they understood at the time they pur€ ased their
roperty that there would be gravel roads and septic tanks. He felt that newesub-
ivisionswould obligate him to tap into the sewer and to pave his portion of the
street at a great expense.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until there has
been a revised plat submitted to the commission.
3138
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was
E
#3-56-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby duly
adjourn the public hearing held on Tuesday, March 14, 1961 at
approximately 9:30 p.m.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Peacock, Greene, Watson, Angevine, Okerstrom and
Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the public hearing is hereby
adjourned.
Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 9:31 p.m.
* * * *
Mr. Walker called the 125th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 9:37 p.m. with
all those present now who were present at the time recess was called.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the Regular Meeting is Petition Z-489 by
Kenneth Ockerman asking that the zoning classification of
property located on the East side of Farmington approximately
400 ft. North of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 22 be rezoned from RUFB to P-1. Public Hearing 2/21/61
1110 item taken under advisement. At the public hearing Mr.
Ockerman was advised to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals
to obtain permission to locate his protective wall on land
zoned for parking. Our legal department has informed Mr.
Ockerman that this step is unnecessary and the wall can be
erected regardless of zoning.
Mr. Peacock: Is Mr. Ockerman aware that he has to put a protective wall
at the rear and the north side of the property?
Mr. Ockerman: Yes, I know that, but how far to the front does the wall
have to be erected?
Mr. Walker: I believe the Inspection Department asks that it be brought
up to the property line.
Mr. Okerstrom: Which wall would he erect? The one presently required in
the ordinance or the new type we just approved?
Mr. McCullough: If he doesn't start now - he can probably put up the new type.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-57-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, February 21, 1961 on Petition Z-489 as submitted by
Kenneth Ockerman for a change of zoning in the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 22 from RUFB to P-1, the City Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-489 be
granted subject to the following condition:
3139
(a) that the petitioner has agreed to erect the protective wall
on the north property line of the proposed P-1 zoning, sub-
ject to the Planning Commission receiving a letter confirming
said agreement,
and approved for the following reasons:
(1) it will permit the applicant to park considerably more
autos on his own land than is required by law which is a policy
the City Planning Commission wishes to encourage;
(2) the parking will serve as a buffer between the residence
to the north and the commercial use to the south; and
FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in
the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of February
1, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison
Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, The Consumers Power Company, City Departments and
petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next 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;
submitted by Warner & Warner for Woodbury Building Company.
Public Hearing 3/7/61, item taken under advisement.
Mr. Richard Bleznak was present.
Mr. McCullough: Mr. Bleznak can tell the Commission the results of his
discussion with the property owners who objected at the
public hearing about being landlocked in due to this
proposed subdivision.
Mr. Bleznak, would you be willing to abstain from building
on one lot in the event that a road is put through?
Mr. Bleznak: No. These two property owners who objected to being land-
locked were directly contacted at the very outset of the
original Lyndon Meadows Subdivision and refused to sell at
that time. Mr. H. Wright personally contacted these owners
several times.
Mr. Okerstrom: I examined this property and found out that the people who
objected at the public hearing had been approached at the
time Id radon Meadows was started. There was another property
owner brae of these owners didn't want to sell and the other
one wanted an exorbitant price for the land which didn't
make it feasible to buy it. Because of this, I do not feel
that Mr. Bleznak should be obligated now.
Mr. Walker: If this is the case then I don't see how we can hold up
this developer. The fact that they had been contacted at
the time the orignal subdivision went in had not been
brought out at the public hearing.
} 3140
Er. McCullough: These property owners are not being land. locked. Mr. Bleznak
has shown a possible scheme to subdivide this property
if they ever subdivide their property.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Wright, have these people ever come to you to buy their
property?
Mr. Wright: No, they have not.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously
adopted, it was
#3-58-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, March 7, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby
give approval to the preliminary plat of the Lyndon Estates Sub-
division located on the East side of Melvin approximately 400 ft.
north of Schoolcraft in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23, 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 a
notice having been sent to the Building Department, Superintendent
of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, Parks & Recreation
Department and Members of the Plat Committee.
Er. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is
adopted.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda 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. Public
hearing 3/7/61, item taken under advisement.
Mr. Walker: I have been asked by the petitioner to hold this up for
another week. Apparently there is some further information
he would like to submit to us which is not available at
this time. We have received a letter from the Engineering
Department on the matter of the sewers.
This item will be taken under further advisement.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a reconsideration of Petition
Z-493 by the City Planning Commission asking that the zoning
classification of property located on the South side of
Seven Mile Road on the Southwest corner of Seven Mile Road
and Stamford in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 9 be rezoned
from C-1 to R-1A. At the meeting held on 2/21/61 the
Planning Commission recommended that it be revised to R-lA,
because of the size of the parcel. The land owner was unable
IL: to attend the meeting and has requested that the Planning
Commission give him a chance to be heard on leaving it PS.
The lot is 80' x 150' . The buildable portion would be 50'
150' - 30' being the additional dedication for Stamford
St.
Dr. Joseph L. Rasak, owner of the property in question was present.
3141
Dr. Rasak explained that the plans for the clinic have been drawn up and they leave
adequate room for parking. Mr. McCullough asked him how many doctors would be in
the clinic. Dr. Rasak answered that there would be one or two doctors at the most
and there would be sufficient parking for the doctors, other employees and the
patients.
Mr. McCullough suggested that Dr. Rasak submit a plan to the Planning Commission
office for approval, showing the building and parking. Dr. Rasak stated he would
do so.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes
for the meeting held on Tuesday, February 21, 1961.
It was determined that the minutes had not been mailed out in time for the commissioners
to read them. This would be taken care of at the next meeting.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is an one-year extension on
Lyndon Meadows Subdivision #4 = located West of Middlebelt
Road and North of Schoolcraft in the Southeast 1/4 of
Section 23, requested by Warner & Warner for Oakview Homes,
Inc.
It was determined that the preliminary approval on this plat had elapsed which
necessitates another public hearing on the subdivision. Mr. McCullough stated he
would inform Warner & Warner of this so that they may submit the necessary plats.
I4P. on a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously
pproved, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 125th Regular Meeting
eld on Tuesday, March 14, 1961 at approximately 10:05 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
0)/ (/ (-:;2J%4? -;:,--;)
W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
09421"-
l.�
Cha es W. Walker, Chairman