Loading...
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