Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-05-23 • 3181 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 127TH REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 23, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 127th Regular Meeting at the Engineering Building, 13325 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:00 p.m. Members present: Dennis Anderson, Robert L. Angevine, W. E. Okerstrom, James Watson, Jr. , James Cameron and Charles W. Walker Members absent : **Leonard K. Kane, Robert L. Greene and Robert M. Peacock Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner, was present along with approximately 15 in- terested persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-508 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the South side of Schoolcraft Road approximately 1,000 ft. West of Inkster Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2 and/or P. It has been determined by the Department of Law that it is not necessary to change the zoning on this property because the proposed use is permissible under the existing zoning A motion of withdrawal is in order. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #5-85-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-508 as submitted by the City Planning Commission for a change of zoning in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 25 from M-2 to C-2 and/or P, the City Planning Commission does hereby withdraw Petition Z-508 for the reason that it has been determined by the Department of Law that the intended use is permissible under the existing zoning and therefore a public hearing is unnecessary, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of May 3, 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: Watson, Cameron, Anderson, Angevine, Okerstrom and Walker 11[: 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-507 by William Nern for P. Acitelli and R. Vindegar who is asking that the zoning classification of property 3182 located approximately 360 ft. South of Eight Mile Road and approximately 300 ft. East of Osmus in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 3 be rezoned from RUFB to M-1. Mr. McCullough presented a proposed plot plan of this area designating an additional 150 ft. in depth for industry rather than the 300 ft. requested in the petition. He stated that the petitioner was agreeable to erecting an opaque fence or a chain link fence around the area he intends to use as storage. Mr. Walker: If we approve this proposed plan, there would be a depth of 450 ft. of industrial zoning with 150 ft. remaining in the one lot which could be developed into residential. Mr. McCullough: We have been working with the civic associations in this area and I believe that this proposed plan is one that some of them would like to see in this area. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Charles Forrest, Assistant City Attorney arrived at approximately 8:05 p.m. Mr. Doughs Harma: I represent some of the property owners in that neighborhood. 20281 Osmus) I live directly across the street. I have a petition signed by 100% of the people who have property adjoining it on all sides who are against the rezoning. We have a taste of industry with what is presently there. Mr. Walker: Would the representative of the petitioner please come forward? Mr. Nern: I am the attorney for Mr. Acitelli and Mr. Vidergar on this petition. Mr. McCullough: Indicate to the Planning Commission what the petitioner is going to do if the rezoning is granted? Mr. Nern: At the present time this property is unuseable and we would like to erect a building, a tool type building on the order of what is there now. We are cramped for storage space and we could use part for open storage subject to any ordinances of the city. The property as it is situated has no residential market value. Mr. Acitelli has tried to get others interested in developing it for residential but when they find out where it is they won'ttouch it because there are no sewers. The sewers are on Eight Mile Road but there are none south of Eight Mile Road. Mr. McCullough: You intend to erect another plant? Mr. Nern: We have no specific plans but it would be whatever a prospective purchaser would like and also in accordance with the building and off-street parking requirements. 1[0 Mr. McCullough: Are you using the land behind the building now? Mr. Acitelli: No, not much, no trucks. Mr. Harma: There is a junk truck there at this time; they only use this land for a dump. 3183 Mr. Walker: Mr. Nern, are you familiar with the proposed plan as sub- mitted by W. McCullough? Are you in accordance with the Commission to rezone this property for the depth as shown on the map or are you in disagreement with this? Mr. Nern: Instead of the 300 ft. we have asked for, you are suggesting rezoning 150 ft. Any relief you give us is welcomed. We would agree to this. It doesn't solve all our problems but we would not be in disagreement. It would be desirable to have the whole 300 ft. rezoned as we have shown in our petition. Mr. Watson: I would like to know where the RUF ends and the M-1 ends. Mr. McCullough explained the proposed plan to Mr. Watson. Mr. Acetelli: I have tried to sell it but no one will touch it because of the sewer problem. Mr. Walker: Would the additional depth of 150 ft. alleviate some of your problems? Mr. Acetelli: I could put up a fence with the extra 150 ft. and it would be more desirable looking. Cameron: Do you intend to erect a second plant? Mr. Acetelli: Yes, later on. Mr. Nern submitted photographs of the surrounding area to the commission for their examination. He introduced a Mr. Gravendike who submits appraisels for the FHA. Mr. Nern had had him appraise the property and he informed the Commission that the additional rezoning would only depreciate the surrounding property slightly. It would not effect the houses on Osmus too much due to the irregular line of the industrial area. Mr. Walker: In all fairness to all concerned we are aware of the fact of the effect of industrial encroaching into the residential. We would like to see a uniform line of industrial zoning and we realize the property owners are concerned with how it will effect their residences. We have reviewed this with the pur- pose of establishing an industrial zone with a proper buffer allowing the property fronting on Eight Mile Road to be developed in size so that it would be in a useable size for selling or development. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. V. Reddy: On behalf of the Northwestern Livonia Civic Association I 19938 Shadyside) think you know that we are working on an overall plan for this area. We are really perturbed with this because for a mile and a half the M-1 zone has been 300 ft. in depth ever since Livonia became a city and I think in moving back you are esta- blishing a precedent and it would only be fair to the other property owners to let them move back also. We have many areas zoned M-1 which are adjacent to RUF and R-1 so that you are always going to be faced with the problem of industry next to residential. 3184 Mr. Walker: Have you been able to spend any time on the other problem 1[40 which we discussed at the study session? (Mr. Walker was referring to Petition 2-495 rezoning certain property in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 3) . Mr. Reddy: We are surveying all the property owners in the area and have,at the present time, 60 petitions out now. (Mr. Reddy presented a copy of the survey to Mr. Walker and the Commission.) Mr. Walker: This Commission would like to establish a very definite industrial line along Eight Mile Road. This line won't necessarily be a straight line because it will have to go around already developed land. We would like to have you keep this in mind while you are working on this. Mr. Reddy: We are asking for opinions on various depths in our survey in order to obtain the feelings of the people in the area. Most of the land between Merriman and Farmington is owned by the residential owners. They own the property their house is on and also an additional acre or so. It will have to be a pretty attractive plan to protect the people in the back of industrial zoning. We gave them the liberty of choosing something less and are not talking with them to try and influence them. 1[40 Mr. McCullough: It may be wise to have a meeting with Mr. Acetelli and the objecting property owners to determine if something could be worked out to satisfy the majority. Mr. Walker: The Commission would like to study it further among them- selves and possibly meet with the petitioner and the other property owners. The question was asked what did the commission consider a fair frontage depth of industrial zoning along Eight Mile Road? Mr. Walker: At this time the Commission does not know the best frontage depth. We do not want to determine it for just two parcels and forget the rest of the prcperty. If we determine it to be 300 ft, 400 ft. or 600 ft. , we would like to determine the entire frontage along Eight Mile Road. If there is no further discussion from the floor and the Commission, the Chair will take this under advisement at this time. Mr. Nern asked that he be notified the next time this item was on the agenda. Mr. Walker stated he would be notified by the secretary. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-221 by F. Bracy, 1[40 agent for Sun Oil Company requesting approval to erect a gasoline service station on property located on the Southwest ccrner of Five Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21. Mr. Clarence Jahn, 33533 Five Mile Road, was present for the petitioner. 3165 Mr. McCullough: It should be noted that the site plan presented failed to 1[40 comply with the gasoline station standards with regard to two • matters: First, insufficient set back which the petitioner has agreed to remedy. Secondly, the southerly approach is not located at least 15 feet from the south property line. The City Attorney has advised me that this particular standard was not intended to cover the intersection of two mile roads where no residence is located nearby. It was meant to cover a situation where a residence is located on the lot adjacent to the filling station and is intended to keep moving vehicles at least this far from the residence. The petitioner was informed also of the fact that any approval does not grant the right to erect pump islands within the right of way of either Five Mile or Farmington Roads as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. McCullough suggested that since the set back must be increased, the petitioner may also want to reconsider placing the pump islands further south. Mr. Jahn stated that he did not own the property on the corner at the present time but if he received approval for the gas station he wanted to purchase it. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? The 70' x 70' parcel on the corner is too small for use con- sidering the set back and off-street parking requirements and IL: it is apparent that it would have to be developed with other property around it. Mr. Okerstrom: Is there enough area surrounding this parcel to be able to leave it out and develop the other? Mr. Jahn: No, there isn't sufficient room. Mr. Okerstrom: Has the right-of-way on Five Mile and Farmington Roads been dedicated? Mr. McCullough: Only 33 ft. have been dedicated on both streets. Mr. Okerstrom: Any fence of some type? Mr. Jahn: No, but there are guard posts, like a bumper guard. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #5-86-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, May 23, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-221 by F. Bracy, agent for Sun Oil Company, requesting approval to erect a gasoline service station on the Southwest corner of Five Mile and Farmington Roads in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 21, and 1[40 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. 1 3186 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kane, Watson, Cameron, Anderson, 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-505 by E. P. Burnside and Aaron Martin who are asking that the zoning classification of property located on the West side of Middlebelt Road, approximately 300 ft. North of Schoolcraft in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 be rezoned from RUFB to C-2. Mr. Burnside was present. Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Burnside to inform the commission what he intended to use the property for after it is rezoned. Mr. Burnside: I have had two or three inquiries in the past six months from retail stores who are interested in this property. It is zoned commercial across the street and on the opposite corner there is a race track with a gas station on the remaining corner. Mr. McCullough: What will you do with the house immediately north of the gas station? Mr. Burnside: That will be removed. I am only speaking for Lot 14 and 15. I am not speaking for Mr. Martin who owns the remaining lots in petition. Mr. Martin was not present. It was determined that the rezoning of this property would further extend the commercial 300 ft. north of the present commercial zone. Also that the property across Middlebelt was zoned R-3 although platted into single homes. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mrs. Carolyn Wilson: I own Lot 16 immediately north of this property. I am 14087 Middlebelt Rd) definitely against this rezoning. I have lived there 15 years and I'd like to see it remain as it is. There is traffic but it doesn't bother me that much. Mr. Edward Hoffman: (Representative from the Lyndon Meadows Civic Association) 30107 Bentley) Everything is so indefinite. Will it be a bar, or a beer store. We have no assurance that it will be a super market. Mr. Walker: If this Commission should rezone this property, there are many uses allowed that would not necesaarily need the approval of the planning commission. Mrs. Wilaon: Mr. Martin informed me that he did not wish to go ahead with this rezoning. Mr. Cameron: I would like to hear from Mr. Martin on this petition since we have been informed that he no longer wishes to go ahead with this rezoning. 3187 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #5-87-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Petition Z-505 by E. P. Burnside and Aaron Martin for a change of zoning in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 from RUFB to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition Z-505 be denied for the following reasons: (1) the extended commercial would face the residential lots in Lawr-El Subdivision located along the east side of Middlebelt Rd. (2) the petitioners presently have commercial property which they are not using; (3) if granted it will tend to induce land owners to the north to ask that the same treatment be applied to them, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was published in the official newspaper, The Livonian, under date of May 3, 1961 and notice of which hearing was sent to The Detroit Edison Co. , Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. , Michigan Bell Telephone Co. , The Consumers Power Co. , City Departments and petitioner as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Kane: I do not want to add to the resolution but I would like to point out that there is a sufficient amount of C-2 along Schoolcraft to the east and because of this, I do not see any need for additional C-2 zoning. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kane, Watson, Cameron, Anderson, Angevine, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motbn is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-222 by Carl W. Riegal requesting approval for open-air display for rental of trailers, etc. on property located on the South side of Schoolcraft Road, approximately 200 feet East of Merriman in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 26. Mr. Riegal was present. Mr. McCullough: We have been informed by the Department of Law that it will be necessary for Mr. Riegal to have a separate building on the lot, that he can not use the gas station as the building required under ordinance. Mr. Riegal: I did not realize this at the time the petition was submitted. I did suggest fencing in the whole parcel with a six foot fence as the ordinance requires and in that case my gas station would be inside of the boundary lines. The question was asked if this was to be strictly for the rental of trailers? Mr. Riegal stated it would also include the rental of roto tillers, etc. • 3188 Mr. Angevine: Won't a wall be required since this abuts residential property? 1[40 Mr. McCullough: Yes, it would be necessary. Mr. Walker: When we first discussed this, we forwarded it to the City Attorney for his opinion on whether or not a separate building would be necessary. The petitioner had thought that the gas station building would be sufficient. But the Department of Law feels that this is a separate business from the gas station. Mr. Okerstrom: We couldn't allow open air sales without a building being built? Mr. McCullough: The Planning Commission can approve the petition providing he meets the requirements and if necessary, he may have to go to the zoning board of appeals. Mr. Forrest: The requirement of the building would be within the juris- diction of the Building Department and they would have to see that this is done. You can approve the use and then he could go to the zoning board of appeals to allow him to not to have to build his building. Your approval would be contingent on the required ordinance. It was determined that a wall would be necessary on the east and south side of his 1[40 property. Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Wm. White: I would like to object. This is not a permissible use under 31341 Schoolcraft) C-1 zoning. It was determined that open air sales are allowed in C-1 upon the approval of the City Planning Commission. Mr. Forrest: The zoning board of appeals can go along with hardship of the land but not financial hardship. Mr. White: I did not know of the ordinance requiring greenbelts being amended so as to require a protective wall instead. I would prefer a greenbelt rather than a wall. Mr. McCullough: Would you gentlemen prefer that the petitioner go to the zoning board of appeals first before making a decision? Mr. Angevine: They might discuss it but they wouldn't act upon it without the action of the Planning Commission first. Mr. Walker: We could give a "denial without prejudice" and recommend that the petitioner go to the zoning board of appeals. 1[40 Mr. McCullough: They wouldn't act upon it at all if the Planning Commission denies it. Mr. Anderson: It should be approved subject to the requirements of the Ordinance being met. 3189 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Cameron supported by Mt. Anderson, it was 1[11; #5-88-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday, May 23, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-222 by Carl W. Riegel requesting approval for open-air display for rental of trailers, etc, 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. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Anderson and Walker NAYS: Angevine, Kane and Okerstrom Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. A-Mr. Wrightman, 8814 Georgetown, Detroit read an opinion of a court case on a similar item to the commission. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-506 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Sections 10.17 and 11.19 of Article 10.00 and 11.00 respectively. This is in relation tocommercial set-back. Mr. Walker: Is. there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Whitson, representative of the Speedway Gas Company, asked for what reason was this petition proposed by the City Planning Commission? Mr. Walker: It would result in a better and a more uniform development of commercial buildings and it will allow more area for front parking. This was some of the thought behind it. Even with presently required 40 ft. set back, it is being waivered for different reasons and it results in a problem of off-street parking. Mr. Whitson: This would be required for gas stations also? Mr. Walker: Anything in commercial zones. 11[: Mr. Whitson: In building a gas station, we find it better to build the station up front enough so that it will be on display to the oncoming traffic. Sometimes the sign will not do the job as much as a clean, neat service station can when seen from the road. This would be difficult with a sixty- foot setback. Mr. McCullough: This may be a valid objection. This proposed amendment was intended more for the store type commercial. Mr. Walker: We may have to amend this to eliminate certain uses. Mr. Whitson: If it is adopted, I believe that the gas stations would have to go to the zoning board of appeals for a variance. 3190 Mr. Watson: This could apply, for instance, to a restaurant also. They like to be seen. 1[40 Mr. David Lewis: There might be some possibility that you might prefer to have parking at the rear instead of the front, for instance, an office building. Mr. McCullough: I would like to suggest that this be taken under advisement and I will try to draw up a suitable amendment. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Okerstrom, it was #5-89-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing at approximately 9:40 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23, 1961 A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kane, Watson, Cameron, Anderson, Angevine, 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. * * * * * * * li: Mr. Walker called the 127th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 9:55 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time the recess was called. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request dated May 1, 1961 from Henry Koloff for one-year extension on Koloff's Sunnyside Estates Subdivision located on the North side of Schoolcraft Road and South of Five Mile approximatd.y 2,000 ft. East of Levan Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 20 and the Southwest 1/4 of Section 21. Preliminary approval granted 3/1/60. Special Meeting 5/16/61, item taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough: I have not been able to contact Mr. Koloff in connection with the unplatted land to the west of his subdivision. It might be wise to take this under advisement for another week. Mr. Walker: This item is taken under advisement until the next meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a request dated March 29, 1961 from David Lewis for one-year extension on Bai-Lynn Park Subdivision 6, 7 and 8 located East of Merriman Road and North of Schoolcraft Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23. Taken under advisement on 4/11/61, 4/18/61 and 5/16/61. Mr. McCullough explained the situation in relation to the required turn-around I: driveways on certain lots fronting on Schoolcraft in the Bai-Lynn Park Subdivision. Mr. Lewis is now asking for a year's extension on #6, 7 and 8. He has not erected or installed the turn-arounds as yet although he has sold some of them to other builders. He has informed the office of the Planning Commission that the other builder has stated in writing that he will in turn put in the turn-around driveways at the time the houses are sold. • 3191 Mr. Lewis confirmed that he had sold three of the lots - the balance he has retained. When the three lots were sold the turn-around agreement was sold along with the deed. He read the condition of the deed to the commission. He further stated that the reason for not installing the turn-arounds when the models were built is that the purchaser is apt to think that the turn-around is included in all models. Mr. Walker: This question was asked of the City Attorney and he said that with this in the resolution of approval that it would be necessary that the turn-around be installed before the building is occupied. The condition that is in the approval of the plat pertaining to the turn-around would be valid and binding. (this was also stated in a letter Mr. Lewis forwarded to the City in July, 1959.) Mr. Cameron: You sold three lots; are they subject to the turn-around driveways also? Mr. Lewis: The purchaser is obligated to put in the turn-arounds, it is in the deed. Mr. McCullough: The City has no way of compelling the buyer to do so. It is a covenant to the buyer and not to the City. We can not force them to do so. It is a contract between you, Mr. Lewis, and the purchaser. In other words, you could be the only one that could force them to do so. The City can not. 1[40 How soon will the hard backs of this subdivision be in if this extension is granted? Mr. Lewis: Immediately. Mr. Walker: Do you have any objection to putting the turn-arounds in now? Mr. Lewis: Yes, because they are models. When they are sold we will put in the turn-arounds. The buyer will get the impression that they are included in the price if they are installed now. Mr. Walker: Is that the main reason for not putting in the turn arounds now? Mr. Lewis: Yes. It was determined that final approval will be asked for Subdivision #6 and 7. But not #8. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #5-90-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the 127th Regular Meeting held on Tuesday, May 23, 1961, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant the request submitted by M . David Lewis for a one year extension on Bai-Lynn Park Subdivisions #6, 7 and 3, subject 1[40to any conditions prevailing. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Watson, Angevine, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None NOT VOTING: Cameron 3192 The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Walker:IL: The Ohio he The next item on the agenda is Petition M-214 by Mr. McCullough: Oil Company requesting permission to erect a gasoline service station on the Northwest corner of Plymouth and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23. Public hearing 1/10/31, item 123 rd Regular Meeting, 1/17/31, taken under advisement; item taken under advisement; 123th Special , Meeting, 2/7/6 item withdrawn, reason incorrect zoning; (This is for a 611, re- consideration - zoning was approved by City Council) re resentative of the Ohio Oil Company was present. Mr. Whitson, p n. Mr. McCullough explained the situation the aso�1theo40 f�en setthis ba k requiredand petition him originally came up there was some discussion the set back waivered. They turned Mr. Whitson thought he would prefer to get beco e down at the Board of Appeals. Since that time the standards haveds become effectiasking ve in' relation-�to gas stations. Mr. Whitson was shown the or variance on the set back requirement. The n streetwhich 15,000 ,0S00csq. ft. the could he could in area with 150 ft. frontage along a commercial Plymouth Road. Mr. McCullough felt that Mr. Whitson would be hard pressed; ym not comply with this standard. This item was withdrawn at one time. Does this require another Mr. Okerstrom: public hearing? Mr. McCullough:h: We are bound now by these standards. He wwing uldthasento have li: y another hearing and have a drawing according to the new standards. Mr. Whitson: We could comply with the requirements but we would have to use some of the right- ay fr ithptheosed Wayne ordinance asait is. We comply know we would have to plY w written. Mr. McCullough: What about the 150 ft. frontage required? Mr. Whitson: If we are going to stay out of the road right-of-way, we have only 132 ft. frontage and obviously we can not comply with the 150 ft. frontage required. In our discussion with the Wayne County Road Commission I received the impression that they do not know when the road will be p Hall throuh owns feel that we have a moral obligation to Mr. W. whonot- the property. I would like to see us buy the property when this roadway will go through but with this new ordinancedng alt standards and the fact that we new including itives us a good way out of the deal. can not comply with them, g The difficulty is in the fact that there is au oed a uselon0th sq. Mr. McCullough: property. It could not be counted in ft.area. As long as the house lbethere included in the required The roadway right-of-way would 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Walker: I suggest that when you can comply with the new ordinance, come back to us and we will consider it for action. If you can't comply, we can let it stand as it is. 3193 Mr. Watson: We ought to get an answer as soon as possible in order that we may rezone this property back to C-1. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for the meeting held on Tuesday, April 18, 1961. Mr. Cameron: I have a correction. On Page 3156,it states the motion for Resolution #4=73=61 was made by Mr. Kane. I would like the records to read that it was made by me and not Mr. Kane. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Kane, it was #5-91-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, April 18, 1961 as corrected by Mr. Cameron, except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kane, Cameron, Watson, Anderson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None NOT NOTING: Angevine Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the minutes are approved as corrected. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Anderson, it was IL: #5-92-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant request dated May 18, 1961 from Nelson Homes, Inc. for a one- year extension on proposed Denmar Estates Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8 subject to all conditions in the preliminary approval. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Watson, Anderson, Angevine, Kane, Okerstrom , and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Angevine and unanimously adopted, it was #5-93-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby grant request dated May 18, 1961 from Nelson Homes, Inc. for a one- year extension on proposed Pickford Gardens Subdivision located in the Northwest and Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, subject to all conditions in the preliminary approval. Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. 3194 Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously adopted, Iro the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 127th kegular Meeting held on Tuesday, May 23, 1961 at approximately 10:35 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 6°1 W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary ATTESTED: 4Char s W. Walker, Chairman