HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1961-06-06 3195
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE
131ST SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
I[: On Tuesday, June 6, 1961 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held a
public hearing and the 131st Special Meeting at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five
Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman called the public
hearing to order at approximately 8:00 p.m.
Members present: Leonard K. Kane, W. E. Okerstrom, Robert M. Peacock, James
Watson, Jr., James Cameron and Charles W. Walker
Members absent: *Robert L. Greene, **Dennis Anderson and Robert L. Angevine
Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner, was present along with approximately twenty-
five interested persons in the audience.
Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Petition Z-509 by the City
Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to rezone property
located (1) approximately 300 ft. South of Lyndon and East
of Henry Ruff; (2) located East of Henry Ruff Road and
approximately 900 ft. North of Schoolcraft, both parcels in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 23 and (3)located on the West
side of Henry Ruff between Lyndon and Schoolcraft in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 23; from RUFB to RLA.
Mr. Jacob Menuck.vas present and asked that this matter along with the next item,
Petition Z-511 be postponed until later in the evening for the reason that his attorney,
Mr. Goldman, had been delayed and had not arrived as yet.
Mr. Walker advised those present that Petitions Z-509 and Z-511 would be brought back
later in the evening.
**Mr. Dennis Anderson arrived at 3:06 p.m.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-510 by Theodore
Zukosky for the Felician Sisters, who is requesting that
the zoning classification of property located on the South
side of Five Mile Road and on the East side of Newburgh Road
beginning approximately 800 ft. West of Levan Road and ending
just north of Jamison Avenue in the North half of Section 20
be rezoned from R-2 to C-2.
Mr. Theodore Zukosky was present.
Mr. Zukosky: The Wayne Country Drain Commission wantsa right-of-way on
the Felician Sisters property. They originally proposed a
60 foot wide ditch running parallel to Newburgh, running
north to Five Mile Road and parallel to Five Mile Road past
the hospital. The ditch would be 60 x 15. We came up with
this alternate proposition to permit the drain to come in
the back of the proposed commercial zoning which would then
not necessitate this ditch due to the terrain dropping
I[: at that point. As to when the commercial would be developed,
I do not know, it may be a year or ten years from now. It
would have to be determined by the governing body of the
Felician Sisters.
Peacock: Can we make a decision on this item when Item #10 has not
3196
been acted upon as yet?
110 Mr. Walker: We will have to dispose of this as an item by itself.
Do we have a letter from the Wayne County Drain Commission
on this?
It was determined that no letter had been received but that the information given
tonight was correct.
Mr. McCullough: How wide and how deep is the ditch?
Mr. Zukosky: About 6 ft. deep and approximately 10 to 12 ft. wide.
Mr. Walker: What effect would the widening and deepening of the ditch
have on the property in relation to the zoning?
Mr. Zukosky: This drain will isolate the property from any practical
use by the Felician Sisters. At the present time it runs
adjacent to the hospital. Wayne County has stated it will
tile the drain.
Mr. Walker: As this time do you have any information as to when this
ditch will be cleaned out and expanded in the area?
Mr. Zukosky: If the Planning Commission and the City Council approve
the rezoning, it should be underway in about 30 days.
Mr. Walker: You feel that the approval of this is contingent to the
granting of the easement?
Mr. Zukosky: The granting of right-of-way is contingent to the zoning
change. This will be a permanent easement which will be
dedicated.
The City Council instructed us to submit a petition for
rezoning this property. They felt this was the best way
to take care of this problem.
Mr. Walker: We have never been petitioned for a rezoning whereby a
granting of a rezoning is contingent to the easement being
granted.
Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Peacock: I would like to have this taken under advisement until we
can take care of Item #10. Perhaps later in the evening
after Item #10 is taken care of.
Mr. Okerstrom: Who has the power to designate where the drain will go? The
City Council?
W. Walker: I think they are merely following the natural contour of
the existing drain and it has been approved by the Engineering
Department of the City and also the County Engineering.
Mr. Zukosky presented the proposed plan of the drain that had been approved and with-
drawn in favor of the present plan, which the commissioners
•
3197
examined.
ILI Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement for further study.
Some of the commissioners would like to discuss it more fully.
We will be glad to notify the petitioner at the time of the
next meeting.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-81 by John Migut
who is requesting permission to remove sand, gravel and topsoil
from a portion of Parcel Illb, located on the North side of Seven
Mile Road approximately 650ft. East of Gill Road in the South-
east 1/4 of Section 4.
Recommendations have been received from the Police Department
and the Engineering Department.
Mr. Migut was present.
Mr. Walker: We have a petition that was submitted to us tonight with a number
of signatures of property owners who are protesting to this
removal.
Mr. Walker passed it around to the other members of the Commission to examine, and
then asked Mr. Peacock to give his report on his investigation of this removal.
Mr. Peacock: I am not prepared because I did not know which area was in-
": volved. I would like to have the opportunity to find out the
differences between the property owners who signed the petition
and the remover of the topsoil.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Phillip Barrett: According to the application this is for the removal of sand,
19630 Gill Road) gravel and topsoil. My property is adjacent to the property
from which it is to be removed. We covered the neighborhood
and obtained the signatures of those in our association. You
have that petition. We definitely object to this. This
property is zoned residential and we have seen the same type
of use before and certainly it is objectionable and it creates
a nuisance that does everything but beautify the community and
we want to object to it now.
Mr. Walker: You are protesting aginst the removal?
Mr. Barrett: Yes, 'it has been going on for a year and the remover is going
quite deep. It is anything but desirable.
Mr. Walker: How many houses on Gill Road immediately abutting this property?
How deep are your lots?
Mr. Barrett: Two houses, each 650 ft. in depth.
Mr. McCullough: How long will it take, Mr. Migut, to finish this operation?
Mr. Migut: To do the removal probably about a year, perhaps less.
Mr. McCullough: Why haven't you finished before this?
Mr. Migut: There has been no market for the topsoil.
3198
Mr. Joseph G. Vargo: This operation is hazardous to the youngsters in our neighbor-
( 19800 Gill Road) hood. We have had this noise for a year.
Mr. Richard Iltis: He is digging at the rear of my property now. It has been
33610 W. Seven Mile) going on for a year. Last winter there was a ditch 14 ft.
deep. It runs back from my property right straight back as
far as it can go before it hits the woods and I am strongly
opposing such a thing as this. I understand that he wants to
come up between Lloyd Gullen and myself.
Mr. Peacock explained the topo to the gentlemen in the audience.
Mr. Iltis: I have an objection to the whole thing. These trucks go
in and out seven days a week. Another thing, nothing will
grow, every bit of topsoil is being removed. And after it is
removed, the sand will blow.
Mr. Walker: Is there any sand blowing as yet?
Mr. Iltis: No.
Mr. Cameron: How far is the ditch from your property?
M Iltis: It is at the rear of my property.
Mrs. Iltis: I would like to object to the ditch. It is very deep and full
I[: of water. It is very dangerous for the children. The sand
blew very bad last year and the trucks go in and out all day
long.
Mr. Walker: We will have the Engineering Department and the Commission
members go out and examine this before any action is taken.
Mr. Okerstrom: Is there any water in the ditch now?
Mrs. Iltis: It was full three or four days ago. It is deep, a child
could drown in it.
Mr. Barrett: Last week it was filled. Maybe in the summer it wouldn't be.
Mr. Primo Pretrucci: I live across the strfiet. I agree with these people. It is
19066 Whitby) a nuisance. There is ditch there and I have seen plenty of
water a month ago plus the fact that the trucks come in and
out of the property and dump a lot of sand and mud on Seven
Mile Road. I will agree that the removal does continue on
Sunday. It doesn't add any beauty to the city.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Migut, is there any topsoil on the land?
Mr. Migut: There is one pile of topsoil which will be spread over the
area after the removal process is finished.
Irs An interested person in the audience representing the Helman Park Civic Association
stated that last winter an area approximately 400 x 450 was seeded in rye. It came
up during the summer but died during the winter.
Mr. Iltis: I have the property adjoining it. There is no topsoil left.
3199
Mr. Walker explained to the audience the method of removing the topsoil. He stated
a certain grade level must be maintained by the remover. If not-enough-is removed,
then the developer of the subdivision has to have it removed before he can start
to build. The City Engineering Department determines the grade level which is
usually based upon the proper elevation of the two cross streets, in this case,
Seven Mile and Farmington Roads.
Mr. Barrett: They are going down about four feet.
Mr. Migut: It is still above grade level.
*Mr. Robert L. Greene arrived at approximately 3:50 p.m.
Mr. Walker: The petitioner will have to blend in with the contour of your
land to protect your property.
Mr. Anderson: He cannot cut within thirty feet of your property line.
Mr. Walker: We will take Application TA-81 under advisement, along with
TA-32 which is for removal of topsoil from property adjacent
to property in TA-81.
Since Mr. Goldman, attorney for Mr. Menuck was present now, Mr. Walker informed
those present that Item #1, Petition Z-509 would be taken up now.
Mr. Goldman: We are here in opposition to the proposed rezoning. This
plat represents a period of 5 years since it has been under
development. It was zoned RUF which permitted 60 ft. lots
in the area at that time. The overall plan indicated larger
lots fronting on Henry Ruff and smaller ones west of Middlebelt.
Over the years we have developed Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 and
there are a substantial number of homes in these three units.
We have not as yet finished the development of #4 because of
the sewer situation. If you ask to rezone.lthis property into
the so-called RL district, in our judgment would be completely
contrary to our initial plan and our initial layout. There
are lots in this area that would conform with the requirements
but on the other hand there are some that would not. Insofar
as the platted lots are concerned in relation to #3, which are
included in this rezoning, building permits have been obtained
for these lots. We feel this is unfair to the developer to
rezone at this time.
It was ascertained that building permits had been obtained for approximately 8 lots;
two had 90 ft. frontage; north of Perth they were ::0 ft. frontage; three were
75 ft. and two more were 70 ft. The overallarea of each lot was close to the RL
requirement.
Mr. Menuck: We have the sanitary sewer in for #4. If you are going to
rezone this area to RLa, most of the lots on Oakview cannot
conform. They are 80 x 115. It would be impossible to increase
their depth to 120 ft. to come up to the minimum in the RL
zone.
It was determined there were thirteen lots on Oakview with a dimension of 30 x 115.
Mr. McCullough: Those lots face Oakview and they are slightly under the required
3200
9600 sq. ft. , but the lots on Henry Ruff are platted for
Ir: 80 x 120 or more.
You might, ask our attorney what effect this rezoning would
have on those lots on Henry Ruff whete the developer has already
obtained building permits.
Mr. Walker: Do we have the legal right to go ahead with this, M . Forrest.
Mr. Forrest: He would have had to put in some footings or at least disturb
the land, regardless of whether he has the building permit or
not.
Mr. Walker: Mr. Menuck has stated that he will have the shovel out
tomorrow if we took action on this tonight.
Mr. Menuck: If I could dig a hole before the Council officially changes
the zoning, I would have a vested right.
Mr. Okerstrom: I think the purpose of this rezoning was one of the ways to
get the builder to assure the home owners in the area that these
lots will remain the way it was submitted and given preliminary
approval upon, but not to disturb the plat which has been given
final approval.
Mr. Menuck: I am willing to give a letter to the Planning Commission that
IIE they will be left as shown on the preliminary plat.
I verbally promise that there will not be any 60 foot lots.
There are a few 75 foot lots.
Mr. Max Skura: I would like to make a point clear. There is no sewer that will
14000 Hilcrest) take care of the east side of Henry Ruff Road.
Mr. Okerstrom: Is it legal if Mr. Menuck submits a letter stating that the
lots will be as shown on the preliminary approved plat?
Mr. Forrest: This would constitute a deed restriction and I don't think that
it can be done by this commission.
Mr. Richard Holloway: I am accompanied by three other members of our civic associa-
30258 Bentley) tion. I think the Planning Commission appreciates the concern
we have in this matter. We have no question with the plat as
it stands but from experience what the plat size is has no
bearing on the final size of the lots.
We feel that the Planning Commission could recommend to the
City Council that the zoning be approved and that the plat will
be developed as it is submitted to the commission. We recommend
that they be rezoned to RLA for Subdivisions #3 and #4.
Mr. Walker:Ire Some lots would not conform with RLA due to the fact that
some lots on Oakview are not large enough for this zone.
Mr. Holloway: According to the plat given approval, the majority of the
lots on the south side of Oakview are smaller. Maybe some
arrangement could be made whereas the developer could reduce
the widthcf some of the lots and add it to those which do not
have the sufficient amount of property.
3201
Mr. Okerstrom: I feel the best solution is to have the builder submit a letter
I[: to the civic association because he is the owner of the land.
If this is done and he stuck to it, it would be the answer to
the whole problem.
Mr. Walker: It may be wise to have the Plat Committee prepare a recommenda-
tion together with the City Planner and submit it to the
commission at the next meeting.
Mr. Anderson: By the time the Planning Commission did take action upon this,
the developer would have his footings in. I think the best
thing to do is to accept him on his honor and have him submit
a letter to the commission to this effect.
Mr. Goldman: It is true that in order to work something out to make certain
lots on Henry Ruff Road receptive to the purchaser there was a
shuffling of those lots. The smallest is 70 x 130. There is
no intention on the part of the builder to depreciate the
value of the remaining portion of the subdivision by putting
in 60 foot lots. It is a nice development and we intend to
keep it as such.
Mr. Walker: What was the purpose of revising the original plat?
Mr. Goldman: Because it was difficult to sell the large lots on Henry Ruff.
Mr. Menuck: The lots on Oakview (in Lyndon #4) back into lots fronting on
Bentley (in Lyndon #3) with 65 and 70 ft. frontage.
Mr. Holloway: We feel we are justified that some steps be taken that would
guarantee us that the lots behind us are not split down to 65,
or even 60 ft. frontage.
Mr. Greene: Why couldn't we establish a deed restriction in order to prevent
reducing the lots? Can we do this?
Mr. Walker: Yes, it was stated that it could be done if the developer agrees
to it.
Mr. Menuck: Put a deed restriction on the final plat for recording and it
will be adhered to.
Mi . Goldman: In relation to Lyndon #4, Mr. Menuck has proposed that at the
time of final approval of the plat he will make it part of the
deed restriction that the plat as recorded will be adhered
to. This has nothing to do with Lyndon #3, however.
Mr. Holloway: This is agreeable if the plat final recorded is the one
that was given preliminary approval in April.
Mr. Goldman: I do not feel that Subdivisions #1, 2 and 3 have anything to
do with #4.
Mr. Walker: It has been suggested that this condition be made part of the
plat. Then it will be enforced by the Building Department.
Mr. Greene: I suggest that it be on both the final plat and also as part
of the deed restrictions for #4.
3202
Mr. Holloway: My question is, could I, as owner in Subdivision #1 bring
a suit upon Subdivision #4?
1[40 Mr. Forrest: No, you could not. Only those in #4 could do that.
Mr. Bernard Smith: At the time Lyndon Meadows #4 was given approval, it had
a condition on it designating Lot 293 as an outlot. Lot 292
abuts my property (Lot 47 in Belle Mar Subdivision) at the
rear and I object to it becoming a corner lot.
Mr. McCullough: The chances are very remote that this road would be put through.
Mr. Begin has sold off this property to someone else. The
City would have to pave it if they wanted it to go through now.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement until our attorney
can work out a provision to record a deed restriction upon a
final plat. When we have this ianformation this item will be
acted upon.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-511 by Goldman and
Grabow for Jacob Menuck, Paris Home Builders who are requesting
that the zoning classification of property located on the
Northwest corner of Newburgh and Five Mile Road in the Southeast
1/4 of Section ld be changed from RLA and R-3 to R-1A.
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Menuck were present. '
1[40 Mr. McCullough: The petitioner is prepared to amend his petition to request
a RM zoning instead of R-1A.
It was suggested that the petitioner submit a letter requesting such an amendment
for the records.
Mr. Goldman stated he would do so.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
#6-94-61 RESOLVED that, The City Planning Commission does hereby allow
petitioner for Z-511, Goldman and Grabow, to amend said petition
to request a rezoning from RLA and R-3 to RM (R-1A-70) rather
than from RLA and R-3 to R-1A (60 ft. lots) as originally re-
quested, subject, however, to petitioner forwarding a letter
verifying said request to the Planning Commission
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
I: Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Mr. Goldman gave a brief history on this area in relation to the different zonings
it has been under since it was purchased by his client. He stated it was felt that
the RM zone would be more in line with the zones abutting this property than the
RLA. They were also hoping to expand the present R-3 area by 1.11 acres. It was
determined that this would require another public hearing and could not be included
3203
in this petition.
Mr. Walker: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Kane: When we adopted the present zoning for this area, we designated
a buffer of 70 ft. lots along Newburgh and also a buffer of
60 foot lots along the north side of Five Mile Road to tie in
the whole area. I feel that we should maintain these buffers.
Mr. Anderson: Suggest we take it under advisement until we have studied it
further and determine if it should be rezoned to RM.
Mr. Walker: This item will be taken under advisement for further study.
MI . McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-223 by Christian
Heckh requesting permission to fill in and bring to grade
level property located on the west side of Inkster Road
approximately 90 feet North of Margaret in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 12.
Mr. & Mrs. Chrisian Heckh were present.
Mr. McCullough explained the item to the commission. The Engineering Department
has made several conditions in their recommendation of approval.
Mr. & Mrs. Heckh felt that if they could fill this area in on their property,
they could get more of an investment out of it. They could possibly sell it. At
the present time no one will purchase it because of the low area.
M . Walker: Any time we are petitioned for this type of fill in, we are
subject to any requirements made by the Engineering Department.
Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak?
Mr. Don Munro, 18512 Pershing stated his reasons why he felt this should be per-
mitted. He had no objections to the petition.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Peacock, it was
#6-95-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
Tuesday, June 6, 1961 the City Planning Commission does hereby
grant Petition M-223 by Christen Heckh requesting permission to
fill-in and bring to grade level property located on the West
side of Inkster Road approximately 90 feet north of Margaret
in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, subject, however, to any
ccnditicns which the Engineering Department may beel are necessary.
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, Peacock, Greene, Anderson, Kane, Okerstrom
and Walker
NAYS: None
3204
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-96-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn
the public hearing held on Tuesday, June 6, 1961 at approximately
10:15 p.m.
Mr. Walker called a recess at approximately 10:16 p.m.
* * * * * *
Mr. Walker called the 131st Special Meeting to order at approximately 10:25 p.m.
with all those present now who were present at the time recess was called.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition Z-503 by Earl Dahlin
and others who are asking that the zoning classification of
property located on the West side of Henry Ruff Road between Schoolcraft
Road and Lyndon Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 23 be rezoned from
RUF to RLA. Public Hearing 4/1/61, taken under advisement.
Mr. McCullough explained to those present how this petition was started. There were
11[: approximately nine home owners who had lots in this subdivision other than those
who signed the petition. The majority of these nine objected to the proposed re-
zoning. They did not want the lots to be reduced in frontage. They felt that if
this were rezoned to RLA it would allow someone to buy several lots and they would
reduce them to 80 ft. frontage which would be the minimum in the RLA zone. Mr.
McCullough asked those present if the Council were asked to retain the 100 ft.
frontage along Henry Ruff, would they be more agreeable to the rezoning?
After a brief discussion it was suggested that those who objected to the rezoning
have a meeting with everyone in that block and ask them if there were deed re-
strictions to maintain the 100 ft. frontage, would they be willing to have this
property rezoned to RLA?
The question was asked how could the lots already split be allowed if the RUF
zoning required one-half acre lots? Mr. McCullough explained that the owner would
be allowed to split but no building permit would be issued unless his lot could
conform with the existing zoning. It would have to be rezoned first before a
building permit could be issued.
Mr. Walker: This will be taken under advisement until the meeting suggested
by Mr. McCullough has been held.
**Mr. Anderson and Mr. Greene were excused at 10:55 p.m. for the balance of the
meeting.
1[40 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 to commercial set-back. Dublic hearing 5/23/61,
taken under advisement.
It was suggested that this be taken under advisement until the next meeting.
3205
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Watson, it was
#6-97-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a request from Henry Koloff for a one-
year extension on the Koloff's Sunnyside Estates Subdivision located
in the SE of Section 20 and the SW of Section 21, the City Planning
Commission does hereby grant said request, with all conditions on
the preliminary approval prevailing.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Cameron, Watson, Peacock, Kane, Okerstrom and Walker
NAYS: None
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
It was suggested at this time to take Item #10 with reference to a request from City
Council to have the City Planning Commission review the existing commercial zoning
adjacent to Five Mile Road from Farmington Road west and to submit thereafter its
new recommendations for locating such commercial property in the most uniform,
orderly and desirable manner. This is in reference to Petition Z-461 which was
acted upon by the Planning Commission previously.
Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a public hearing
to determine whether or not to amend Part I of the Master Plan, the "Master
Thoroughfare Plan" by increasing the width of Lyndon Avenue from Stark to
Farmington from 60 ft. to 86 ft. (This is a request from the Traffic
1[1: Commission)
After a brief discussion the Planning Commission felt that it was not necessary to
increase the width of Lyndon Avenue from Stark to Farmington Road from the present
width of 60 ft. to the proposed new width of 36 ft.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-96-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from the Traffic Commission
requesting the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to
determine whether or not to increase the width of Lyndon Avenue
betieen Stark and Farmington Road in the east half of Section
21, the City Planning Commission does hereby withdraw said request
from the agenda because it was felt that it was not necessary to
increase the width of Lyndon Avenue at this time.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Peacock, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-99-61RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from Marvin Kaye for a one-
year extension on the preliminary approval of the Curtis Acres
I: Subdivision located in the West half of Section 10, the City
Planning Commission does hereby grant said request, subject to
all conditions prevailing on the preliminary plat.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
3206
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Kane and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-100-61 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a letter from John Uzniz for a one-
year extension on the preliminary approval of the Idyl Wyld
Subdivision #4 located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the
City Planning Commission does hereby grant said request, subject
to all conditions prevailing on the preliminary plat.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Kane, supported by Mr. Peacock and unanimously
adopted, it was
#6-101-61 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve
the minutes for meeting held on Tuesday, May 16, 1961 except
for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting.
Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted.
Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 131st Special Meeting
held on Tuesday, June 6, 1961 at approximately 11:00 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
IL: /())
W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary
ATTESTED:
/G4, liU
Char s W. Walker, Chairman
3