Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1962-05-08 3451 MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING AND THE 143RD SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 8, 1962 the City Planning Commissinn of the City of Livonia held a public hearing and the 143rd Special Meeting at the City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia. Mr. Charles W. Walker, Chairman, called the public hearing to order at approximately 8:05 p.m. Members present: W. E. Okerstrom, James W. Watson, Jr. , Robert L. Greene, Robert L. Angevine, James Cameron and Charles W. Walker Members absent : Dennis Anderson and Leonard K. Kane Mr. Edward Milligan, who is replacing Arthur Samuels, was present. Since he has not been certified by the City Council as yet, he will not participate in any voting. Mr. David R. McCullough, City Planner and Mr. Charles Forrest, Jr. , Assistant City Attorney were present along with approximately 75 persons in the audience. Mr. McCullough: The first item on the agenda is Application TA-87 by William Jamens requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil located on the east side of Merriman Road, approximately 300 feet south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2. 1: A letter from the Engineering Department has been received recommending approval. The ingress and egress will be from Eight Mile Road. The original petition requested permission to remove topsoil from 20 acres. This petition is to remove a stockpile on two acres. Mr. Roman Halanski, representing William Jamens, was present. Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Halanski if the area had been reseeded? Mr. Halanski answered only a small portion but the remainder is to be reseeded within 60 days. Mr. Walker asked if the remaining portion hay been graded down to the level required by the Engineering Department? Mr. Halanski stated that the major portions had been but in discussing this with Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, it was ascertained that some areas have to be beveled down to a slope. Mr. Charles Forrest arrived at approximately 8:10 p.m. Mr. Forrest asked the commission if they were aware that a complaint has been - Lfedilagainst Mr. Jamens? Mr. Angevine stated he could believe this, because the area doesn't look like it has been graded at all. He did not feelit was in the proper condition at the present time. 3452 Mr. McCullough informed Mr. Halanski there were a lot of pockets of water on the property. He asked if some effort has been made in the last week to correct this condition and would he be willing to put up a cash bond so that the city may do II: it at his expense? Mr. Halanski stated that he had talked•with.the City Attorney , who suggestedthat an attempt be made to clean this area up. He stated some of the water was removed. When he left the property Friday, it was draining very well but he did not know if at this time it was all drained out. He also stated that he attempted to have the bull dozer in the area but it got stuck. Mr. McCullough again asked if he would be willing toput up a cash bond in order to have the work done? Mr. Halanski stated he felt that the $10,000 surety bond on the property should be more than adequate. Mr. Watson asked if the City Engineer approved this removal? Mr. McCullough answered he had. Mr. Watson stated he could not see how this could be approved considering the condition that exists. Mr. Greene asked for more information with relation to the suit involved in this matter. Mr. Forrest answered that the Inspection Department filed for a warrant which went through the Department of Law charging Mr. Jamens with a violation of the Zoning Ordinance which was failing to grade the property. - Mr. Walker asked on what date was the grade checked? Mr. Forrest stated during the last two weeks. Mr. Walker stated Mr. Halanski has said that he was there Friday ma ping and they attempted to clean this area up' and while this was being done, he was in contact with Mr. Strasser. Mr. Forrest stated maybe they have cleared up this situation. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Halanski if they attempted to clean this area up because someone complained? Mr. Halanski stated that Mr. Middlewood, Acting Chief, Bureau of Inspection, had contacted them and asked them to attempt to remove the water. This was done, but it was found that some of the water condition is a result of the creek in the area. He felt after the water in the creek subsided, it would help the other condition. Mr. Walker stated there seems to be some conflict between the recommendation of the Engineering Department and the complaint. Mr. Watson stated that he attempted to get on the property and in doing so he had to go over ditches 3 or 4 feet deep. Mr. Halanski stated that this was the area they attempted to clean up. 1[0 '. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. Raymond Heath, 20179 Sunset, presented photographs of the area which he had taken that day. He stated the sewer was full of sand and could not drain out. The sewer not only had sand in it but also tin cans, lumber and dirt. In addition, 3453 the earth between the water and the sewer is high. . Mr. Walker asked Mr. Heath if he saw any equipment in that area the last several Cdays? . Mr. Heath answered that there had been equipment there but it didn't help the situation. IIr. Thomas H. Clayton, 20421 Merriman, Mr. George Nikorak, 20315 Merriman and Mt. . Louis Sullivan, 20285 Milburn were all present and objected to the conditions in that area. Their main concern was the safety of the children due to the water holes. They stated at some spots there were 20 ft. drops with water 4 to 5 feet deep in the holes. They did not feel that the petition should be approved because the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions of the last permit. Mr. Middlewood from the Bureau of Inspection explained the reasons for requesting a warrant against Mr. Jamens. He felt the applicant should be made to comply with the conditions of the last permit before he is granted another permit. He stated there is a surety bond from the last permit but it would take years before the City could act upon this. Mr. Watson stated he would like to ' sce this petition denied and ask the Law Department to pursue the legal action as it has been presented. Mr. Halanski stated that he felt the water condition was not their fault. The drain was put in but it cannot drain. He felt that as soon as the water subsides from the ditch it will run from the property. He suggested that a permit be granted subject to the approval of the Building Department as to the drainage on the property. LMr. Greene asked how could the Engineering Department approve this in the condition this property is in? Mr. Okerstrom said that possibly at the time the property was inspected by the Engineering Department the area was dry. (It was ascertained that the letter from the Engineering Department was dated April 16, 1962) Mr. Greene stated this did not change his opinion one bit. He felt it should be sent back to them for further inspection. Mr. Angevine concurred with Mr. Greene. Mr. Greene asked if the Planning Commission can legally request a cash bond to be forfeited in thirty days if the situation is not taken care of in that time? He stated that the City is obligated to protect the safety of the children. Mr. Forrest stated that the ordinance only states a surety bond. It may be the CPC would be overstepping their authority. A cash bond would be more advantageous. Mr. McCullough stated that the petitioner would have to be willing to put up a cash bond since it is not required in the ordinance. There is no point to do this if he is not willing. Mr. Walker stated there seem to be only one alternative and that was to request the petitioner to immediately start tomorrow morning to get in and correct the condition that exists and at the time this is taken care of and the Engineering Department and the Inspection Bureau have checked it out, then to return and the Planning . Commission can take action on this application. Mr. Greene asked what assurance does the Planning Commission have that this condition will be taken care of? Mr. Walker stated that apparently the petitioner wants to get the stockpile of topsoil out of that area. He knows that he will have to proceed with clearing up 3454 the area before he can remove the stockpile. Mr. Walker stated he felt this was the best way to handle the situation. IL: Mr. Angevine asked if Mr. Walker was suggesting that the Planning Commission table this item until the condition existing is taken care of? Mr. Walker answered yes, or approve it subject to the satisfaction of the Inspection and Engineering Departments. Mr. Okerstrom stated that he would like to inspect this area along with a few of the other commissioners after an attempt has been made to improve the area. He felt this item should be held up until this has been done. Mr. Halanski did not wish it to be tabled. Mr. Watson stated he could not give his approval to remove any topsoil off of the property at this time. Mr. Angevine and Mr. Okerstrom concurred with Mr. Watson. Mr. Nikorah stated that the petitioner will have to use some of his stockpile to level off where the grade is too low. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Angevine, supported by Mr. Watson, it was #5-86-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on TA-87 by the City Planning Commission on Tuesday, May 8, 1962 requesting permission to remove a stockpile of topsoil on property located on the east side of Merriman Road, approximately 300 ft. 1[40 south of Eight Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, the City Planning Commission does hereby table said petition until such time that a favorable report is received from the Bureau of Inspection and the Engineering Department indicating that the conditions complained about have been remedied at which time this petition will be brought back before the Planning Commission for action. Mr. Walker informed Mr. Halanski that his first step is to contact the Engineering Department as to what should be done. Mr. Halanski askeda whatmeeting would action be taken? Mr. Walker stated that it would be the meeting after a report has been received from the Inspection and Engineering Departments. A roll call vote on Resolution #5-86-62 resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker: The motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. Greene suggested that a letter be written to the Engineering Department asking them how this area could have been approved by them under the existing conditions. ILMr. Angevine concurred with Mr. Greene's suggestion. Mr. McCullough: The next two items on the agenda are related to each other. One is Application TA-36 requesting permission to remove 3455 • sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of Parcel Illb, located on the_ north si< side of SevenMile Road.approximately 650 ft. east of Gill Road in.the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 and the other is Application TA-89 requesting permission to remove sand, gravel and topsoil from a portion of Parcel JJ2 located on the north side of Seven Mile Road and west of Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4. They are both submitted by John Miguit. It was determined that the topsoil was stripped with the exception of the stockpile. Mr. Miguit has reseeded 20 acres and will reseed the remaining 13 acres. There is presently rye growing on the first 20 acres. There were no water pockets. The ingress and egress is on Seven Mile Road. Mr. Watson stated he thought that the Planning Commission had asked Mr. Migut to bevel the west end. Mr. Migut stated the area on the west will be beveled when they get to that area. Mr. Watson asked when did Mr. Migut intend to level the edges? Mr. Migut stated when they got to them. Mr. McCullough asked if he intended to do any removing of topsoil on weekends? Mr. Migut stated on Saturdays but not on Sundays. Mr. McCullough asked how close did he intend to come to Seven Mile Road. Mr. Migut stated they would grade level right up to Seven Mile Road. Mr. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. Edward J. Jelonek, 19027 Whitby and Mr. P. Petrucci, 19066 Whitby registered their complaints to the topsoil removal. Mr. Cliff Thompson, 19012 Norwich, President of the Helman Park Civic Association stated their main objection was not the removal of the topsoil but the blowing of the sand. He felt that Mr. Migut would not be able to grow grass in this area. Mr. McCullough asked Mr. Migut if he would be willing to water this area every day in order to prevent the sand from blowing? Mr. Okerstrom asked where was the grass that was planted? The people seem to be complaining there is no grass. Mr. Watson said that the only grass growing is in the area in the extreme. northeast 1/4 of the property. Mr. Richard Iltis, 33610 W. Seven Mile Road,stated he lived immediately east of the area involved, and that he understood Mr. Migut will be digging topsoil about 6 ft. deeper than his grade level on the west side of his property. Mr. Migut stated the reason it hasn't been tapered is because he hasn't gone down that far as yet. ILMr. Petrucci suggested that Mr. Migut come no closer than 100 yards from Seven Mile Road. Mr. Watson suggested that Mr. Migut meet with Mr. Thompson, Mr. Petrucci and Mr. Iltis along with several Planning Commission members at the property at which time an examination will be made of this property. The meeting was scheduled for • 3456 Saturday, May 12, 1962 at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Walker stated this item would be taken under advisement until the next meeting. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Application TA-90 by William Ponder for Waterland Earth Movers and Roberts Company requesting permission to remove topsoil from a parcel located on the north side of Six Mile Road, approximately 2600 feet east of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 18. This is the proposed Denmar Estates Subdivision. It was determined that there were a total of 90 acres from which topsoil is to be removed. No topsoil will be removed any lower than existing or proposed streets. The ingress and egress would be off of Six Mile Road. Mr. Okerstrom asked when was the subdivision going to be started? Mr. McNeely from McNeely and Lincoln, 10499 Plymouth Road stated that the engineering plans were being worked on now and will be submitted in the very near future. The street and sewer plans were also being worked out now. Mr. Ponder asked if it would be possible to get partial release of the bond if the removal of the topsoil is not completed in the allotted time? It was suggested that they remove the topsoil and stockpile it. If this is not completed within the time allowed, they can petition for another permit and reduce the bond at that time by setting it for the area with the stockpile—. Mt. Walker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak? Mr. Harvey Wagenschutz was present. As owner of the property involved, he stated -they had permission from him to remove the topsoil. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Cameron, supported by Mr. Greene, it was #5-87-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Application TA-90 by William Ponder for Waterland Earth Movers and Roberts Company requesting permission to remove topsoil from a parcel located on the north side of Six Mile Road, approximately 2600 feet east of Newburgh Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 8, subject, however, to the following conditions: (a) that the applicant shall not at any time allow water to collect on the subject property or on adjoining property and at all times shall maintain adequate drainage; (b) that the applicant shall not excavate below the grade of any proposed subdivision streets; (c) that the applicant shall at all times comply with all traffic requirements established by the Police Department; (d) that the applicant shall be obligated to seed all of the land from which topsoil has been removed with some seed acceptable to the Department of Parks & Recreation unless at the time the applicant petitions for the release of the topsoil bond that the Planning Commission relieves the petitioner of this obligation, and IL FURTHER RESOLVED, that the applicant deposit with the City Clerk, a corporate surety bond at $500.00 per acre for 90 acres, ($45,000.00) which bond shall be for at least a one-year period, and 3457 THAT, the period for which the permit herein, authorized shall be for a period of one year or period not to exceed the expiration date of the 1110 bond as required therein, whichever is the shorter period, and THAT, the applicant shall apply for and obtain the permit herein authorized within thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution, and FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above hearing was sent to the property owners within 500 feet, petitioner, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service and recommendations having been obtained from the Department of Public Works under date of May 8, 1962 and from the Police Department under date of May 7, 1962. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker stated the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was #5-88-62 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the public hearing held on Tuesday, May 8, 1962 at approximately 9:30 p.m. E roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker stated the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. * * * * * * * * Mr. Walker called the 143rd Special Meeting to order at approximately 9:31 p.m. with all those present now who were present at the time the public hearing was adjourned. Mr. McCullough: The next item on the agenda is Petition M-242 by Rev. Robert L. Wietelmann requesting approval for the rection of a church on property located on the southside of Five-Mile Road between' Gary Lane and Yale in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21. Public Hearing 4/24/62, item taken under advisement. Mr. McCullough stated at the last meeting it was suggested that a map be drawn indicating how a street could be put in so as not to landlock the property behind the church property. There were two alternatives. One was to bring the proposed street through to Five Mile Road requiring the church to give the City an easement of 30 feet or refuse to bring the street through to Five Mile Road and terminate the street into a cul-de-sac south of the property in which case no easement is needed. . McCullough asked Mr. Kamp, who was representing the petitioner, if they would willing to give the City a 30 foot easement? Mr. Kamp stated that if it were ssible they would rather not do it this way. Mr. McCullough asked if the Planning Commission made this a condition of approval, would they drop the property? 345d Mr. Kamp stated he could not speak for the Church Board but he felt this would be true. CMr. Walker stated that the church would probably never use the full depth of the property for the church. At the present time there is a neighbor to the east and he felt the only logical and reasonable way to use this land would be to design it so that the land to the south of the church would be able to be platted into some kind of residential plan. This would benefit both the church and the neighbor to the east. It was determined that there was a ditch in that area also which made the land unuseable at the present time. Mrs. Lawrence Aubert, 35217 Five Mile Road, the owner of the property to the east of the church, stated that she had been informed that the low area would be filled when they fill in the ditch. The Engineering Department has said that this would be done within a year. Mr. Okerstrom said he examined the area and it is low but he would like to suggest that a cul-de-sac be put in coming in from Henry Street and also a thirty foot easement up to Five Mile Road. The Church could utilize this by using 20 ft. of the easement for their driveway. Mr. McCullough stated that the engineer informed him that the ditch will be relocated but that 40 ft. will be needed in order to do this. He suggested that the petition could be approved subject to creating an easement for a certain number of years and if at the end of that time it is not developed, the easement could then be given back to the property owner. Mr. Kamp stated that probably the whole three acres would be utilized for the church in the future. They did not want to lose any more than is necessary. The question was asked if the driveway couldn't be put on the west side of the church instead of the east? Mr. Kamp stated it could be done in this way. He asked if they would be allowed to use the easement at the present time if it is dedicated? He was informed that they could. Mr. Kamp said that on that recommendation they may approve it. He said it would be up to the others for the final decision but felt it would be approved since it is not a dedication but only creating an easement. Mr. Okerstrom suggested that the easement be only for the depth of the church property. Mr. Walker asked Mr. Kamp if he had the power to agree to this at this time or would he have to go back to the Church Board first? Mr. Kamp said he did not have to power to agree to it but if the Planning Commission would approve it subject to an easement being created, he felt the others would act upon it. Mr. Walker informed Mr. Kamp that at the expiration of the time limit the property owner can come in for the vacation of the easement at which time the Planning Commission can determine if it is wise to vacate it at that time. Mr. Kamp asked if they would be able to build on the easement line? Mr. McCullough stated it would be better if they stayed at least six to eight feet from the easement. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Greene, supported by Mr. Angevine, it was 3459 #5-89-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on Tuesday,April 24,1962 the City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition M-242 by Robert L. Wietelmann requesting approval for the erection of a church on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Gary Lane and Yale in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 21, subject, however, to the following conditions: (1) that suitable shrubbery be planted along the west property line to screen the church building from the abutting residences; (2) that any outside lights be reflected away from surrounding residences; (3) that the City shall be granted a thirty (30) foot easement for road purposes along the easterly boundary of this land, said easement to be for a reasonable period of time; (4) that the front yard setback shall not be less than 160 feet from the center line of Five Mile Road and the east side yard requirement shall not be less than ten (10) feet from the west edge of the easement described above, 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 followirg : AYES: Cameron, Greene, Angevine, Watson , Okerstrom and Walker NAYS: None Ir. Walker declared 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, it was #5-90-62 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes for the meeting held on Tuesday, April 10, except for that member who was not present, he abstain from voting. Mr. Walker declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Mr. McCullough stated that the next item, Petition Z-533, with relation to amending Article 14.00 and Article 15.00 by deleting certain sub-sections, would need further study and suggested that this be taken under advisement until more information is compiled and forwarded to the commissioners for their examination. Mr. Walker declared that this item would be taken under further advisement. Mr. McCullough submitted a map to the commissioners with relation to the next item, an extension of time for the Arbor Estates Subdivision located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31. He suggested that the commissioners take the map home and study it and if there were any suggestions to inform him. Mr. Walker declared that this item would be taken under advisement. Iiit. McCullough announced that the next item was a request from the R. G. Rohn ompany on whether or not their "Quik Drive-in" is a drive-in restaurant as inter- preted in the Zoning Ordinance of theCity of Livonia. Mr. William Ponder was present representing the R. G. Rohn Company. 3460 If it is determined that it is a drive-in restaurant, the petitioner will be required to seek a rezoning for the property he wishes to use for this purpose. This property " is located on the south side of Plymouth on the Southwest corner of Berwick and Plymouth in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 34. It is presently zoned C-1. A C-2 zoning is required for a drive-in restaurant. Photographs and plans were submitted to the commissioners. A very lengthy discussion was held during which it was determined that the food sold in this"drive-in" were dispensed by vending machines. there Would be one employee who would be responsible for keeping the vending machines filled and also would police the area. There would be approkimately 25 parking spaces. There would be no car hops. In addition to the usual type of food served at drive-ins, certain staples would also be sold, such as milk, bread and other delicatessen items. After the lengthy discussion it was determined that this would be taken under advisement until the Department of Law could forward an opinion on this item. Mr. McCullough announced that the petitioner for.Petition Z-550 requesting a rezoning on property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road and east of Gill Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4, has asked for a reconsideration on the decision made by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The request was for a rezoning from RUFA to PS. The Planning Commission denied the petition. The petitioner is now asking whether or not the Planning Commission would consider a R-2 classification for this use instead of the PS previously asked. It was contemplated to have a con- valescent or nursing home on this property in question. Mr. Angevine stated that his motion to deny the petition was made because of the Erpot zoning and no other reason. . Watson stated he felt that he couldnsee this as a permitted use under the R-2 in that particular location. Mr. Angevine concurred. Mr. Cameron stated he looked at this as a hospital and felt that the petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to come back for a hearing as a hospital. It was determined that there would be no practice of medicine. Mr. Milligen felt this was a convalescent home and not a hospital and consequently it would come under the PS zoning. Mr. Greene stated he felt that the Planning Commission took the action that was necessary. Mr. Walker declared that the opinion of the commission is that the decision made at the previous meeting stands. Mr. McCullough announced that the next item was a motion to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.05 Minimun Lot Size and Width. This was necessary to eliminate the possibility of houses being built on lots which are smaller than allowed by the zoning ordinance. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Watson, supported by Mr. Cameron, it was #5-91-62 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Ordinance No. 60, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to lii determine whether or not to delete from Section 4.05, Minimum Lot Size and Width as set out belcw, that porticn of such secti;od as shown in "CAPS", 3461 Section 4.05 Minimum Lot Size and Width. The size and minimum width of each residential lot on which or in relation to which any building or use is affected by the provisions of this ordinance shall not be less than (a) as to all lots within Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the City of Livonia, sixty-six hundred (6600) square feet in area and fifty-five (55) feet in width; (b) as to all lots within Sections 1 to 33, inclusive, of the City of Livonia, seventy-two hundred (7200) square feet in area and sixty (60) feet in width; (c) the area and minimum width fixed by ordinances of the City of Livonia; and (d) the area and minimum width fixed by the Subdivision Regulations and the rules and decisions of the City Planning Commission; provided, however, that in passing upon or approving any proposed plat of a new subdivision, and in order to avoid a hardship or injustice, the City Planning Commission is authorized to reasonably construe such minimum widths of fifty-five (55) and sixty (60) feet as the average width I[: of the lots within such plat; AND, PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A LOT, OR A PIECE OR PARCEL OF LAND PLATTED AND IDENTIFIED AS A SINGLE UNIT ON A PLAT OFFICIALLY APPROVED AND RECORDED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and notice be given as provided in Section 20.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 60 of the City of Livonia and that there shall be a report submitted and a recommendation thereon to the City Council. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Cameron, Greene, Angevine, Watson, Okerstrom, and Walker NAYS: None Mr. Walker declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution is adopted. Upon a motion duly made by Mr. Okerstrom, supported by Mr. Watson and unanimously 111 dopted, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the 143rd Special Meeting eld on uesday, May 8, 1962 at approximately 10:55 p.m. CITY PLANNING OMISSION 'Tk )11%17 e a' ,.......,% ,e,a) ‘1))/60, 1-<2 LAJi 1 / 0!"."% Charl-s W. Walker, Chairman W. E. Okerstrom, Secretary m