HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1970-10-20 8958
MINUTES OF THE 222nd REGULAR MEETING
AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY
Cif PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 20, 1970, the City Planning Commissbn of the City of Livonia
held its 222nd Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall,
33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Raymond W. Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately
8:15 p.m. with approximately 75 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Raymond W. Tent Robert Colomina Francis M. Hand
Joseph R. Talbot Marvin Moser Daniel R. Andrew
Joseph J. Falk Charles Pinto
Members absent: H. Dow Tunis
Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; Ralph Bakewell, Planner III; and Gary Sackett,
Assistant City Attorney, were also present.
Mr. Hand, Acting Secretary, announced the first item cathe agenda is Petition
70-8-1-30 by Hyman Gold, President of Gold Construction Company,
requesting to rezone property located east of Newburgh and north
of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, from P.S.
to C-2 and C-2 to P.S.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that for record purposes this petition, as presented
tonight, was originally presented by the petitioner on December 3, 1968, at which
time the petitioner requested that the parcel be rezoned from R-4-B to C-2 and P.S.
At that time a hearing was held and the petition granted with provisions for site
plan approval. Now the petitioner is petitioning for another zoning change in the
same area. According to Engineering letter dated August 7, 1970, there is a storm
sewer problem in the area and it is the recommendation of that office that since
the 36" storm sewer was primarily designed to accommodate the full storm sewer
run off from the commercial area, that the storm sewer be extended approximately
830 feet from the east to an open drainage course; this will prevent flooding of
the Six Mile Road ditches. Mr. Tent stated that the Consumers Power Company has
indicated no objection to this petition.
Mr. Hand questioned if he is to assume that 830 additional feet of sewer has to
be installed.
Mr. Tent stated this has to do with the development of the property as proposed;
they would have to extend it.
Mr. Pinto questioned 800 feet from one ditch to another ditch?
Mr. Tent stated that the Engineering Department will be questioned on this, but
this is a letter from the Engineering Department for the record, also there is a
letter in file from Mr. and Mrs. Vincent Canzoneri objecting to this petition
> which is actually addressed to the Common Council.
Mr. Andrew requested to know if there were any reasons given.
Mr. Tent read the letter for the information of the Commission and audience.
8959
IF
01 ,
Mr. Verne Schrader, representing the petitioner, and Mr. Gold, petitioner,
t; were present. Mr. Schrader stated that all that is being asked is the change
of the current P.S. zoning to C-2 and the current C-2 zoning to P.S, and in his
opinion the whole complex is not being basically changed. He said that since
the original petition was filed several years ago a .portion was sold to National
Bank of Livonia fsor a branch and this sale effected the remainder of the area
to such an extent that the complex planked for the area cannot be put in under
the present zoning. He stated that in order to put in the complex they now
propose, this change is necessary. Actually, he stated, area-wise the amount
of commercial and the amount of professional which is being alternated is
relatively the same.
Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Schrader is the representative for the petitioner and
has indicated that the original complex cannot be constructed now because of the
bank and questioned if Mr. Schrader had explored th: land arrangement that he
does have and can he say without doubt that the orignal proposal cannot be
perpetuated in the area.
Mr. Schrader stated it is his contention that it can't.
Mr. Pinto questioned the status of the small piece of property behind the parcel
sold to the bank.
Mr. Schrader stated this also has been added to the bank.
Mr. Andrew questioned if that is a recent conveyance.
{ Mr. Schrader stated within the last year.
Mr. Andrew asked if this was by land contract or fee sale.
Mr. Hyman Gold, petitioner, stated it was a cash sale.
Mr. Tent stated the concern here is the intended use of the parcel of property.
As has been indicated, there had been a previous hearing and a petition granted
for a particular use for the property; now a change of zoning is being asked
He asked Mr. Schrader to please enlighten the Commission and audience as to
what is proposed for that corner and how it differers from the first proposal.
Mr. Schrader stated he believes the present site plan is on file with the
Planning office.
Mr. Tent stated there are people in the audience who are interested in this
petition so based on that can Mr. Schrader make ajresentation to them as well
as the Commission as to the intended use of the land. Then, he stated, questions
can be asked by the audience and from the Commission.
Mr. Schrader stated there will be a commercial development and covered mall
section, screening wall, retaining wall, greenbelt throughout the parking area
and he feels it will be an addition to the area and ,wll-developed. The parking
area will be somewhat depressed similar to the Police and Water Board parking
area. He indicated there will be a 2-1/2 story office building; 43,000
' professional and 48,000 commercial square feet areas.
Mr. Tent asked Mr. Schrader what type of commercial is proposed.
8960
r
Mr. Schrader stated they have a lot of items under consideratidn; one of
them would be a super market. He said they also have a possibility for a
party store, a nice hardware store, and a family type restaurant, drug store
and cleaners, but these are not definite at the moment.
Mr. Andrew requested enlightenment regarding the storm sewer problem referred
to by Mr. Strasser in his letter.
Mr. Schrader stated that right at the moment the existing storm sewer terminates
at the western end of the tier of lots and they have just had approval from
the Wayne County Road Commission to extend the sewn over to the bank in the
general area of the Six Mile right-of-way.
Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Schrader could explain the difference between this
proposal and the proposed first posed.
Mr. Schrader stated that since it is the bank's property, they are limited
to what they can do in the area; economics do have a part in this.
Mr. Hand questioned if Mr. Schrader has viewed the two renderings made by the
Planning Department relating to the use of this property and the uses that
might be considered.
Mr. Schrader stated they considered them.
i; Mr. Hand questioned what his objections were to plans by the Planning Depart-
ment. (the original concepts made up)
Mr. Don Hull, Planning Director, stated that to his knowledge Mr. Schrader
has not evaluated them.
Mr. Andrew stated he thinks these plans vital to the public hearing and that
he would like the proposals presented to the petitioner.
Mr. Tent stated that it was assumed these had been discussed with the
petitioner.
Mr. Tent stated that it was assumed these had ben discussed with the petitioner
He said that even with the bank occupying the portion that it does now, the
tee planbtothe
the originalDepartment
proposal, and th athow
still
the originalco cept could
deveveloped c closel y
be put into effect.
Mr. Gold stated that from a practical point, this is the best he could
Mr. Tent stated the Planning Department prepared studies to determine whether
or not there was a feasible development solution based upon the existing zoning
in the area. Two studies indicated how the land could be developed as analyzed
at a staff level. A study was prepared showing howthe original development
proposal by Mr. Gold could still be used on this land. That is one of the
1[0
basic areas of concern to the Planning Commission; that this zoning was based
originally on a high type proposal. Mr. Tent said there are two things to
consider: one, the change in zoning, and two, the original rezoning was tied
to a high calibre development proposal. He stated that Mr. Bawlltofuof thes as
Planning Department will explain some of the Planning Department'
to how it could be developed with the present zoning and how the original
8961
ireproposal could still be used and developed even though a portion has been sold
to the bank.
Mr. Bakewell explained the concepts prepared lithe Planning Department.
Mr. Hull stated that the basic purpose for making this presentation is for the
reason to show there is an adequate development solution for the land as
presently zoned and that Mr. Bakewell will explain the original concept and
show that that crn still be developed.
Mr. Bakewell showed and explained the original proposal made by Mr. Gold.
Mr. Gold stated he doesn't know why it is assumed that these are such master-
pieces and :shat his plan shows is no good.
Mr. Tent stated thatnone of the land has been rezoned ithout Mr. Gold's know-
ledge and that the Commission is trying to show him with the sketches that the
land can be developed as originally proposed. Mr. Tent questioned Mr. Gold
regarding the plans he has seen tonight and since it has been shown that the
original complex, or a very similar one, could be built, does this interest him.
Mr. Gold stated he will not give us underground parking; now or sixteen years
from now.
Mr. Tent stated that the underground parking is not the big issue.
410, Mr. Schrader stated the only thing being changed is the office building and
this area is primarily parking.
(60
Mr. Gold stated that the item had to be approved by the Council whether or
not I would have sold it.
Mr. Pinto questioned what form of approval was required by the City Council
before you negotiated the bank.
Mr. Gold stated he didn't know; that he should have brought the letter tonight.
The bank parcel is zoned C-2 which permits a bank.
Mr. Pinto stated Mr. Gold brought the subject up by implying that the City
approved the bank and he wanted to know what form this approval took.
Mr. Tent stated that when the ori,_^,ina concept ws presented the Commission went
along with what was proposed. Now the Commission only wishes to know what is
being proposed.
Mr. E. Ireefer, from the Kingsbury Renwick Association stated he would like to
say that beyond this association there are two new developments which he is
representing tonight; the area bound by Six and Seven Mile and Newburgh and
Levan, and the north area is east of Levan and south of Six Mile. The feeling
of the Association is that the original site plan was a very good plan and
i since that proposal one parcel has been sold off and they haven't been able
to understand exactly how the bank got where it got, but the second plan is
li; supposed to be changed. He stated the Commission has done a lot of work show-
ing how it can be eave'oped with the buildings cloaeto Six Mile and it is the
feeling thatthe area should not be degenerated by commercial buildings because
it creates nothing but clutter. On behalf of the Association he feels this
8962
petition should be rejected and if the original plan is not used the land
should be rezoned back.
Mr. Andrew asked for clarification of the area which Mr. Keefer is representing.
Mr. Andrew questioned if he understood Mr. Keefer's recommendation to be that
the land be rezoned back to residential.
Mr. Keefer stated only in the event that the petitioner does not wish to develop
the original site plan. He stated his belief that throughout Livonia there is
haphazard building on small sites and that big acreage is sold off to small
developments which do not require site plan approval.
Mr. Andrew asked if Mr. Gold would develop his commercial and professional
property along the lines of his original presentation to the Civic Association
would this be satisfactory to Mr. Keefer.
Mr. Keefer stated he did not know what Mr. Andrew means by "along the lines".
He said he has seen some acceptable plans and he couldn't make a judgement at
this time if any of the others are the same as the original but if the original
plan can be developed, it should be.
Mr. Andrew questioned if Scheme 3 would be acceptable to Mr. Keefer.
Mr. Tent stated that these schemes are artists concepts as to what can be put
there but three years ago we had a model and the plans that a layman could
understand and that was the proposal that was sold to these people. He said
° that for this man to look at any of these schemes which are just lines, and
be asked to make a judgment is not entirely fair.
Mr. Keefer stated that they are asking the Planning Commission what they feel
is a proper site plan; he doesn't feel he should dictate it.
Mr. Andrew said the petition circulated had to do with site plan approval for
all commercial developments in the City of Livonia.
Mr. Pinto stated that much of what is being discussed regards "the original
site plan". He questioned if after Mr. Gold obtained the zoning request in
1968 - between that time and this time has a site plan ever been submitted and
approved for the site or in the meantime between 1968 and to date, is it just
4
the zoning that Mr. Gold got and nothing else until this petition.
Mr. Tent stated that all Mr. Gold was granted at that time was the zoning change
of the land but it has been the policy of the Commission not to approve commer-
cial zoning without a plan. Mr. Gold, along with tha petition, presented his
plan as to how it would be developed because he would have to do this at a later
date anyway. That plan indicated what he intended to do. The Planning
Commission kept faith and granted him the zoning. Now the .request has come up
for a lesser use for the land. He stated that Mr. Gold has his zoning change
but no .site plan has ever been approved.
Mr. Pinto questinned if Mr. Gold has undertaken to submit one in this past two
te years.
Mr. Hull stated that a change of zoning was talked about, nothing else.
8963
Mr. Keefer stated that perhaps he didn't make himself clear. The original
plan showed professional buildings up front in the Six Mile area; the new
proposal indicates it would be commercial with professional to the area.
This, he said, is objectionable. He stated the bank in the area broke up the
original site plan and now they are coshing up with commercial buildings up
front with professional in the back which is a complete change from the original
plan.
Mr. Schrader stated he said originally that the P.S. was in front and the
commercial in back; the commercial was in the front and the P.S. on the side;
this is the only change.
Mr. Andrew stated there are a lot of new residents and what Mr. Keefer stated
before bothers him -- he stated that there was a sale of land from an owner to
a user; this is not prohibited. The bank presented a building plan to the City
for a building permit; there was no site plan approval required at that time
and the City had no choice but to issue the building permit.
Mr. Keefer questioned if Mr. Andrew believes that this procedure is in keeping
with normal or good development of a City.
Mr. Andrew replied no, but it was all legal.
Mr. John Peterson, representing Golfview Meadows, was present and stated there
are 283 hom=s represented. He stated they concurred with the Planning Com-
mission prior to last February on the original site plan, but the new plan before
them they are against and would like to have the original concept fulfilled.
M
Mr. Andrew questioned what would be the comments regarding the waiver of the
underground parking.
Mr. Peterson stated they would like to see that put in.
Mr. Andrew asked, if it is shown that it is economically unfeasible. . ..
Mr. Peterson stated either put it in proper or don't put it in, and he,
personally would like to see a park there but that would not be economically
feasible.
Mr. Andrew stated that scheme #3 is basically the plan presented and approved
by the Commission two years ago. If that plan was taken and the underground
parking eliminated, would that satisfy Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson stated, yes.
Mr. Pinto questioned again if there has been, either submitted and/or approved
since 1968, a site plan; the site plan he refers to being the site plan required
by Ordinance to be submitted and approved by the CityPlanning Commission and
City Council.
8964
Mr. Tent said that to answer Mr. Pintos question, no, no site plan has been
submitted since the original proposal.
Mr. Pinto stated there was not a site plan then, there was a promise, and if
this rezoning is approved, Mr. Gold must come in with a site plan but tonight
we are talking about the lines within which he must draw his site plan.
Mr. Tent stated that the audience has referred to pictures, etc. , as site
plans. He stated that when people come in for a zoning change the Commission
attempts to get the best from them, and when developers make promises the
Commission makes them abide by them.
Mr. Peterson stated that the original plan was approved by the Commission and
since then a parcel was sold off and questioned if there is a way now to
restrict the petitioner from selling off any more land.
Mr. Pinto stated the City can't restrict him from selling land but it can
restrict people concerning the limits to which he can use the land.
Mr. Peterson stated that when they viewed the first plan they thought it was
great but now part is sold off and if nothing can be done why was it being
discussed before.
Mr. Tent stated there is an ordinance before the Council allowing the Planning
Commission site plan control of development in the Six Mile/Newburgh area and
with one more reading it will be in effect; then tia Planning Commission will
have control of development in that area and if th: required site plan conflicts
with the Master Plan of the area the Commission can deny approval of it, and
Mr. Peterson did not wast his time in coming down before but the Commission
didn't have this ordinance at that time.
Mr. Pinto stated that if the City's regulations did not, to a substantial
extent, control the development and if they meant nothing, then Mr. Gold would
not be here with his petition promoting it as Mr. Peterson is here objecting
to it.
Mr. Lee Morrow, representing Burton Hollow Civic Association, was present and
stated that the concept shown tonight falls short of the original concept as
presented which was used to obtain the zoning that now exists in the area.
The fact that the proposal by Mr. Gold falls short of that concept causes the
Burton Hollow Civic Association to object to this rezoning request.
Mr. Sykes, President of the Federation of Civic Associations, stated that the
people in the area were under the impression that they had, in good faith,
given their approval to Mr. Gold's site plan even if no site plan approval
was required at that time, and he stated he believes that is what is the cause
of the confusion.
A resident, 36602 Grove, stated his belief that the Commission should emphat-
ically reject this petition; that this man made a prposal and based on that
proposal the Commission and the people accepted it. He said he doesn't believe
Mr. Gold ever intended to go through with what he planned and has put himself
in this position by selling land for sympathy.
8965 tMr. Tent stated that if the zoning is caanged the petitioner is required to
come in for approval of his site plan. He said the Commission went along with
this petitioner and in good faith granted him the rezoning based on what he
had told them were his intentions. Mr. Tent stated that very soon there will
be an ordinance requiring site plan approval regardless of size of the land
in the area.
Mr. Colomina stated that when a petitioner comes in for a rezoning the law
states he does not need a site plan at that time; he needs it after he gets the
rezoning but with the new ordinance the City will have site plan control and
architectural control as well.
Mr. Tom Marsh, Kingsbury-Renwick Subdivision stated that he would hope that
the Commission when they vote will take into consideration that although there
has been a separation and distinction between an actually approved site plan
and the original proposal that the two are still very much connected. He said
Mr. Gold wants to change the zoning and therefore will have to change his site
plan when it comes to the Commission and a distinction can be made between the
two but the results are going to be different also and he is concerned that
although there is a new proposal there is no way the original proposal can
take place.
Mr. Tent stated these things will all be taken into consideration when the
Commission votes on it tonight.
Mr. John Mee, a resident of Kingsbury-Renwick Subdivision, question what stores
were included in the original concept for the property.
Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Gold would like to answer that question.
Mr. Gold stated he didn't know.
Mr. Tent stated the original proposal was understood to include some high-type
stores which could only go with the original zoning, but the Commission has
nothing against grocery stores or hardware stores.
Mr. Hand stated he didn't believe any developer weld walk in here and guarantee
what they will put in a development.
A resident questioned on what basis the Commission will vote; there are a lot
of people here who are the most interested people in the area.
Mr. Tent stated the intention of the Commission is to give the area the type
of development that will make us proud to live here and looking at this from
the standpoint of the Six Nile and Newburgh area being a very important area in
the City and all the facts, reasonings, the Master Flan, the convictions of the
Commissioners and what the Commission sees as planners. of the City, will be the
basis of their vote.
A resident, stated the Cor_3ission should have to keep in with the feelings and
whishes of the people in the area and should not that be valued more than one
person's interest? The interest of people in their homes should be taken into
consideration more than that one person.
Mr. Tent stated the Commission is interested in the feelings of the people but
this is the democratic process.
8966
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-9-1-34 by the
City Planning Commission to rezone property located east of
Newburgh Road and north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest
1/4 of Section 8, from C-2 to P.S. and C-1.
Mr. Tent stated this is a petition by recommendation of the Planning Commission
that these two parcels be rezoned in accordance with the Master Plan for the
Six Mile/Newburgh area. This is forward planning to put the land to the best
use. He stated the land under the present zoning is excessive and if it is
accepted and the zoning changed, this too would fall into the category of the
site plan control as to what the use of the land will be.
Mr. Filer, who stated he is an Attorney present tonight on behalf of the property
owner. He stated that from what has gone on before wth the proposal on the
previous petition which was from P.S. to C-2 and C-2 to P.S. , it occurs to him
that if the property is to stay C-2 in the north than it would seem of little
sense to have the P.S. parcel sandwiched between C-2 and the bank and
flexibility could be maintained without being subject to the Commission's
approval. He said he would urge that the motion for the P.S. be reconsidered and
denied by the Commission because this would be an awkward position to have a
one-hundred foot P.S. classification between two pieces of commercial use.
Mr. Hand stated that to change the zoning on the parcel in question really
does not penalize the property owners.
Mr. Filer stated the owner of this parcel looked into the prospective uses for
this property; they have not undertaken any development of this parcel and he
is led to believe they are not planning any development for it, but this property
was zoned C-2 prior to their acquistion of it. He stated they have not sought
any rezoning and in terms of reducing the number of options available this
seems to be ill-advised for no apparent reason.
Mr. Tent stated that what Mr. Filer says makes senseht the property owners of
this piece of land is not in any jeopardy if the Commission goes along with
its proposal because regardless a site plan is required. If this parcel is
rezoned to P.S. a site plan would be required. What the Commission has done
here is take these two parcels that did not go along with the Master Plan and
attempt to rezone them so they could be plotted in the manner according to the
Master Plan of the area. He stated that if someone comes in with a better plan,
the zoning could be changed but it is felt that C-2 zoning here is too great.
Mr. Filer stated he would like to pont out that he does not agree this is a
valid basis for rezoning, that the property owners will not be prejudiced and
in light of the pictorial representation of the uses in the immediate area,
there seems to be very little reason for the rezoning of the property. He
said what they would have in effect on the Commission's motion is a 150' x 300'
P.S. zoning district completely surrounded by commercial zoning districts, and
it doesn't seem to be necessary or warranted to carry out the plan. Mr. Tent
stated that at the time of this action the Council had not acted on the new
ordinance. Mr. Tom Marsh, a resident of Kingsbury-Renwick Subdivision, stated
that as a homeowner he would be concerned over the C-2 zoning for the reason
of the intensity of use on this corner, and all four corners; there will be
just too much for the area regarding traffic.
8967
Mr. Filer stated he has not seen the ordinance before the Council.
There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-9-2-19 by
Lindhout Associates for Ward Memorial Presbyterian Church,
requesting a waiver use permit to expand the existing Church
facilities located on the southeast corner of Farmington Road
and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file from Engineering indicating they
have no objection and questioned Mr. Hull regarding what seems to be a problem
about drainage.
Mr. Hull stated the site plan, as submitted, shops details regarding drainage
and it is believed that Engineering has approved construction of the drainage
system.
Mr. Tent stated that if not, this could be a problem.
Mr. Hull stated the Engineer has worked with the petitioner regarding storm
sewer and widening of pavenent along Six Mile Road.
ILO
Mr. William Lindhout, petitioner, stated he has slides for the Commission's
view and that the Engineering Department has given its approval on the storm
drainage problem and that considerable pavement hasbeen added to Six Mile to
alleviate any traffic problems.
Mr. Lindhout presented slides showing the existing Church and the proposed
expansion in detail.
Mr. Tent stated he would like to compliment Mr. Lindhout on his presentation
and slides and his site plan, and questioned how soon would the Church under-
take the project, if approved.
Mr. Lindhout stated drawings will be available for bids almost immediately and
an early spring start on construction; the school additions would be at a later
date.
Mr. Andrew asked what is the estimated completion date.
Mr. Lindhout stated the main sanctuary and units have to be in by October of
1971.
Mr. Hull stated he is delighted to see the landscaping that is proposed and
obviously it can get started as soon as possible.
110 Mr. Lindhout stated they are cognizant of the Ordinance and they hope to do the
best possible job with it.
Mr. Tent stated this Commission in the last several years has gone to extents
to get people to landscape and asked if Mr. Lindhout sees any problems in
effectuating the landscape plans as proposed.
8968
Mr. Lindhout stated no, and asked the Commission to observe the manner by which
it is being put in and stated if it is a part of the original thing, there is
always a way to put in landscaping. He said the other buildings have put in
landscape and they expect to carry through on this. He said they are taking
out some pavement from the parking lot in the corner and installing plantings.
Mr. Tent stated the plans call for a 280 seat balcony and that this will require
fifty additional parking stalls.
Mr. Lindhout stated that is correct and the plans show here already more than
the ordinance requires and there is additional :paces possible. If the balcony
materializes, there will be approximately thirty to forty more.
Mr. Moser questioned if many of the trees will be taken out.
Mr. Lindhout said they will need to take out a pretty good number of the trees
to keep the parking off the corner but there will still be a considerable amount
of trees between the parking and the lots to the rear.
Mr. Moser questioned if there is only one egress and ingress on Farmington Road.
Mr. Lindhout stated they have provided a back-up to accommodate a certain amount
of traffic and the confusion of two outlets with cars turning right..and inter-
fering with cars turning left has been eliminated.
Mr. Richard 3. Vansen, 17375 Mu:Lrland, was present ad stated he is an Attorney
and is representing Mrs. Penelope Vansen, owner of poperty at 33063 W. Mc-
Nichols. Mr. Vansen read from a prepared letter, making statements to the
effect that repeated requests have been made by the ower of the property for a
protective barrier inasmuch as papers in abundant gantities are blown from the
parking lot onto his lawn. Also, that the parking lot is 1 to 1-1/2 feet higher
than the grade of the residential property creating a problem with regard to
water from heavy downpours and melting snow. He sted the parking lot, being
behind the church and out of vew from Farmington Road, serves as a gathering
place for hot-rodders end motorcyclists. He also made complaints on behalf of
the property owners regarding entrances on Farmington Road and Six Mile without
any obstruction; rubbish behind the Church and auto lights shining directly
into the bedroom during evening activities at the Church. Mr. Vansen
stated that these complaints were made to the Church and the result was that
they planted a .hugh forsythia with a promise of more in the future. He said
they are trying to sell th_:.s property and have received unfavorable comments
regarding the appearance of the Church and parking lot. They are not objecting
to the Church or its expansion but they believe something could and should have
been done regarding these : pints and on this basis they request the rejection
of this petition.
Mr. Tent questioned if Mr. Vansen had had contact with Mr. Lindhout.
Mr. Vansen stated he went down to the Planning Department only yesterday and
they have had close association with the Church.
Mr. Tent stated Mr. Vansen has some valid objection ahut the drainage problem
which the Commission was already aware of and which is going to be alleviated.
8969
too Mr. Lindhout stated he has talked with this man's brother many times and have
made attempts to correct situations. From the standpoint of a barrier against
lights and appearance he stated this problem has been solved because of the
insistance of the Planning Commission regarding this type of thing. He stated
the rear of the building does leave something to be desired and they hope to
eliminate the telephone pole and overhead Wires and the drainage plan mentioned
before will take care of any drainage problems. Mr. Lindhout stated they
catered to the community as a whole by leaving the corner green and parking in
the rear; hot rodders do seem to be a problem but they are trying to something
to keep them out of there and will make every attempt to see that Mr. Vansen
is satisfied.
Mr. Lindhout stated that the ingress to Six Mile Road is in the same location
as it now is but it simply has been widened and that parking will be shifted
over to the Farmington Road side.
A representative from the Church stated that they have been working with Mr.
Demek to put no parking signs along Six Mile Road because this is a nuisance
and dangerous.
Mr. V. Hindelang, 16783 Bloomfield, stated that if the parking is taken off Six
Mile Road it will be shifted over to Bloomfield and he is opposed to looking
at the back of a Church and would much rather look at the woods.
Mr. Andrew questioned why the Traffic Commission couldn't be contacted regarding
"no parking" signs on Bloomfield and Six Mile Road.
Mr. Pinto questioned if it is necessary to go through the County for no parking
signs.
Mrs. Hindelang, stated the Police Department told her the neighbors would have to
sign a petition and the Court would order the signs.
Mr. G. Taub, 16772 Bloomfield Drive, stated that unless something is done about
the trees, one of the last wooded pieces of land in this area will be lost, and
he believes there was a land agreement with property owners in not objecting
to the construction of the Church, nothing would be done to the trees of the
Church. Now, he stated, they are planning an addition and removing these trees.
In addition, he questioned, what type of greenbelt is going in and what assurance
do the people have regarding the sewer.
Mr. Tent stated that the developer has to submit to the Planning Commission a
Landscape Plan for his entire development within six months and complete the
landscaping within 1-1/2 years. He stated the City has Landscape Architects on
the staff of the Planning Department and a petitioner's landscape plan has to
be approved by the Planning staff and then it has to be adhered to. Mr. Tent
stated the Commission feels it has reasonable control on landscaping and that
Mr. Lindhout knows the problem. He then questioned Mr. Lindhout as to whether
or not there is any way to develop this without removing the woods.
tof Mr. Lindhout stated they se solving the drainage problems and this is in conflict
with the salvate of some of the trees but they have used discretion and have
come up with a solution that they feel is a compromise between what will happen
on the corner of Six Mile and Farmington and the woods. He said they will save
every tree they possibly can.
8970
Discussion was held by members of the Planning Commission and the audience re-
garding landscaping, lights and fencing.
Mr. Tent stated that all comments made will be taken into consideration and
that this area has been in need of some housekeeping and regardless of what the
building is they will have to comply with the maintenance of the area and the
Commission will follow through and see that the area is protected, and concern-
ing the landscaping, the architects try to put it the type of plant life that
is mostly maintenance-free.
Mr. Colomina stated the Planning Department has hen directed to prepare an
ordinance where the City will have maintenance control of landscaping with
provision for specifying who is going to maintain it.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-9-1-33 by
Robert D. Albertson to rezone property located betw?en Angling,
Deering and Pembroke Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1,
from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Tent stated there is a letter on file from the Engineering Department
indicating right-of-way is needed with regard to the development of this
property.
Mr. Robert Albertson, 27883 Village Lane, Farmington, Michigan, petitioner,
was present and stated that his intention is to plot this area into twelve
lots, one of which will be an outlot used as a play lot. He stated his reason
for the rezoning request is to make development economically feasible. Property
surrounding this in most cases are smaller lots.
Mr. Andrew questioned is Mr. Albertson's plan includes the full dedication
of Angling, Deering and Pembroke since there is only one-half right-of-way
now.
Mr. Albertson stated he is very sure that it does.
Mr. Tent stated the Commission realizes it cannot get this land developed
in the RUF 2pning category and R-1 would not be compatible with the surrounding
area but to make it compatible with the area and based on the plan the Plan-
ning staff prepared, Mr. Albertson could develop in the R-3 category with
eight lots.
Mr. Albertson questioned if this would not make a minimum size of the house
larger and that a large house even in an R-1 zoning tall still be considerably
higher priced than the existing homes.
Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Albertson has an option to buy the property.
d
Mr. Albertson stated yes, on contingency.
Mr. Pinto stated that actually the house size would im no problem because he
could put an 1,150 square-foot home on the n-3 lot.
8971
Mr. Tent questioned the petitioner if he would be amenable to rezone to the
R-3 category.
Mr. Albertson stated he does not want to lose the two lots and that right across
from this property there is R-1 and why is this objectionable. In fact he said
there are lots there of less than sixty feet.
Mr. Pinto stated that the plat on the east side of Deering is a plat that is
about thirty-five years old and that Ir. Albertson bm.ng here tonight under
the current Zoning Ordinance is the price that people pay for progress. He
said that plat was platted long before there was a Zoning Ordinance and the
minimum lot size in Livonia today is sixty feet.
Mr. Albertson stated that losing two homes would make this less economically
feasible.
Mr. Hull stated we are not here tonight to effectuate a preliminary plat, but
a zoning change but in this instance the two are almost tied together. The
plat submitted has several things that would prevent it being platted in this
way: one, two lots are too small; two, there is no dedication on St. Martins,
and three, there probably would be a problem with the outlot and homes backing
up to homes across the street is a very difficult thing. These are obstacles
that stand in his way of getting a plat approved by the City.
Mr. Albertson stated he was not aware that he was in conflict with the Ordinance.
Mr. Tent stated the development the Commission proposes will make it not con-
flict with the Ordinance and will give him eight lots if he will entertain
an R-3 development but there is no way he can get a sixty-foot development
approved.
Mr. Pinto said he believes what is being said is that even if the Commission
approved Mr. Albertson's petition which on its face says you could develop this
in sixty-foot lots, he would find himself with unsolvable problems in the plat-
ting process and going around in circles and never complying with the Ordinance.
Mr. Albertson stated the Commission says he does not have adequate depth on
a couple lots -- does this mean he would have to have a 120' depth rather than
the lot area.
Mr. Tent stated the Commission was trying to get 80'which is an average lot
throughout the City which is a good size lot. RUF is-adesirable use throughout
the City but in being realistic the Commission tried to get an 80' development.
A question was raised regarding the widening of Deering.
Mr. Pinto questioned if the Plat regulations sa,r that no plat could be approved
with a half street, and if this zoning were changed and the plat came in, under
our regulations the plat cannot be approved unless an additional half street is
dedicated in the plat.
Mr. Hull stated there is no street there but the Commis .on would have to evaluate
the need for a street at the time a plat came in.
Mr. Andrew asked what the reaction of the people would be to the Parks and
Recreation Commission's purchasing thi^ property for a park site.
8972
The reaction of the people was favorable.
Mr. Pinto questioned if this property had been purchased recently.
Mr. Albertson stated he is buying it on contract.
Hr. Pinto stated he no doubt has to get the rezoning to be bound by the
contract.
Mr. Floyd Balman, owner of the property, stated he would like to see this
property used in a reasonable fashion dnd make a reasonable profit on the
uses that go in there and not be out of line as to what the people would like.
Mr. Tent stated Mr. Albertson could develop at the R-3, 80' lots, cutting
down the lots to eight rather than twelve.
Mr. Balman stated the school has contacted him regarding the heavy growth
of trees on the point of this property which children hide behind and he
stated he mentions this as a reason why something should be done with this
property.
Mr. Andrew questioned Mr. hlbertson as to what his aaswer would be to the
R-3A zoning.
Mr. Albertson indicated agreement if he could get ten lots.
I
Mr. Andrew stated he would get eight only.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item.
Mr. Tent stated the item will be taken under advisement.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Andrew, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-106-70 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
adjourn the Public Hearing held on October 20, 1970,
at approximately 11:30 p.m.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 222nd Regular Meeting to order at approximately
11:40 p.m. with approximately the same number of interested persons in the
audience as were present for the public hearing.
Mr. Hand announced the first item cn the agenda is Petition 70-8-1-30
by Hyman Gold, President of Gold Construction Company, to
rezone property located east of Newburgh and north of
Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, from
P.S. to C-2 and C-2 to P.S.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously
adopted, it was
8973
#10-107-70 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
(110: on October 20, 1970 on Petition 70-8-1-30 by Hyman Gold,
President of Gold Construction Company, requesting to rezone
property located east of Newburgh and north of Six Mile Road
in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, from P.S. to C-2 and C-2
to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council that Petition 70-8-1-30 be denied for
the following reasons:
(1) The present zoning on this corner is completely adequate
to effectuate a high calibre, high quality development
proposal. There is no need or advantage in changing the
zoning.
(2) The land as presently zoned will be more compatible with
the adjacent residential neighborhood than it would be
if it were changed as petitioned for because more of the
adjacent lots back on to professional service zoning than
commercial. A change in zoning N'ould make most of the
adjacent lots tack on to commercial development.
(3) This proposed rezoning is in conflict with the philosophy
of the Master Plan for this sector of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia
Observer, under date of September 30, 1970 and a notice
of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company,
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telepho
Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departmen .s
-d in the Proof of Service. _---------
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-9-1-34 by
the City Planning Commission to rezone property located
east of Newburgh Road and north of Six Mile Road in the
Southwest 1/4 of Section 8, from C-2 to P.S. and C-1.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Talbot, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-108-70 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held
on October 20, 1970 on Petition 70-9-1-34 by the City Planning
Commission requesting to rezone property located east of
Newburgh Road and north of Six Mile Road in the Southwest 1/4
of Section 8, from C-2 to P.S. and C-1, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 70-9-1-34 be approved for the following reasons:
(1) The intensity of use generated by the present zoning
in this area is excessive and it is in the best interest
of the City and general area to reduce the intensity of
use by this rezoning.
8974
(2) The rezoning of this land to a zoning category that
allows a lesser intensity of use will make these lands
more compatible with adjacent development and have a
less adverse effect upon the entire area. It will also
generate less traffic.
(3) This proposed rezoning is consistent with the philosophy
of the Master Plan for this sector of the City.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing
was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer,
under date of September 30, 1970 and a notice of such hearing
was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio
Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers
Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of
Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Andrew, seconded by Mr. Pinto, and unaimously
adopted, it was
#10-109-70 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission, pursuant to
Section 23.01 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish
1111,
and order that a public hearing be held to determine
whether or not to rezone property located approximately
260 feet north of Six Mile Road and approximately 360 feet
east of Newburgh Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 8;
a part of parcel J2ala and being legally described as follows:
"The East 150 feet of the West 510 feet of the North 100
feet of the South360feet of the S. W. 1/4 of Section 8,
T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan.
from C-2 to C-1.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and notice be given
as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended,
the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia and that there
shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the
City Council.
Mr. Moser questioned if it would be wise to rezone to parking.
Mr. Pinto stated that if he is not mistaken the piece of property referred
to is the piece that the bank owns and purchased in connection with the piece
in front. He asked if a bank is allowed in a P zoning, and added that to do
anything else but rezone to C-1 would give an owner a piece of property with
two different zonings.
Mr. Andrew stated he would like to discuss it with the bank before a parking
rezoning is initiated.
8975
14,
Mr. Tent stated that the petition at the time of the public hearing could be
amended from C-1 to P.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-9-2-19 by
Lindhout Associates for Ward Memorial Presbyterian Church,
requesting a waiver use permit to expand the existing
Church facilities located on the southeast corner of Farmington
Road and Six Mile Road in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 15.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mr. Andrew, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-110-70 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held
on October 20, 1970 on Petition 70-9-2-19 by Lindhout Associates
for Ward Memorial Presbyter)en Church requesting to be granted
a waiver use permit to e<.pa.nd ti:e existing Church facilities
located on the southeast corner of ^armington Road and Six Mile
Road in the Northwest 1/4 cf Sect oi. 15, the City Planning
Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 70-9-2-19 be approved with the following conditions:
(1) That the development be in strict accordance with Site
Plan #6808.
(2) That the architecture of the structure be as indicated on
Architect Plan #6808 dated October 20, 1970.
(3) That the property be properly landscaped in accordance with
a landscaped plan for the entire site to be prepared by the
petitioner and submitted to the Planning Commission for
approval no later than six months after the date of approval
and that such landscape plan place particular emphasis on a
greenbelt and/or screening along the easterly and southerly
boundaries of the site; and that such landscape plan, when
submitted, be accompanied by a letter from an authorized
officer of the Church indicating that such landscaping or
screening, when in place, will thereafter be properly main-
tained; and that such landscape 'la_i also accommodate as
much as possible the retention of trees already on the site.
(4) That the landscape plan, upon approval, C.-all be completed
and in place no later than October 15, 1971.
(5) That the storm drainage system as indicated on Sheet #1
of Plan #6808 be implemented as an integral part of the
overall development program contemplated by the petitioner.
41 ,
to (6) That Six Mile Road be widened by the construction of an
additional lane of pavement as shown on Sheet #1 of Plan
#6808.
8976
(7) That the exterior :.igl,ting plan shall be submitted for
approval by the Panning Commission showing the location
of lighting and ctretgth of lighting.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was
sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City
Departments as listed in the Proof of Service.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 70-9-1-33 by
Robert Albertson to rezone property located between Angling,
Deering and Pembroke Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
1, from RUF to R-1.
Mr. Tent informed the Commissioners that Mr. Albertson has stated that if
the Commission would refer this item to a study he would entertain an R-3
zoning category.
Mr. Tent stated that if the Commission is agreeable the item will be referred
to a study meeting.
The Commissioners were agreeable and the matter was referred to a study meet-
in .
eet-ing.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Andrea, seconded by Mr. Hand, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-111-70 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby
adopt the following aTended P.: 'e of Procedure:
Article I - Officers and their Duties
Section 1. The Officers of the Planning Commission shall consist
of a Chairman, vice-Chairman and a Secretary, all of
whom must be members of the Planning Commission.
Section 2. The Chairman shat)_ preside at all meetings and hearings
of the P ..ening ComrcP.ion and shall have the duties
normally conferro.d b; Parliamentary usage on such
Officers. The Chairrnaa shall be one of the citizen
members of the Commission. He shall have the privilege
of discuss,.ng all :attars before the Commission and to
vote thereon.
Section 3. The Vice-Chairman shall act for the Chairman in his
absence.
Section 4. The Secretary shall cause the minutes and records of the
Commission to be recorded, prepare the agenda for regular
and special meetings with the Chairman, provide notice
of meetings to Comminsion members, arrange proper and
legal notice of hearings, attend to correspondence of the
Board and such other duties as are normally carried out
by a Secretary.
8977
Article II - Election of Officers
Section 1. Nomination and election of Officers shall be made from
the floor at the annual organization meeting which shall
be the first Regular Meeting held in December of each
year.
Section 2. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire
membership of the Planning Commission shall be declared
elected and shall serve for one year, or until his
successor shall take office, the term to commence on
the following January 1.
Section 3. Vacancies in offices shall be filled immediately by
regular election procedure.
Article III - Meetings
Section 1. The Planning Commission shall meet at least once a month
within a City building to transact or study Planning
Commission business.
Section 2. Special meetings may be called by the Chairman of the
Planning Commission or upon written request of two (2)
members, provided twenty-four (24) hours notice has been
given to each member before the time set for such meetings,
except that the announcement of a Special Meeting at any
meeting at which seven (7) members are present shall be
sufficient notice of such meeting.
Section 3. Five (5) members of the Planning Commission shall constitue
a quorum for the conduct of its business.
Section 4. Every resolution not otherwise provided for shall require
a majority vote of the members present at a legally
constituted meeting.
Section 5. Parliamentary procedure shall be governed by "Robert's
Rules of Order."
Article IV - Committees
Section 1. Various committees shall be appointed by the Chairman
to supplement the technical expertise of the Planning
staff in studying special problems and making reports
to the full Commission and carrying out functions and
duties nor normally expected of staff personnel.
Article V - Employees
li;d
Section 1. The Planning Commission may employ such permanent staff as
necessary to administer a comprehensive planning program
for the City.
8978
Article VI - Hearings
Section 1. Such Public Hearings as are required by law will be heard
by the Commission in the order in which they appear on the
Agenda except where the Chairman deems a change necessary,
and that a Hearing may be postponed or adjourned for
hearing by order of the Planning Commission upon good
cause shown.
Section 2. The applicant may appear in his own behalf or may be
represented by an attorney or agent at the hearings by
the Planning Commission. If the applicant or his
representative fails to appear, the arguments of the
opposition may be heard and the Planning Commission
may adjourn the hearing, or it may take action on the
application or petition.
Section 3. The City Planner, unless otherwise directed by the
Secretary, may, at his discretion, establish dates for
public hearings and may cause notice of such public
hearings to be advertised in the official paper of the
City of Livonia and without the necessity of formal action
by the Commission.
Section 4. All applications and petitions requiring action by the
Planning Commission shall be stamped so as to indicate upon
the petition the date on which such application or petition
was received. Applications and petitions shall be given
a public hearing by the City Planning Commission in the
order in which they are received unless applicant,
petitioner or Commission deems additional time is necessary
for change or study provided, however, that if the
applicant or petitioner can show written reasons indicat-
ing that an extreme hardship will be imposed by com-
pliance with the above provisions of this section, then
the Director may determine to place such application or
petition on an Agenda out of the regular order.
Section 5. A record of the minutes shall be maintained
byshthell record Director as directed by the Secretary which
all resolutions relating to each case acted upon together
with the reasons supporting any resolution of denial.
The minutes shall also specify the vote of each member of
the Commission.
Section 6. The Commission may where it deems necessary condition its
action (or recommend to the City Council that the latter
condition its action) .
Section 7. The Chairman shall have wide discretion in conducting the
hearings. He shall have the power to interrupt arguments
at any time in the interest of expediting the orderly
disposition of the business at
He shall e obli-
gated to prevent any party from undulyconsumingthe
Planning Commission's time. The Planning Commission shall
3979
take notice of pertinent sections of the Zoning
Ordinance or other Ordinances of the City. M.
written material filed with the Planning Commission
as hereinabove provided will be made a part of the
minutes.
Section 8. The Chairman, or the Planning Director by direction of
the Chairman, may transmit letters stating policy or
opinions when the majority of Commissioners agree to
such action.
Section 9. The Commission shall act by resolution at all Regular
and Special Meetings.
Section 10. When the Commission acts by resolution, the resolution
shall become effective seven (7) days after the adoption
of said resolution.
Article VII - Conduct of Commissioners
Section 1. Until such time as a petition for rezoning or an
application for waiver use and/or site plan approval
has been advertised in the official newspaper of the
City, and notification of public hearing sent to all
affected property owners and utility co -ranies, as
required by Ordinance and/or State statute, such
petition or application shall be considered confi-
dential information within the Planning Commission.
In addition, it shall be deemed improper for any
Planning Commissioners to discuss with the petitioner,
applicant, his agent, or any civic association,
neighborhood group, or combination thereof, such
petition or application until the advertisement has
appeared as aforesaid.
Section 2. In the event that the Chairman or any member of the
Planning Commission is requested to attend any civic
or neighborhood association meeting, or a combination
thereof, or to meet with a petitioner, applicant, or
his agent, or initiates action to meet with any civic
association, neighborhood association, or combination
thereof, or any petitioner, applicant, or his agent
for the purpose of discussing policy, a decision of
the Commission, or any pending petition and/or appli-
cation es aforesaid, it shall be the obligation of such
Commissioner to immediately inform the balance of the
Commission of such request in order that they may arrange
to attend such meeting if they so desire.
Section 3. In the event that any Planning Commissioner shall violate
this code of conduct, it shall be his obligation to so
inform the Chairman and the other Planning Commissioners
and request that his name be stricken from the role call
vote at the regular or special meeting when such petition
8980
and/or application is under consideration. Or,
the Chairman or any Planning Commissioner may bring
notice of such violation to the attention of the Plan-
ning Commission at which time the Chairman shall be
obligated to request the Planning Commissioner who
violated this code of conduct not to participate in
the role call vote at the regular or special meeting
when such petition and/or application is under
consideration.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-112-70 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the meeting held by the City
Planning Commission on August 25, 1970 are approved.
Mr. Hand announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the land-
scape plan for office building proposed to be located on the
west side of Middlebelt between Wentworth and Five Mile Road
in Section 14. (Waiver Use Petition 69-5-2-13)
On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Falk, and unanimously
adopted, it was
#10-113-70 RESOLVED that, the Landscape Plan dated October 7, 1970,
submitted by Livonia Education Association and prepared
by Green Ridge Nursery, in connection with Petition 69-5-2-13
requesting a waiver use permit to erect an office building
on property located on the west side of Middlebelt between
Wentworth and Five Mile Road in Section 14 and approved by
the Planning Commission on November 18, 1969, the City Planning
Commission does hereby approve subject Landscape Plan.
Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Andrew, seconded by Mr. Pinto, and unanimously
adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned their 222nd
Regular Meeting at approximately 12:00 midnight.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
F ancis M. Hand, Act 'ng Sacre.ary
ATTESTED:
/111 G2-4-- 4PeNrvt47
ymon W. Tent, Chairman