Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-07-157-7' 5635 MINUTES OF THE 207TH REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, July 15, 1969 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia i held its 207th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall. Mr. Raymond Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:20 p.m. with approximately 50 interested persons in the audience. Members Present: Raymond W. Tent Robert Colomina Harry Wrightman Donald Heusted Marvin Moser Joel LaBo Frank Santo H. Dow Tunis Members Absent: Charles Walker Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director, and Robert Menzies of the City Planning Department; A. Easton Assistant City Attorney; Daniel Andrew, Industrial Development Coordinator, were present. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-1-17 by Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Wentworth Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from RUF to P.S. Mr. Tent stated that the file shows no objections from the Engineering or other City Departments; no right-of-way is needed; and the plans submitted conform to the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if the petitioner was present. IL Mr. William Lindhout, of Lindhout Associates, representing the Livonia Education Association, 18185 Farmington Road, presented the Commission with new sketch indicating the approach they are taking with regard to the use of the parcel. He stated that Mr. Ericson, the owner's representative, was also present should the need arise. He pointed out that the placement of the building and parking had been changed, adding that the parcel would house the administrative function of the Livonia Education Association and the building will reflect its administrative importance to the City of Livonia. He pointed out the landscaping and the fact that the entry to the building is oriented to the possible future expansion of the build- ing, according to zoning requiremnts. He said this presentation is for a zoning change petition and a waiver use permit. Mr. Tent asked what the value of this construction would be. Mr. Lindhout stated the total investment would crowd $100,000.00. Mr. Tent asked how soon the building would begin. Mr. Lindhout stated, immediately upon receipt of the approval of rezoning; it would take about 8 weeks for the bids and construction would start this fall. Mr. Tent asked if the landscaping will be as agreed. Mr. Lindhout replied, yes; but that he would file for a variance so that the wall would not be required as stated, feeling that landscaping will be much better than IL the wall. • 5636 Mr. Tent asked if it was understood that a wall is required. Mr. Lindhout stated yes, the wall would be as agreed if the appeal is denied but that the wall in this instance would be an error. I Mr. Moser asked what was meant about future expansion. Mr. Lindhout replied, one or two offices. He stated that this services the Livonia School District, that this is the factor which would determine the growth of the building in question. Mr. Hull stated that petitioner has submitted waiver use and zoning petitions but the waiver use has not yet been advertised. The building for the purposes stated here are not a permitted use under PS zoning which is the reason for the waiver use petition. Mr. Colomina asked if the zoning is approved, what is the effect on the site plan submitted at the present meeting. Mr. Hull advised that if the building as submitted on the plan is not to be used for administrative purposes but for a permitted use, the site plan submitted would go through; however, if used for the stated purpose a waiver use permit is required and would need Planning Commission and Council approval making it necessary for the petitioner to come in for another OK. Mr. Lindhout stated that his petition asks for zoning compatible with adjacent property. Mr. Hull stated that PS would have a reduced setback requirement which is to the petitioner's advantage. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-19 by Livonia Masonic Temple Association requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Deering and Coff Streets in the Northeast 1'4 of Section 12, from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Budington, a member of the Livonia Masonic Lodge, spoke for its members. He stated they wish to rezone as set forth in the petition7 their organization cannot have alcoholic be rages, cannot open after midnight, no parties, their meetings are in the evening generally from 7 to 11 p.m. ; they do have youth groups sponsored by them. He added that t_ 'y `re s:orti .:' in Plymouth but would like to establish in Livonia. To use the property they would have to be rezoned to a C-2 category. Mr. Tent stated the letter in the file states there are no engineering problems; however, a right-of-way is needed and read that portion of the letter. Mr. Hull advised that the right-of-way needed is a 27' dedication. Mr. Tent asked if the petitioner owns the property. Mr. Budington stated they have an option to purchase, subject to the rezoning. Mr. Tent stated that the petition, if approved, would be subject to the dedication of the right-of-way. 5637 Mr. Budington stated that the surrounding neighbors had shown no objection to the organization moving into the Church building. Mr. Tent asked if there is a deficiency in parking. Petitioner felt there would be it they expanded. Mr. Nagy explained that the requirement is for app oximately 40 parking spaces. They show 55 deficient spaces which would cut clown the total, itbWever, they would still be well in excess of their requirement. Petitioner stated they cannot say if the would expand; at the present time the building would house the lodge. If they expanded they might try to purchase adjacent land or, failing that, buy another parcel and move. Mr. Tent stated he was concerned that they would have C-2 zoning and if in a few years they decided to they could move and the zoning would be C-2; it could cause a great deal of trouble. The petitioner stated that at the present time they cannot afford other parcels of land; they can afford this building; they cannot guarantee that they will not have to expand or purchase new property. Mr. Budington also stated that under C-2 zoning there is a requirement for a masonry wall. He added, residents surrounding the property have signed a petition to the effect that they would prefer something other than the masonry wall; he asked if a variance could be granted so that the wall could be eliminated and e green "fence" be put there instead. Mr. Tent said it was impossible to make variances on petitions. He said the Zoning Board of Appeals can waive the requirements of the wall. If this petition is approved they can appeal as aforesaid and in the event the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the appeal they would have to erect the wall. Mr. Hull stated the wall would not be required until such time as they alter the building or change the parking lot. In other words, when some work is done on the development of the site. Petitioner stated it is his understanding that only the rear of the property is abut- ting residential and requires the wall. Mr. Tent stated that is correct. Mr. Hull stated he would like to ascertain if the petitioner is willing to dedicate the right-of-way. Mr. Budington stated they were not the owners; the church still owns the property and they have the option to buy subject to rezoning. Mr. Harris in the audience stood up and stated he represents the church. He asked if the dedication starts from the middle of the street. Mr. Hull stated they have 33' from the center of the road and they need 27 additional feet for the full right-of-way width. The petitioner stated he would like to come back on this as he has to have approval of the lodge. 5638 Mr. Tent gave approval for this matter to be carried to a later point in the evening, and adjourned same. IL Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-20 by Greenfield Construction Company, Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, north of Six Mile Road in Section 7 from R-5-C to C-2, C-4 and R-E; and south of Six Mile Road in Section 18 from R-3-B to P.S. and C-4. Mr. David Meinzinger, 34165 Six Mile Road, was present representing the petitioner. Mr. Tent asked him to point out the property and the existing and proposed zoning in the area. He stated that the petitioner has requested only the items in the petition;that in the future other items would be taken care of and that he has modified his petition to exclude multi-family. Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file from the St. Timothy Presbyterian Church, dated July 11, 1969, which sets forth their opposition to parcels 1 and 2 and their agreement to the proposals for parcels 3, 4, 5 and 6. Mr. Meinzinger stated that the property is owned by Greenfield Construction Company. Mr. Tent asked how many persons in the audience were interested in this petition. There were three hands raised. Mr. Meinzinger explained the site plan stating that implementation would take about four years to complete. He discussed the adjacent properties, stating that the area 1140 proposed will be about 25 acres for a fashion type development, with a large depart- ment store, service center, small stores, etc. There are two parcels for a motel- hotel type development, i.e. , Holiday Inn. He said there are already offers from such businesses wanting "in". This is all brought about by the expressway interchange. There is also a P.O. district for buildings with a minimum of 2-1/2 stories. Mr. Hull stated it would be up to City government how many stories would be allowed. P.S. presently has a maximum of two-story buildings. Mr. Meinzinger continued to explain the sketches brought with him to the meeting. He stated there will be internal boulevarded roads, with one light at Six Mile Road to control traffic. Another report brought in was that of the revenue from taxation, from which he explained to the Commission and the audience the City's benefits in comparison to residential building on the same scale. Mr. Tent advised this was a very informative presentation but he would like to know just what the plan is regarding how many years it would take. Mr. Meinzinger stated it has already been two to three years in planning, generally takes ten years to develop a plan of this size; however, he stated this would go much faster because of the interest which has been shown. He stated that the owners will run this development and will place restrictions on the property. Mr. Keith Gale, 38231 W. Six Mile Road, who owns an adjacent pieces of property, stated he has no objection to such a development but had a question about a strip of property IL which would be cut off. He stated ingress and egress on the south side of Six Mile Road would be needed. Mr. Orville H. Barron, 38600 Six Mile Road, stated he thought the idea was commendable 5639 • but with regard to his land he would like ingress and egress to the center at three points, which he pointed to on the site plan; otherwise his land will be cut off. Mr. Tent advised that this petition has been submitted and under study; he advised the audience that for the record it is understood they own adjacent property and the Planning Commission will review all matters brought up at this meeting; that the suggestions and requests have been noted and will be looked into at the study session. He assured them that everything will be worked out. Mr. Toll, an Elder of St. Timothy Presbyterian Church, stated he is opposed to non- residential development south of Six Mile. He was advised that this still has to go back to the study session. Mr. Wrightman asked Mr. Meinzinger, with regard to property at Six Mile Road, north and south, designated commercial, if this is part of his petition. Mr. Meinzinger answered, no. In the legals they set aside one-half acre at each corner for legal description for open space-landscape area. Surrounding the commercial at Six Mile and Newburgh we have also set aside 100' landscape belt. He stated that the idea is that landscaping would be similar to that at Eastland, a set back of 100' . Mr. Colomina questioned the figures used in the report of finances presented by Mr. Meinzinger, stating that the $25,000 figures as cost of a residential unit in R-3 and R-5 districts is low. Mr. Meinzinger stated that the figures used were not of the immediate area but another adding that they are low but that the figures throughout the financial report are based on the same low figures. 4 Mr. Tent stated that these figures were just received by the Commission and if there are any questions they can be studied. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced that the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-18 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcaaft between Farmington and Hubbard in the northwest 1/4 of Section 27 from RUF to M-1. Mr. Tent stated that a letter dated May 13, 1969 from the Industrial Commission had requested this zoning change stating that it is consistent with the overall Master Plan of the City of Livonia. He asked Mr. Daniel Andrew, Industrial Development Co- ordinator, to give some additional background information. Mr. Andrew stated that on May 25, 1964 the Industrial Commission met with the residents of this particular area. They discussed the ramifications of zoning to light manu- facturing and agreed to withhold any petition until the Schoolcraft freeway became a reality and the Highway Department made active negotiations. They feel now they can move ahead. Mr. Wrightman asked if there are any figures as to the amount of land which has already been bought and negotiated for along Schoolcraft, by the State Highway Dept. 1[40 Mr. Andrew stated that at the present time they have acquired two parcels of the property in question. Mr. LaBo asked if the zoning change would effect the price of the land with respect to the State Highway Department. 5640 Mr. Andrew replied, no; it will be October or November before a rezoning can be accomplished at Council level. He stated that the service drive is schedule for April 1970; that the rezoning would have no effect whatsoever. Mr. Haavisto, 32465 Schoolcraft, stated the agreement was to zone industrial when 11110 the State signed a bill of sale to buy the property; not when the highway comes through. He stated that the offer received is very small, 40% of the value, and he is going to court and therefore would not want any change of zoning at present until the court action is through. He said he would not want to pay industrial taxes on property for two years while waiting for settlement, and this also is an objection, the industrial taxes. Mr. Tent advised Mr. Haavisto that if the zoning is changed and not used for industrial he would not pay industrial taxes as such; the taxes would not be increased for this reason. Mr. Hull stated the taxes may change but the zoning change will not effect if° it will be the potential of the land. Mr. Wrightman asked if any of his neighbors have sold to the State. Mr. Haavisto replied, none, they are negotiating at this time. The Commission was advised by Mr. Haavisto that the highway will take footage to include their home and the remaining property can only be used for industry; however, their subdivision has deed restrictions which prohibit the City from taking their land changing the zoning at their own discrimination. Mr. Wrightman asked how the change in zoning effects him now. J Mr. Haavisto stated they object now, until they have a figure from the State agreed upon; after that they agree to rezone; that rezoning would only take 15 minutes. Mr. Andrew stated the deed restrictions would take only 15 minutes to be removed but the rezoning would take 16 weeks. He added that there is further concern due to rumors that some people want to move their homes back off the 150' line - they can do it with the existing zoning. He does not feel the houses should be moved back; once they are moved by the State Department they should stay off. Mr. Haavisto advised the Commission that in the heat of conversations with the Industrial Commission ',__re comments were passed but he assured them that this was not the intention of the people. Mr. LaBo felt that this change of zoning, in fact, would be a favor to these people; the value of the land would be greater and it would give them a chance to get an industrial purchaser. Mr. Haavisto stated they did not want to take this chance, adding that there is much vacant land around him. He again stated he objects to the zoning change tonight, he wants to wait. Mr. T. Kechane, 5607 Charlesworth, Dearborn, Michigan, stated he owns a vacant lot in the subdivision. He stated that industrial would bring about $3,900.00 and agrees with Mr. LaBo. Mr. Herman O'Neil of Howell, Michigan, referred to the agreement and stated he objected to a change of zoning at present. 5641 Mr. Andrew stated that the agreement was until the Highway stated negotiations and .' feels the agreement should stand. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition No. 69-6 2-14 by the Mid-Six Marathon Service Station requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental of trucks and storage of same on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in Section 14. Mr. Owen J. Cummings, 27488 Five Mile Road, Livonia, was present to represent the petitioner. He stated that the use requested has become an ancillary use for many gasoline stations, there is no maintenance or repair involved, only the refueling of the vehicles. Mr. Tent asked if Mr. Cummings is a resident of Livonia. Mr. Cummings answered, no; he has his law offices in Livonia. Mr. Tent advised Mr. Cummings that they are having problems with service stations, change of ownerships, vacancies, etc. because there are too many. As of May 1969 there are 84 service stations operating; 5 vacant and 8 have been converted to other uses. There are three stations in the area of this petition, a fourth on the way. He discussed stations with outside storage and brought out photographs of five stations with storage on the outside, pointing out the problems brought about - stating that other Marathon stations have U-Haul vehicles. Mr. Tent stated that the oil companies state they have no bold on the stations; that I they are independent dealers; they too are having brouble getting the people to police their stations., the start is trucks, trailers and U-Hauls and tractors and cement mixers will be next. The Commission is concerned about things of this nature which detract from the primary function of the station. Mr. Cummings stated he has seen the two operations he is representing at this meeting, he has the storage and rental agreements that were executed for the premises, adding that there would be no maintenance. He stated that the site plan indicates the areas they will use to store equipment. Mr. Tent stated there might be no problem if they could buy additional land and put up a building to store the vehicles. Mr. Cummings stated that the proposal limited the number of vehicles. Mr. Wrightman stated he'd heard this is U-Haul and asked if the petitioner is buy- ing the equipment. Mr. Cummings answered, no; this would be leased equipment. Mr. Wrightman asked what is the least amount of revenue. Mr. Cummings stated he only represents the owner of the station. 1[0 Mr. Wrightman asked why they need this additional type of revenue. i Mr. Cummings stated this is a use compatible with service station use. 5642 Mr. Wrightman stated that the Pensylvania Supreme Court ruled this is not a compatible use with service stations. He stated that in our Ordinance, because it does not say it is allowed, it is excluded. i Mr. Colomina stated the petitioner wants to rent trucks and stated there are two trailers in the back. He asked if he rents them now. Mr. Bulinsky, 29407 W. Six Mile Road, operator of the station, stated the trailers are not rented, they are privately owned. Mr. Cummings stated this petition is primarily for use of trucks. Mr. Tent stated there are letters in the file from a Mrs. Knoll and Mrs. Fleming indicating objections to trailer rentals. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-2-15 by Gorden V. Rumohr requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental of trucks and storage of same on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge Road in Section 23. Mr. Owen Cummings also represented the petitioner in this petition. He stated that primarily this set-up is the same situation as exists at Middlebelt and Six Mile Road. Mr. Tent stated that this is a Shell Station which came before the Commission with a beautiful station, built it and said they only wanted to sell gasoline. Mr. Cummings said that the comments covered by the previous petition 69-6-2-14 are applicable here. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that this item would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-1-16 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located between Inkster Road and Cardwell immediately north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUF to C-2. Mr. Nagy explained the purpose of this petition is to extend the existing C-2 zoning to conform to lot ownership lines which will make the existing C-2 zoning adequate in depth to facilitate quality commercial development. This zoning request was brought about by the owners of the property within the area. Mr. Tent advised there was no objection from the City Engineering Department; a letter from Jr. John Dufour also concurs. Mr. Wesley Cash, 27719 Joy Road, Westland, one of the owners involved, asked what is the time limit to build the wall. Mr. Tent asked if there was a building proposed on the property it would have to be built at the time new improvements occurred. Mr. Cash replied, yes. He had a short discussion about the wall and was advised by Mr. Hull that the next time he has to make any physical addition to his building or 5643 needs to go before the Building Inspection Department would be the time he would be required to build the wall. (11:11, Mr. Cash stated he wanted to build it as soon as possible as he stores equipment in the back and due to a theft problem he wants the wall quickly, at least before the frost. Mr. Tent advised he can build it right away or as suggested by Mr. Hull. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-14 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 11.03 Waiver Uses (C-2 Districts) Restaurants, to establish specific regula- tions for controlling the development of carry-out type restaurants. Mr. Tent asked if this amendment was as discussed in the study session; were there any changes. Mr. Menzies answered, yes, it was the same; no changes. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman renounced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-15 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 11.02 Permitted Uses (C-2 Districts) , of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to remove Waiver Uses in C-1 Districts from Permitted Uses in C-2 Districts. Mr. Tent asked if this amendment was also as discussed in the study session or were there any changes. Mr. Menzies answered there were no changes. Mr. Tent, Chairman, delcared the matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-16 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.29 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify what can and cannot be located in front of residentially zoned property, and to prohibit outside storage of materials in any portion of the front yard and the first 25 feet of the side yard in any industrially zoned district. Mr. Menzies explained this amendment in detail. He went on to say that Sections 10.08 and 11.09 of the Ordinance are in conflict with this amendment. He stated that this petition can be processed at this meeting and he will draw up an amend- ment covering Sections 10.08 and 11.09 to remove the conflict. After a short discussion with the Commission, it was decided that Mr. Menzies would do as suggested, having the proposed amendment at the next study session, or as soon as possible. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-17 by 5644 the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance, by deleting all of Section 18.49, Fences, since it is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 18.29. Mr. Tent asked if this amendment was as discussed at the study session. Mr. Menzies answered yes, there are no changes. Mr. Tent, Chairman, advised this matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-7-7 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Fire Station Plan, to incorporate property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Middlebelt in Section 14, or property located on the east side of Middlebelt between Rayburn and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. Mr. Nagy, Assistant City Planner, explained the purpose of this petition, as requested by the Livonia Fire Division, is to designate a site for a fire station in this sector of the City. One choice is south of the existing Hearthside Furniture Store on the east side of Middlebelt Road, approximately 120 x 400 feet; the other on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Middlebelt Road, approximately 200 x 300, which would be the more ideal because of its shape. Mr. Tent stated the file holds a letter from Chief Roberts selecting Site #5. Site #3 would need more than 100' in width. 11; Mr. Wrightman stated that this site would have to put up fencing and that Site #5 is already in C-2 and needs no fencing. Mr. Moser asked if the owners of the property are notified of this and just what the Commission does to it. Mr. Nagy advised that it puts a cloud on the title when the legal description is sent to the Register of Deeds. He advised that the owners are aware of their actions. Mr. Hull stated that this is handled in the same fashion as any site they pick for a park. Mr. Moser asked if both pieces will be taken. Mr. Nagy answered, they settle on one. Mr. Hull stated that the land must be acquired quickly; he ad*ised the Commission of the federal funds that are available to purchase the land. Mr. Moser questioned the Armenian Home which was erected on the previous site which was picked. Mr. Hull stated it was too expensive and they felt another parcel could be picked more reasonably. Mr. Moser asked if they can acquire the property by condemnation if the owners refuse to sell. 5645 'tr. Hull replied, yes. I.fr. Tent, Chairman, advised this matter would be taken under advisement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously aclopted, it was #7-96-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the public hearing held on Tuesday, July 15, 1969, at approx- imately 10:15 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Tent Chairman, called the 207th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 1030 p.m. with approximately forty interested persons in the audience. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-19 by Livonia Masonic Temple Association requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Deering and Goff Streets in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Tent brought up the question again of the right-of-way dedication. Mr. Budington stated that this has been discussed and if acceptable, the church is culling to dedicate the property and the lodge is agreeable to this at the time of closing of title to the property. Mr. Tent stated it would just take a quit claim deed. Mr. Budington said it would be executed at the closing. 1[1110 Mr. Colomina stated that the matter should be returned to a study session to clarify the zoning requirement and if everything is in order a special meeting can be called after the study session, or it can be referred to the next regular meeting, August 12th. Mr. Wrightman asked what the reason for the delay is if C-2 is the only category into which they can be admitted. Mr. Colomina stated if they could convince the petitioner to wait about two months until the ordinance change takes effect, the C-2 zoning would not be necessary. Mr. Wrightman agreed with Mr. Colomina's thinking on the matter. Mr. LaBo said the petitioner does need C-2 to occupy the building. Could the Com- mission rezone to C-2 and allow them to occupy the building, then after the zoning ordinance is amended as stated before could not the Planning Commission on its own motion call it back and rezone it to C-1. Mr. Hull stated the Commission can rezone any land back on its own motion providing the Council concurs with this action but added the Commission should have some type of moral commitment that the petitioner agrees to this action and that the rezoning to be made is done with this understanding. Mr. Tent explained that if the lodge were moving onto a large parcel and could expand there would be no problem. 5646 Mr. Budington said again that to expand the lodge would need 1,000 members, they only have 400; only 40 to 50 attend a meeting; their only income is dues. Mr. Tent asked Mr. Wrightman, as Master of a Lodge, to what extent he feels the lodge will grow. Mr. Wrightman stated he personally feels it will be many years before they will need an expansion program, that their only need is a residence of their own. However, he stated that as a Commissioner, his concern here is the spot zoning in this particular situation which may in time have a deteriorating effect should they be granted C-2 while the ordinance is being revised. Mr. Tent assured the members present that the Commission wants to see the Lodge in Livonia. The zoning ordinance should have been changed a long time ago. The Mayor suggested that petitioners withdraw their petition so they could have the benefit of purchasing land elsewhere in the City without paying commercial prices. There are many who are working to find a location. A two-month period is not too bad. Mr. Budington asked if the zoning were not changed and they waited would they be relieved of the need for the wall and the dedication. Mr. Tent said the wall would not be needed but the dedication would be. Mr. LaBo wondered if the petitioner withdraws would it be necessary to apply for a waiver use which petition would have to be published, etc. Mr. Tent asked if the petitioner would make a commitment in writing to the extent that the zoning change granted to C-2 would be returned to C-1 after the waiver use 1[ amendment goes into effect - would they give the Commission a statement to that 4; effect. Mr. Tent suggested that the matter be placed under advisement until the next study session and then placed on the next meeting. There was a short discussion between the petitioner and the Commission as to the length of time it would take if this were done before the matter could finally pass through Council. During the dis- cussion Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Budington, as Chairman of the Planning Commission of Allen Park, should be familiar with these matters. Mr. Tent stated this matter would be taken under advisement to be brought up at the study session and the petitioner is to bring a commitment from the Board to the effect that the rezoning will be changed back after the Zoning Ordinance is amended as discussed earlier. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-1-17 by Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, south of Wentworth Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, from RUF to P.S. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-97-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-5-1-17 as submitted by Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road, 5647 south of Wentworth Avenue, in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14 from RUF to P.S. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-5-1-17 be approved for the following reasons : (1) It is consistent with the emerging use of the land within the area. (2) The proposed zoning is contiguous with the zoning to the south. (3) It will round out the zoning within the area. (4) It is reasonable to accommodate the Livonia Education Association in this area. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 25, 1969, and 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 is adopted. Mr.Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-20 by Greenfield Construction Company, Inc. , requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Newburgh Road, north of Six Mile Road in Section 7 from R-5-C to C-2, C-4 and R-E; and south of Six Mile Road in Section 18 from R-3-B to P.S. and C-4. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this item will be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-1-18 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the south side of Schoolcraft between Farmington and Hubbard in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, from RUF to M-1. Mr. Colomina asked if the petition is approved, is it legal with the deed restriction which exist. Mr. Andrew stated that the deed restrictions are private restrictions, the City has nothing to do with this. The Zoning Ordinance allows them to rezone. Even with the deed restrictions, the Commission can rezone. He added that Lots 7 and 8 are zoned manufacturing at the present time. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, it was #7-98-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-1-18 as submitted at the request of the Industrial Coordinator by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on J the south side of Schoolcraft between Farmington and Hubbard in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, from RUF to M-1, the City 5648 Planning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-1-18 be approved for the following reasons: (1) It is consistent with the Master Plan. (2) The predominant use within the surrounding area is industrial. (3) The proposed I-96 freeway which, for all intents and purposes will necessitate the elimination of all exist- ing residential structures, destroys the residential development and facilitates the easy conversion of vacant land to industrial use. (4) The Industrial Development Commission recommends this change of zoning to industrial. FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 25, 1969, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Tent, Wrightman, Heusted, Moser, Colomina, Santo, Tunis NAYS: LaBo ABSENT: Walker Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-2-14 by Mid-Six Marathon Service Station requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental of trucks and storage of same on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in Section 14. On a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Tunis, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-99-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-2-14 as submitted by Mid-Six Marathon Service Station requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental of trucks and storage of same on property located on the south side of Six Mile Road between Middlebelt and Merriman Roads in Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-2-14 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use would not be in harmony and appropriate with the orderly development of the surrounding area, (2) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use and accessory uses, the site layout and its relationship to streets giving access, shall be such that the traffic to and from the use and assembly of persons in conjunction with the use, will be hazardous and 5649 inconvenient to the neighborhood and will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. (3) The location of the building and its accessories will be such that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring property and the neighboring area in general. It may impair the value of the neighboring property and discourage the appropriate development and use of the adjacent land or building. (4) The location, size and intensity, site layout and periods of operation of the proposed use can cause a nuisance which may be noxious to the occupant of any other nearby permitted use by reason of dust, noise, fumes and lights. (5) No provision has been made for parking of the patrons using the rental services. (6) The limitations of the site prevent the addition of truck storage and patron parking on the site. (7) The intensity of the use on so small a site will seriously conflict with. the movement of traffic and circulation on the site and may seriously impair the value of the lands abutting it. (8) The intense use of a limited site intended for gas service station purposes with the addition of another use for the rental and storage of trailers and small panel trucks cannot be considered as a valid accessory use. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Depart- ments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Tent declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-2-15 by Gordon V. Rumohr requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental of trucks and storage of same on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge Road in Section 23. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Colomina and unanimously adopted, it was #7-100-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-2-15 as submitted by Gordon V. Rumohr requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to allow the rental of trucks and storage of same on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Merriman and Bainbridge Road in Section 23, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-2-15 be denied for the following reasons: 5650 (1) The proposed use would not be in harmony and appropriate with the orderly development of the surrounding area. (2) The location and size of the proposed use, the nature and intensity of the principal use and accessory uses, the li; site layout and its relationship to streets giving access, shall be such that the traffic to and from the use and assemUly of persons in conjunction with the use, will be hazardous and inconvenient to the neighborhood and will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the neighborhood. (3) The location of the building and its accessories will be such that the proposed use will have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring property and the neighboring area in general° it may impair the value of the neighboring property and discourage the appropriate development and use of the adjacent land or building. (4) The location, size and intensity, site layout and periods of operation of the proposed use can cause a nuisance which may be noxious to the occupant of any other nearby permitted use by reason of dust, noise, fumes and lights, (5) No provision has been made for parking of the patrons using the rental services. (6) The limitations of the site prevent the addition of truck storage and patron parking on the site. (7) The intensity of the use on so small a site will } seriously conflict with the movement of traffic and circulation on the site and may seriously impair the value of the lands abutting it. (8) The intense use of a limited site intended for gas service station purposes with the addition of another use for the rental and storage of trailers and small panel trucks cannot be considered as a valid accessory use. FURTHER RESOLVED, 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. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-1-16 by the City Planning Commission requesting to rezone property located between Inkster Road and Cardwell, immediately north of Joy Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, from RUE to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-5-1-16 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This will round out the zoning within the area. i (2) This additional zoning will more closely parallel lot ownership lines. 5651 (3) The increased depth of the existing commercial zoning will provide for reasonable development of commercial uses. t (4) The additional zoning will overcome split and conflicting zoning categories from occurring on the same parcel. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 25, 1969, and 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. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-14 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 11.03 Waiver Uses (C-2 Districts) Restaurants, to establish specific regulations for controlling the develop- ment of carry-out type restaurants. On a motion by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-102-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-6-14 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance) , as amended, by amending Section 11.03 Waiver Uses (C-2 Districts) Restaurants, to establish specific regulations for controlling the develop- ment of carry-out type restaurants, the City Planning Com- mission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-6-14 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This is a necessary tool to help regulate the growth and development of our City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 2 ', 1969, and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company and 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. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-15 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Section 11.02 Permitted Uses (C-2 Districts) , of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to remove Waiver Uses in C-1 Districts from Permitted Uses in C-2 Districts. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. LaBo and unanimously adopted, it was • 5652 #7-103-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-6-15 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, Section 11.02 Permitted Uses (C-2 Districts) to remove Waiver Uses in C-i Districts from Permitted Uses in C-2 Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-6-15 be approved for the following reason: (1) This is a necessary tool for proper administration of the Zoning Ordinance to prevent any misinterpretation of permitted uses and to clarify the language with regard to waiver uses in C-1 Districts from being considered as permitted in C-2 Districts. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 25, 1969, and 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. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-16 by the City Planning Commission to amend Section 18.29 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, to clarify what can and cannot be located in front yards of residentially zoned property, and to prohibit outside storage of materials in any portion of the front yard and the first 25 feet of the side yard from the front of the building in any industrially zoned district. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wr ;htman, seconded by Mr. Tunis, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-104-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-6-16 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.29 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to clarify what can and cannot be located in front yards of residentially zoned property, and to prohibit outside storage of materials in any portion of the front yard and the first 25 feet of the side yard from the front of the building in any industrially zoned district, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-6-15 be approved for the following reason: (1) This is a necessary tool to help regulate the growth and development of our City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was publ L::ed in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 25, 1969, and notice of such hearing was liei sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway 5653 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. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-6-17 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, by deleting all of Section 18.47, Fences, since it is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 18.29. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it Was #7-105-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on July 15, 1969 on Petition 69-6-6-17 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to deter- mine whether or not to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, by deleting all of Section 18.49, Fences, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-6-6-17 be approved for the follow- ing reason: (1) This is a necessary tool to help regulate the growth and development of our City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of June 25, 1969, and 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. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-6-7-7 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Fire Station Plan, to incorporate property located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Middlebelt in Section 14; also property located on the east side of Middlebelt between Rayburn and Broadmoor in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 13. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Moser, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-106-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia, having duly held a public hearing on July 15, 1969 for the purpose of amending Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, entitled "The Master Fire Station Plan", the same is hereby amended so as to include a parcel approximately 200' x 300' located on the north side of Five Mile Road, west of Middlebelt Road, in Section 14 as a fire station site for the following reason: (1) There is a need for a fire station site in this sector 5654 of the City. said parcel being legal', described as follows: I The N. 300 feet of the S. 360 feet of the west 200 feet of the E. 460.62 feet of Section 14, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931 as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part of the Master Fire Station Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk, and the City Planning Commission; and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-2-6-6 by the City Planning Commis-ion on its own motion to amend Section 2.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding Paragraph 19 to define the term ''Landscaping". On a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-107-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on April 1, 1969 on Petition 69-2-6-6 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, by adding Paragraph 19 to Section 2.10, Landscaping, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-2-6-6 be approved for the follow- ing reasons: (1) This is a necessary tool to regulate the growth and development of our City. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of March 16, 1969, and 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. ced Mr. Wrightman announl . the next item on the agenda is the final plat approval for Richter & Lipton Industrial Subdivision located in Section 28. There was a brief discussion with regard to the financial obligation. Mr. Tent trit . stated there is a letter from the Clerk which states it has been taken care of; Mr. Hull stated that as far as the plat is concerned, everthing is okay and conforms to the preliminary plat. 5655 On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Santo, and unanimously adopted, it was t; #7-108-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final plat of Richter & Lipton Industrial Subdivision, located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, be given final plat approval for the following reasons: (1) It conforms to the previously approved preliminary plat. (2) All the financial obligations of the City have been met. FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission under Resolution #11-137-68, adopted on Nov- ember 12, 1968; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with plans and specifications for improvements therein have been approved by the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division, under date of January 29, 1969; and it further appearing that the financial assurances required by Council Resolution #184-69 adopted on February 26, 1969 have been filed with the City Clerk as confirmed by a letter dated July 3, 1969 from Addison Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all conditions necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. 11:: Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the final plat approval for Burton & Share Westside Industrial Subdivision located in Section 28. All financial responsibilities having been met, and there being no problems, on a motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-109-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the final plat of Burton & Share Westside Industrial Subdivision, located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 28, be given final approval for the following reasons: (1) It conforms to the previously approved preliminary plat. (2) All the financial obligations of the City have been met. FURTHER RESOLVED, inasmuch as it appears on the records that tentative approval of said proposed plat was given by the City Planning Commission under Resolution #3-34-69 adopted on March 4, 1969; and it further appearing that said proposed plat together with plans and specifications for improvements there in have been approved by the Department of Public Works, Engineering lie Division, under date of April 15, 1969 and it further appearing that the financial assurances required by Council Resolution #476-69 adopted on April 30, 1969 have been filed with the City 5656 Clerk as confirmed by letter dated July 15, 1969 from Addison Bacon, City Clerk, it would therefore appear that all conditions IL necessary to the release of building permits have been met and the Building Department is hereby so notified. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced that the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting a portion of parcels N2 and Nlal located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2. Mr. Nagy explained this to the Commission in detail. He advised that part of a subdivision is in the area designed for park on the Master Park Plan. The original application for federal funds for this land has been denied but the City, through Mr. DuFour, has petitioned the State for matching funds to purchase the land, less the subdivision area. The Commission is now being requested to amend the Master School and Park Plan to delete the southerly 180' of parcel N2 and Nlal, located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, the balance to be the park. On a motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously adopted, it was #7-110-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, Ordinance #543, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether fril: or not to amend Part V of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master School and Park Plan, by deleting a portion of Parcels N2 and Nlal located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 2. FURTHER RESOLVED, that a hearing be held and notice be given as provided in Section 23.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance #543, of the City of Livonia, and that there shall be a report submitted and recommendation thereon to the City Council. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the approval of the Minutes • of the meetings held by the City Planning Commission on May 13,1969 and April 1, 1969. The Commission discussed the minutes of May 13, 1969 and April 1, 1969, making the following amendments. May 13, 1969 minutes: Page 5582, the next to last paragraph, add the words "on property '. Page 5585, the third line of the second paragraph should read: "come in and his buyers suggested that he personally petition for the change or. . . . tv Page 5595, the first paragraph under Petition 69-3-1-7 should be amended to read: "Mr. Spiro approached the Commission without being recognized. Mr. Tent reminded 5657 him that the public hearing on this item had been 0/1.--- conducted and that his petition had been previously denied; that this was not a proper time for further discussion. Both Mr. and Mrs. Spiro insisted upon being heard. A told short discussion with the Commission regarding the denial of his waiver use petition for his property known as parcel 36A4 located on the south side of Plymouth Road was conducted. The Commission suggested that he appeal to the Council inasmuch as the Commission's action at this time was final but it was in the power of the Council to either sus- tain or reverse the recommendation of the Commission. They further added that the property is already zoned commercial, which means that he has many uses for the property and it can be developed in many ways". April 1, 1969 minutes: That page 5567 be amended with regard to Petition 69-2-1-3. The resolution be changed on the 7th line to read APPROVED instead of denied, and the reasons deleted with the follow- ing reasons to be inserted instead: (1) The intended use would not adversely effect adjacent development. (2) Relocation of existing facility within the City to a more advantageous location where it can be properly developed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously adopted, it was li #7-111-69 RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings held by the City Planning Commission on April 1, 1969 and May 13, 1969 be approved as amended, and the minutes of the meeting held on May 27, 1969 be approved as submitted. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Moser, seconddbyr. u207th Tunis, nd unanimously adopted, the City Planning Commission adjourned7Regular 0 ug l a Meeting held on July 15, 1969 at approximately m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 71' '---5'a i Harry Wrighan, Secre . ATTEST: it / r ✓ — R.ymo d W. Tent, Chai nen ac 11111