Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1969-11-18 5734 MINUTES OF THE 211th REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, November 18, 1969, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 211th Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall. Mr. Raymond Tent, Chairman, called the Public Hearing to order at approximately 8:15 p.m. with approximately 60 interested persons in the audience. Robert Colomina Joel LaBo Donald Rousted Harry g Members present: Raymond Tent Uri htman Frank Santo H. Dow Tunis Members Absent: Charles Walker Marvin Moser Messrs. Don Hull, Planning Director; John J. Nagy, Assistant Planning Director; Bob Menzies of the Planning Staff; Mr. Feinberg of the Law Department, were also present. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-30 by Charest & Clancy, attorneys for Curran Construction Company, re- questing to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Oxbow and Hartel Streets in Section 36, from C-1 and RUE to C-2. te, Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file dated November 3, 1969 from Consumers Power Company stating they have no objections to this petition and a letter from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, stating there is a problem of storm drainage north and east of Livonia Drain #1. Mr. Tent further stated there are no proposed development plans or plot plans in the file as yet. Mr. Tent asked if there was anyone in the audience on this petition. The petitioner requested an adjournment to a later time in the meeting, stating that his attorney had been delayed. The adjournment was granted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-31 by Sachs Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Vassar Avenue approximately 340 feet east of Middle- belt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P0. Mr. Tent stated a letter in the file dated November 3, 1969 from Consumers Power advised they had no objections to this petition. He read a letter dated October 9, 1969 from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, which is part of the file, stating that Vassar is an unimproved road, the developers should provide a gravel road, dis- cussing the acceptance of ditches; requirement of extensions of water and sanitary sewer systems; the fact that paving is not feasible due to the lack of the storm sewer system in the area, etc. Mr. Melvin Sachs of Sachs Associates, was present to discuss the petition. He stated they appeared in May for a portion of this property to rezone from RUF to PS - that property was approximately 1/2 of this site at that time; the area involved would have been 54,000 square feet, lwithinstory thebuilding, restrictiona. the first level to' have been in the ground in order comeroyal the suggestion was At that time the petition was approved and after approval made that they review their application to change it to PO instead of PS to go high rise. 5735 Petitioners did as suggested and agreed; the area was too small to accommodate high rise on that petition, they proceeded to obtain additional property to accommodate the high rise. They obtained almost double the land - 189,000 square feet of property; they plan a building with approximately 116,000 square feet of office space - 8 stories in height. Petitioner displayed a sketch of the pro- posed building. Mr. Tent stated that the Livonia Mall area is prime land and the Commission wants it developed properly. He asked if the petitioner felt an office complex is needed in the area now and if they would be able to secure tenants. Mr. Sachs stated that his response with reference to their first office building in the immediate area was excellent; he cited the area of Greenfield Road across from Northland as an example - the high quality of the office buildings there and how the building of such offices has spread in that vicinity; he named such companies as G. E. Credit Corporation, Michigan Bell and others as having in- quired for office space and that inquiries had been received from companies all over the country wanting to locate offices in the Detroit area - Livonia being centrally located to Detroit, as well as Ann Arbor. He stated the need is definitely there. Mr. Tent advised that the Commission has been critized due to their stand in the Livonia Mall area - to have developed according to their master plan. Mr. Wrightman asked the petitioner, should they be able to get PO zoning, how soon they would be prepared to begin the complex. Mr. Sachs stated they would be prepared to begin immediately - there would be conferences with leasing agents, planning people, etc. He discussed again the desire of concerns to locate in this area - now, because of the lack of greater space in his present building he could not house such companies as Michigan Bell when they wished to locate in the area. Mr. Tent asked if he planned to construct all eight stories at once. Mr. Sachs stated theyiwould all go up at once; however, he stated it would be impossible to start construction until the building was one-third pre-leased. He discussed the financial conditions at the present time; how financing is not available as it was when they were building their Pavilion building. Mr. Tent asked petitioner if they had any other renderings. Mr. Sachs replied, no. Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner then feels he could get the 1/3 commitment on the office space available within a reasonable time. Mr. Sachs replied, yes, they think so. Mr. Leo Lesniewicz of 19614 Parkville stated he felt proper drainage could not be attained for such a building as proposed by petitioner. He stated they are not against commercial zoning but object to a high rise building within a resi- dential neighborhood; he stated petitioner's present building is not fully rented and is afraid they won't be able to rent it. He added there are commercial areas on Middlebelt with sewage and improvements which would not disrupt a residential neighborhood - he does not feel the residents here should pay for improvements so petitioner can erect his building. 5736 Mr. Tent again explained the master plan and its intent; as to improvements they would not be pro-rated on the residences, the developers would have to pay i0 them. He stated he understood the concern of Mr. Lesniewicz and the surrounding i residents and the Commission would not allow petitioners to go in if it would bring a problem of drainage; he added this is one building of others to come in accordance with the plan which would make it a commercial area as Mr. Lesniewicz stated they would accept. Mr. Lesniewicz stated he understands this but to let one parcel go is wrong; he felt if two whole blocks were to go commercial would be a different story. Mr. LaBo asked if Mr. Lesniewicz was speaking for himself or a group. Mr. Lesniewicz replied, a group; quite a few of which nre in the audience. Mr. Tent advised that the commission would protect the citizens of Livonia and all the problems raised will be taken into consideration. Mr. Wrightman asked Mr. Sachs as to the use of Parkville with regard to entrances and exits. said Mr. Sachs/there could be one but the main entrances and exits would be from Vassar, which is an unimproved road now. Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner would assume the development of this. Mr. Sachs stated he believes he would have to in order to have the project approved. He stated right now the land is a vast field - not residences; com- pletely undeveloped; no street and added that Mr. Strasser's letter regarding the storm sewer surprised him inasmuch as previously there was a similar letter stating storm facilities would be available in the future. Mr. Tent stated that any engineering problems would be looked into and petitioner would be made aware of them inasmuch as he would have to take care of them. There was a short discussion regarding Mr. Strasser's letter, engineering bonds to be taken care of as the project progressed, etc. Mr. Wrightman stated the north border of the property abuts RUE zoning and would require a wall the full length of the property. Mr. Sachs stated petitioner would intend to do this adding that from a stand- point of security it would almost be a must for their own protection - they have had a substantial amount of vandalism on their other office building in this area. Mr. Tent stated the matter would be taken under advisement - advising the audience the matter would be referred to a study session and brought back for action. Mr. Tent was advised that the attorney for petitioner on Petition 69-9-1-30 was now present and he therefore continued this matter. Mr. Clancy appearing for petitioner discussed the surrounding area and its zoning; the fact that a similar petition had been presented about one month ago, the proposed use is the same. 110 Mr. Tent asked what is the intended use of C-2. • . 5737 Mr. Clancy stated it is for a restaurant, the new concept of the McDonald Restaurant with a changed menu; family type with seats inside. Mr. Tent stated the petition presented about one month ago was for the same menu and permitted eating in the car; he asked if this one is completely different. Mr..Clancy replied, it is not - they have basically the same menu with chicken and beef added. Mr. Tent advised the Commission was told it was a family type restaurant; if it is a hamburger type restaurant it should be known. Mr. Clancy said it is different; the menu is similar but changed; no curb service full seating in the restaurant - that people do come in and stay - it is a different operation. Mr. Wrightman stated he wanted clarification on one point - petitinner is not going to have a drive -in? Mr. Clancy stated there would be no curb service. Mr. Wrightman asked if people are free to buy food and go back into the cars to eat it. Mr. Clancy replied, no; this is contrary to the ordinance. . Mr. Wrightman asked if petitioner is not going to allow people to eat in the car, how many tables, etc. will be available. Mr. Clancy stated he was not prepared to speak extensively on the restaurant. Mr. Ken Ronomus, District Engineer for McDonald's restaurant stated it would seat 68 people. He advised the Commission they are comparing this to their other petition - since that petition they have reviewed it and have agreed to put up signs to prohibit eating in cars. Mr. Tent discussed the policing of such operations, the debris, etc. and advised that the people in the neighborhood are concerned. Mr. Wrightman discussed the method of picking locations by petitioner asking why they picked this one on Joy Road. Mr.. Ronomus stated the real estate man for the firm would be the man to answer this but he does know the matter was researched and much time spent to determine the area. Mr. Wrightman discussed the fact there are three of these restaurants in the vicinity and their closeness to each other. Mr. LaBo stated he likes McDonald's hamburgers; however, he added that the area is saturated. He added further that everyone wants to build in the same area; that there is nothing west of Farmington Road. Mr. Tent asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard on this matter. Mr. Bill Dubois, President of the Home Owners Association of Wilson Acres, stated they wished to object; that they feel there are enough hamburger joints. • 5738 Mrs. Walter Peters, 29008 Joy Road, stated she lives two doors from the property in question and objected:to the restaurant - it might be different if it were a nine-to-five type business - she added this type restaurant brings in un- it, desirables and several of her neighbors feel the same way, that the area could be used for something much better as there are a number of eating places in the vicinity. She felt it would be a teen-age club for children to meet. Mr. Tent asked how many persons were in the audience on this petition.: Approximately 12 hands were raised in objection to this petition. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Clancy added that he objected to the restaurant being referred to as a hamburger stand inasmuch as there will be 60 seats inside and are ready to compete with any other sit down restaurant. Mr. Ronomus showed a sketch of the proposed building to the audience as a completely new concept. Mr. t]rightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-32 by James J. Sica, President of Wrought Iron, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road west of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 from R-1-A to C-2. Mr. Tent stated there is a letter in the file from the Wayne County Road Commission advising the right of way has been acquired and they have no objec- tions to this petition. A letter from the City Engineer, Mr. Strasser, dated October 9th, 1969, states the petition lacks sufficient storm sewer outlet.. Mr. Tent added there are no site plans as yet. Mr. James J. Sica, owner of the property, was present. He advised the Commission he had just received a permit to build a building on 1/2 of his property; he did not realize a portion was landlocked. He presently has 9600 square feet for his furniture business which is not enough - he needs additional property; as the property involved is landlocked he would like permission to build on it. He plans two buildings 60 x 90; there would be no drainage problem. Mr. Wrightman asked if he is planning two buildings in the back, does petitioner intend to use them or does he plan to lease or rent them? Mr. Sica stated that the moment he did not know; the reason he put the two buildings on the plan is to expand the building he now proposes which is to be built, to allow the back to be removed, a building added and the same back replaced on the rear of the second building, etc. He stated it would strictly be a furniture business. Mr. Wrightman stated if he makes a minor shopping center out of this ground he might run into traffic problems or other problems he cannot foresee at this time. Mr. Sica stated as things now stand and the now proposed business he has much more parking area than necessary. Mr. Tent asked if petitioner had any intention of leasing any portion of this area. 5739 Mr. Sica replied, no. He discussed the present building contemplated, its beauty and is an asset to the area; that the property in the back is for the future that the building he is speaking about now is the one he has a permit 14:00 to build. Mr. Tent, Chairman stated this matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrigntman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-33 by Encore Restaurant requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and St. Martins in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to C-2. Mr. Tent stated there was a letter from Consumers Power as well as a letter from the City Engineer in the file, both setting forth no problems or objections to the petition. Mr. Tent stated there were no plans in the file. Mr. Robert A. Willinghanz, attorney for petitioner was present. He stated the petition was for a cafeteria type restaurant, seating 300 persons. They have not submitted plans as they are awaiting tentative approval for use as a restaurant. He stated the area can use a restaurant of this type, there are only three restaurants, sit-down type, in the area and the total seating capacity of them is less than 300. He stated there are two Encore restaurants in Livonia now, in the Livonia Mall and Wonderland. Mr. Tent asked if petitioner had discussed this petition with the management of the Livonia Mall and are they in accord with this plan. He also asked if they had discussed it with the Sears management. Mr. Zawideh stated there is no room in the Mall for this restaurant. He stated that the Livonia Mall is against the new restaurant within the area of the Mall. Mr. Tent discussed the many restaurants in the area at the present time. Mr. Willihnganz stated this would be a different type restaurant, a cafeteria. Mr. LaBo asked if the plan is a one story building with a restaurant on the main floor. Mr. Zawideh replied, yes. Mr. LaBo stated that the Livonia Mall Study is attempting to induce two to three story buildings in this area; if this were a three story building with a restaurant on the first floor it would be considered; this is prime land and a real tax base for the City. He suggested that they redesign their plans and come back with a plan which will give the City a tax base as discussed. Mr. Zawideh stated he feels that a restaurant on the main floor would not bring in customers - as an office building it is a great idea but that it would not bring in customers. Mr. LaBo stated it would - that one feeds the other; the office workers would go down to the restaurant. Mr. Tent referred to the previous petition of Melvin Sachs stating that they had reconsidered and are now contemplating a high rise building. 9 5740 Mr: Zawideh stated again that this type restaurant is needed in the area, but that it must be in a building by itself if it is to attract people. 1111, Mr. Henry P. Bracken of Louise street asked the size of the building and was advised 123 x 204' . He asked where they would have their parking. Mr. Willihnganz stated they would anticipate purchasing additional property for the parking area; he stated that this petition is a feeler - should the restaurant be acceptable they would see to it there is adequate parking area. Mr. Wrightman asked how many the Encore Restaurant in the Livonia Mall seats. Mr. Zawideh replied, about 160. Mr. Wrightman stated that this then would double the capacity. Mr. Zawideh replied, yes. Mr. Wrightman questioned the owner about his plans for his Mall restaurant. Mr. Zawideh stated he would definitely stay in the Mall and also operate the new location. Mr. Willihnganz stated that petitioner now operates six Encore restaurants as well as a Howard Johnson. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-34 by American Oil Company requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13, from C-1 to C-2. Mr. William L. Baron, representing the American Oil Company, stated that there is an existing station on the premises and would like to add a stall to be used as a storage room; i.e. the outside tire racks, tires, etc. would be put inside. He stated that if the petition were granted he would be put inside. He stated that if the petition were granted he would restyle the building, there would be a covered patio on Inkster Road side of the building; the back would be brick; the rear parking area would be black topped. He presented the study the Planning Commission had given to him with suggested landscaping, which they would agree to conform to. Mr. Tent at this point in the meeting advised the people in the audience that this item and the next on the agenda are both by the American Oil Company for the same purpose and to save time went on to give the background for the audience. He advised to have a new gasoline station they would need a C-2 zoning and a waiver use permit, the only way to upgrade an existing station is to make it conforming with C-2 zoning. As the stations now stand they could operate as long as they stand and to encourage them to upgrade these plans were suggested to revamp the stations, landscape, etc. He commented how one station had been operating a full car wash for which they had no permission and it was not acceptable in the present zoning, The purpose, therefore, of these petitions is to make the stations more compatible. 5741 Mr. Colomina asked if the zoning change is granted would the tire racks and tires be removed from the outside. Mr. Baron stated he would hesitate to remove all the tires - some of the merchandise should be left on the walk around the station as a display. He stated the tire racks, however, would be placed inside. Mr. Tent asked if the company was in accord with the landscape plan as submitted. Mr. Baron replied, to a point. The greenbelt rather than a brick wall is okay. He pointed to one point of obstruction in visibility going in and out of the station; also the high trees at the corner - he stated he would like to propose that they put in the landscaping but they be 2 or three foot type shrubs. Mr. Tent asked Mr. Hull for his thoughts on this. Mr. Hull stated he felt there would be clear vision within the vision triangle even though some trees might grow a little higher; this can be discussed and possibly a modification can be made. Mr. Tent stated that there would be no elimination of the shrubbery then, only the type of shrubbery would possibly be changed. Mr. Baron replied, yes. Mr. Colomina asked if this will be built as stated. Mr. Baron stated there would not be a lot of work to keep up the landscape. Mr. Colomina asked if this can be put in the lease, that maintenance will be kept up. Mr. Baron stated there is a standard clause in the lease regarding maintainance. Mr. Tent referred to another station where the condition is very bad; trash is stored, etc. Mr. Baron advised Mr. Tent that the station to which he refers is familiar • to him, that they have received a violation from the company and will be removed from the lease within 90 days. Mr. Wrightman asked if the change from C-1 to C-2 and approval of waiver use both meet the minimum requirements under the new ordinance regarding square footage for gas stations. There was a short discussion and Mr. Hull stated that the station as it now appears can operate as long as it wishesthet cannot be removed; it is a question of upgrading or letting it remain as is; 8o3'not need a waiver use, a change of zoning will make it a conforming use and based on that they will upgrade the station. Mr. Wrightman continued the discussion, wishing a clarification as to the mini- mum square footage requirement under the new zoning, feeling this is a legal 111 .01 question, whether it would set a precedent for the future. Mr. Hull stated this is the only way the Commission can have the stations upgraded and it would be in the best interest of the City. 5742 Mr. Tent stated that the question here was whether to continue the stations as ' they are or to upgrade them; he felt the City will get the best part of the deal, there is no waiver being granted. Mr. Wrightman stated he is in favor of the upgrading and the change in the zoning but just wants to know if there can be any technical problem in the future be- cause of the lack of square footage; questioned if they would have to go before the Board of Appeals. Mr. Hull stated they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance for side yards when they put up the addition to their. structure. Mrs. Dorothy Bruce, of the Madison Civic Association, read a letter stating they represent all of Section 13 of the City and at their November 6th meeting they stated they wanted to support the American Oil Company to rezone the property. The letter was given to Mr. Tent for the file. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-35 by the American Oil Company requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Farmington Roads in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. Baron again represented the American Oil Company on this petition; he stated, as Mr. Tent had set forth, this is similar to the preceding petition except this station would add a service stall, not storage room; he stated an acceptable landscape plan had been received from the Planning Commission; agreed that the telephone booth would be relocated; that the two tire racks would be removed; he stated they had been asked to screen the back with hidden fence, redwood, about 6' , he believes, etc. he stated they were in complete agreement with all the requests made with the exception as in the other petition, that being the height of the trees. Otherwise they have no arguments. Mr. Santos brought up the question of the vending machines; the fact that they are outdoor machines. Mr. Baron stated they are the responsibility of the lessee. In this second petition there is no area for vending machines - only in the first petition in the patio area. Mr. Santos discussed the vending machines, stating his opposition to them as a hazzard where children are concerned as they throw the bottles wherever they are when they finish with them; also coin operated machines are an invitation to vandalism. Mr. Baron asked if Mr. Santos would suggest that the machines be eliminated completely? Mr. Santos stated that anything that cannot be controlled should be eliminated. He then asked if the third stall is to be a future diagnostic center. Mr. Baron replied,no; it is a third stall for light repair work, tires, batteries, alignments, plugs, points, etc. 5743 Mr. Santos stated he is concerned about the people in the area; the plans do not show where signs go, where the tow truck will go and he is opposed to the out- door vending machines. Mr. Hull stated he did not think vending machines were the most objectionable thing; but would go against car washes; he stated the wrecker should be stored in the back of the station; he would be concerned with pennants, signs, etc. Mr. Tent asked if there are any vitiations against this station. Mr. Santos stated that as in all stations where there are shopping centers there are articles stored in the back, etc. Mr. Clifford Kearce, of Bell Creek, stated he does not object to vending machines such as ice and pop. Mr. Santos stated that ice machines like any other coin operated machine brings on vandalism. Mr. Martin Cohen of 1608 Lafayette Towers, Detroit, asked if the architectural structure of the building would be changed. Mr. Baron replied, no. Mr. Cohen stated, then it is just to be dressed up; he questioned the set back to accommodate the building and the amount of traffic being handled by this station; questioned if it is overloaded; will it create a traffic problem. Mr. Tent stated petitioner is in accordance with the ordinance as far as set back is concerned. There is a deficiency of 8' at one point of the building; just at the point of the addition. Mr. Hull stated petitioner also has an existing tire rack which is a structure for all intents and purposes which will be eliminated by the construction of the addition. Mr. Tent reiterated that petitioner could continue in the present zoning classifi- cation as the station now stands, however, this proposal will upgrade the station. Mr. Cohen stated he is the owner of the shopping center which surrounds the station and the tenants are concerned about the obstruction of the views, it might be a hindrance. Mr. Santo at this point advised Mr. Cohen there is no one he would rather meet at this meeting; he went on to advise Mr. Cohen that his center is the worst shopping center within the City of Livonia; that the only time the grass has been even trimmed was to put signs on it, that it is littered and ill-kept in all respects - he advised Mr. Cohen that he cannot understand where he can question a man who is going to upgrade his building, landscape, etc. Mr. Tent, Chairman, advised this matter would be taken under advisement. i 5744 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-3-8 by Morton Katz requesting the vacating of an easement located on the east side of Farmington Road, approximately 280 feet south of Schoolcraft Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 27. Mr. Tent stated a letter in the file from Consumers Power showed no objection to this petition; also a letter from Mr. Strasser, City Engineer, stating that a twelve foot easement should be retained on the east property line and other than that there are no engineering problems. Petitioner, Mr. Morton Katz, 19231 Appleton, Detroit, was present; he stated he wished to have the easement moved from the middle of the lot to the east line of the property. He stated he has owned the property for twelve years and now wishes to sell it - the prospective purchasers object to the easement in the middle of the property. Mr. Tent stated that Mr. Dan Andrew, the Industrial Coordinator, had stated he has no objection but would recommend that an alternate easement be relocated along the rear property line. Mr. Tent asked if the easement along the rear lot line would be acceptable. Mr. Katz replied, yes. Mr; Hull advised the Commission that the strange thing is that Detroit Edison is within the existing easement and they have not written on this petition even though they have been notified. He stated that it should be ascertained if they will remove the existing line from the easement to the proposed easement - if this is done the rest should be routine. Mr. Tent stated he would like the Planning Department to follow up with Detroit Edison. Mr. Hull stated they have been contacted and state they will come into the office in the next few days - they had been notified several weeks ago. Mr. Tent suggested that Mr. Katz wait until the Commission hears from the Detroit Edison Company so that they can act without any problems. Mr. Urightman asked the purpose of the easement and Mr. Nagy explained the original reason for the easement where it is, the land was to have been residential and the line was to be closer to the homes; now for manufacturing purposes it should be placed to the rear of the lots. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated the matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. tdrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-2-26 by Boron Oil Company requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct a modern full facility gasoline service station on property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in Section 14. Mr. LaBo had Mr. Nagy explain the land uses of the other corners at the inter- section - there being three gasoline stations. Mr. Grdina of the real estate section of Bortn represented the petitioner; he stated they had been in business for 99 years but are fairly new in this area; their stations are company onwed and operated so that they can demand cleanliness, etc.; if the station fails, the company tries to sell it and if in six months they 5745 cannot sell it, Boron restores the propertyto its original status. He stated that they had obtained 65% of the surrrounding land owners as required. He stated they cannot tap into the County_ line and there is no existing sewer line; the company will spend $20,000.00 to bring Project 18 to their station. Mr. Tent advised Mr. Grdina of the large amount of gasoline stations in the City, the fact that many are going out of buisness and come before the Commission to sell and carry on other business than the pumping of gasoline, i. e. renting trailers, etc. Mr. Tunis stated that Mr. Grdina stated he had secured the signatures of 65% of the surrounding property within a radius of 400' - he asked how many signatures. Mr. Grdina stated two signatures out of three. Mr. Tunis stated if the company operates the stations, this means it can control the price of the product - doesn' t this make it difficult for an independent operator because Boron can fix the price? Mr. Grdina replied, no. Mr. Tunis asked why they want a corner where there already are three stations. Mr. Grdina stated they had taken everything into account, made research of the area; this corner has exceedingly heavy traffic. He stated that competition arises in price as well as cleanliness, etc. and added that he feels because of the cleanliness and appearance of their stations they have good opportunity; in fact they sometimes force upgrading of other stations because of this. Mr. Tent stated that many station requests be brought in and asked if the City can justify another station, specifically four at one intersection? Mrs. Dorothy Bruce, of the Madison Civic Association, again addressed the Commission with a letter from her Civic Association, with regard to this petition and stated the Civic Association, representing all of Section 13, is opposed to this station. She turned the letter over to Mr. Tent for the file. A resident, on the Board of Marycrest Manor, objected to this petition because many of their residents walk in that area. She read a letter to this effect from the Board and turned it over to Mr. Tent for the file. Mr. Grdina spoke in answer to the letter stating that they would be 450 feet south of Marycrest; the fact that another service station in the City of Livonia could be justified because according to statistics the City of Livonia could have 106 before reaching the saturation point. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under adiisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-6-20 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.03, 5.03, 9.03 and 10.03 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance by adding a new paragraph to waiver use sections in the R-1 through R-S and RUF: P.S. ; and C-1 Districts to provide special regulations for fraternal or religious organizations. . 5746 Mr. Tent asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to be heard on this petition, there was no one. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-36 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Livonia Housing Commission Resolution #67-69, to rezone property located on the east side of Purlingbrook between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, from R-1 to R-9 housing for the elderly. Mr. David Jones was present with a proposal and presentation on this petition. He stated that the City owns 8.8 acres of land; this parcel is south of the McNamara Tower Site and occupies 2.03 acres of land; he showed the sketch of the building which would consist of 45 efficiency apartments and 36 one-bed- room apartments. He stated the plan is actually reversed to make the parking lot area next to that of the Tower; this will be a five story structure - and will be 30' short of McNamara Tower which is 80' high; there will be 81 units, one for the manager. He stated the development plan is in Washington now. He stated that the lower building is more compatible to the land east and north and there will be a mall area in the center of the area which will be a Mall for the residents. Mr. Wrightman stated he understands there is another program in the scheme regarding garden apartments, or will this replace that. Mr. Jones stated the original plan was for garden apartment. He stated the parking requirements were greatly cut down because the greatest percentage of senior citizens would not use it. He said there are 4 widows to every 2 family units with husband and wife together, this is in accordance with statistics. This could be considered garden type, if the Commission wants to call a five-story a garden apartment - he understands it has to be 7 to 8 stories before considered high rise. He stated this will be 1/2 of the site; there is a large parcel to the east and north and there will be 240 units for middle income housing in all. Mr. Tent, Chairman, congratulated Mr. Jones on the wonderful work done on this petition and advised this matter would be taken under consideration. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-6-22 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10, Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding paragraph (10) to define the term Recreational Equipment. Mr. Tent asked if there was any one in the audience wishing to be heard on this petition. Mrs. Herbert E. Jones stated she was just interested in seeing that the trailers are moved to the rear of the yards. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement. On motion duly made by Mr. Wrightman, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously adopted, it was • 5747 #11-161-69 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby adjourn the Public Hearing held on October 18, 1969 at approximately 10;55 p.m. IL; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Tent, Chairman, called the 211th Regular Meeting to order at approximately 11:05 p.m. with approximately 25 interested persons in the audience. Mr. Wrightman announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-30 by Charest and Clancy, attorneys for Curran Construction Company requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Oxbow and Hartel Streets in Section 36, from C-1 and RUF to C-2. On motion duly made by Mr. Urightman, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously carried, It was #11-162-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-9-1-30 submitted by Charest & Clancy, attorneys for Curran Construction Company, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Joy Road between Oxbow and Hartel streets in Section 36, from C-1 and RUF to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-9-1-30 be denied for the following reasons: (1) the intensity of use generated by C-2 zoning will sub- stantially increase the volume of traffic that would be generated and subsequently conflict with the movement of vehicles along Joy Road; (2) C-2 zoning could have an adverse effect upon the adjacent residential neighborhood to the north. (3) the C-1 zoning category provides numerous uses for the property which generates less traffic and which will be more compatible to the adjacent development; (4) there are great quantities of C-2 commercial zoning in this sector of the City; , there is not a need for additional zoning of this type; (5) the condition of Joy Road is such that the intensity of use should be limited to development that has lesser ground coverage and which does not generate large volumes of traffic; in general, a C-1 use accomplishes this whereas the C-2 does not; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of October 29, 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. 5748 Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-31 by Sachs Associates requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Vassar Avenue approximately 340 feet east of Middlebelt Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 1 from RUF to P.O. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement, to go back to a study and brought back for action at a future date. Mr, t•Irightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-9-1-32 by James J. Sica, President of Wrought Iron, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road west of Middlebelt Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 R-1-A to C-2. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated this matter would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-33 by Encore Restaurant requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and St. Martins in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to C-2. On motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously carried it was: #11-163-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-10-1-33 as submitted by Encore Restaurant requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt Road between Bretton and St. Martins in the southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from RUFA to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-10-1-33 be denied for the following reasons: (1) C-2 zoning will generate a high volume of traffic and conflict with the traffic flow along Middlebelt Road; (2) C-2 zoning in this area is in conflict with the pre- viously approved Master Plan of the area; (3) the petition specifically states that this proposed rezoning is to accommodate a cafeteria type restaurant on the premises; the Planning Commission feels that the general area within the Livonia Mall is already saturated with restaurants and that an additional restaurant would not contribute to the stability of the general area and would not be compatible with the adjacent development. i • . 5749 (4) commercial zoning in proximity to the Livonia Mall has already been provided for in other locations; this area was scheduled for professional service zoning; the Commission believes there is a greater need for professional zoning and that it will be more compatible with the adjacent development and be of greater benefit and value to the City; (5) the proposed zoning and proposed uses that C-2 zoning will accommodate are not of such location, size and character that they will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the surrounding area; (6) the proposed site is not large enough to accommodate the intended use; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of October 29, 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. Willihnganz stated that he was going to ask the Commission to defer action until sketches could be brought in. Mr. Tent advised him that this information at the offset would have been very helpful; however, the question in essence is whether this is the best use of the land in the area. Mr. LaBo advised Mr. Willihnganz that this decision now goes to the Council as a recommended action. Mr. Willihnganz asked if the petition can be amended before it goes before Council. Mr. Tent stated petitioner can go before Council when it appears on the agenda and explain their intent and the Council might refer it back to the Commission again for further action. Mr. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-34 by American Oil Company requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2. Mr. j•Irightman wanted the record to show that the landscape plan prepared by the Planning Department should be adhered to and any deviations are to be made with the approval of the City Planning Department, such as trees, etc. On motion duly made by Mr. 6)rightman, seconded by Mr. Santo and unanimously carried, it was • 5750 #11-164-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-10-1-34 as submitted by American Oil Company requesting to rezone property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Inkster Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 13 from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-10-1-34 be approved for the following reasons: (1) this rezoning will make the service station conform to the Zoning Ordinance rather than remain as a non- conforming use; rezoning the station to make it conform is the only way the City can be assured that the station will be improved; American Oil Company will renovate this station when the zoning district is changed to permit this use; (2) there is no particular advantage to the City keeping station as a legal non-conforming use; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of October 29, 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 69-10-1-35 by American Oil Company requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Six Mile Road and Farmington Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10 from C-1 to C-2. A motion was duly made by Mr. Tunis, with the same provisions as the previous petition with regard to petitioner adhering to the City Planning Department Landscape Plan and any deviations therefrom permitted only with the Depart- ment's approval. Mr. Hull asked for the record if the resolutions were to include the comments with regard to the landscape plan and was informed that the resolution need not include the provision but the American Oil Company should agree to this before the resolution goes to Council. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Colomina, unanimously carred, and it was #11-165-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-10-1-35 as submitted by American Oil Company requesting to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Six Mile Road and Farmington Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10, from C-1 to C-2, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-10-1-35 be approved for the following reasons: 5751 (1) the rezoning will make the service station conform to the Zoning Ordinance rather than remain as a non-conforming use; rezoning the station to make it conform is the only way the City can be assured that the station will be improved; American Oil Company will renovate this station when the zoning district is changed to permit this use; (2) there is no advantage to the City in keeping this station as a legal non-conforming use; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of October 29, 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. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-8-3-8 by Morton Katz requesting the vacating of an easement located on the east side of Farmington Road, approximately 280 feet south of Schoolcraft Road, in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 17. Mr. Tent, Chairman, stated that this petition would be taken under advisement. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-2-26 by Boron Oil Company requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct a modern full facility gasoline service station on property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt in Section 14. On motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Heusted, and unanimously carried, it was #11-166-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having beat held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-10-2-26 as submitted by Boron Oil Company requesting to be granted a waiver use permit to construct a modern full facility gasoline service station on property located on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Middlebelt Road in Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-10-2-26 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 inconvenient to the area and will unduly conflict with the normal traffic of the area; 5752 (3) the problem of traffic at the intersection of Middlebelt and Five Mile Road is extremely hazardous and a use of this type will only compound the existing problem; (4) there are five existing similar type uses in very close proximity to the site petitioned for, therefore, the need for the type of service provided by this facility has already adequately been supplied; 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 69-9-6-20 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Section 4.03, 5.03, 9.03 and 10.03 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance by adding a new para- graph to the waiver use sections in the R-1 through R-5 and RUF; P.S.; and C-1 Districts to provide special regulations for fraternal or religious organizations. On motion duly made by Mr. LaBo and seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously carried, it was #11-167-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-9-6-20 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Sections 4.03, 5.03, 9.03 and 10.03 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, by adding a new paragraph to the waiver use sections in the R-1 through R-5 and RUF: P.S. and C-2 Districts to provide special regulations for fraternal or religious organizations, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-9-6-20 be approved for the following reason: (1) it is desirable to give flexibility to fraternal and religious-organizations within our City and still vest control of them in the hands of the City which the proposed ordinance amendment accomplishes; FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of October 29, 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, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried, and the foregoing resolution adopted. 5753 • Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried, and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-1-36 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Livonia Housing Commission Resolution #67-69, to rezone property located on the east side of Purlingbrook between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, from R-1 to R-9 housing for the elderly. Mr. Urightman raised the question of the moratorium with respect to apartments, high rise, etc. in relation to this petition. The Commission had a short discussion. Mr. LaBo suggested that they request an opinion of the City Attorney's office to accompany the recommendation to the Council. Mr. Hull stated what the Commission ..Wishes, then, is to act in an approving fashion and they want a letter from the Legal Department determining whether it is the proper action prior to the time it goes to Council. The Commission agreed. Mr. Hull stated that this should be put to R-9 to reflect the actual land use. He stated that inasmuch as it is municipal land they can build without the zoning change; however, the Housing Commission still wants the land rezoned to R-9 to comply with federal requirements. Mr. Hull stated he felt it is the wise and right choice for the zoning to reflect the land use. On motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman and unanimously carried, it was #11-168-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-10-1-36 as submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Livonia Housing Commission Resolution #67-69, to rezone property located on the east side of Purlingbrook between Seven Mile Road and St. Martins in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2, from R-1 to R-9 (housing for the elderly) , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-10-1-36 be approved for the following reasons: (1) it is a logical continuation of the existing development within the area; (2) it is consistent with the overall development plan of the area; (3) this is a necessary step to help effectuate the City's long-range program for Senior Citizen Housing; (4) this type of development will accommodate a need within the City and will not adversely effect adjacent development; FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer under date of October 29, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway 5754 Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments, as listed in the Proof of Service. (0: Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-10-6-22 by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10 Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms, or Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, by adding paragraph (19) to define the term Recreational Equipment. On motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Colomina, and unanimously carried, it was #11-169-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on November 18, 1969 on Petition 69-10-6-22 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10, Definitions of Miscellaneous Terms, of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, by adding paragraph (19) to define the term "Recreational Equipment", the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-10-6-22 be approved for the following reason: (1) these are necessary definitions to make the ordinance pertaining to the storage and parking of recreational equipment more meaningful; FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of October 29, 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, 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 69-8-6-18 by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #399-69, to amend Section 4.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance, pertaining to the storage and parking of trailers in the R-1 through R-5 districts. Before action was taken Mr. Colomina took a moment to advise the audience that the group who appeared on this petition was a good one to work with, very cooperative. A gentleman in the audience wished to commend the Commission on a very good ordinance and asked permission to use this as an example across the State, adding that he too wished to express his appreciation for the Commissions cooperation. On motion duly made by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Tunis, and unanimously carried, it was 5755 #11-170-69 2ESOL'ED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been hela on September 16, 1968 on Petition 69-8-6-18 as submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #399-69, to amend Section 4.02 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, pertaining to the storage and parking of trailers in the R-1 through R-5 Districts, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-8-6-18 be approved for the following reasons: (1) a problem exists because the storage of recreational equipment is not adequately covered by ordinance; this proposed amendment should be more adequately and reasonably control it; (2) this is a necessary tool to help regulate the orderly growth and development of the City and will allow for the reasonable provision of recreational equipment and stilll, offer adequate safeguards to all the Livonia rest ents; FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was published in thecfficial newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 31, 1969 and notice of such hearing was sent tothe 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. 1[410 Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 69-5-2-13 by Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association re- questing a waiver use permit to erect an office building on property located on the west side of Middlebelt between Went- worth and Five Mile Road in Section 14. Mr. Hull advised Mr. Lindhout, who was present at the meeting, that he should be aware of the fact that approval should be made with the conditions that a detailed site and landscape plan be submitted within six months for approval and after approval it be totally implemented within two years from this date. Mr. Lindhout stated he would have nothing to counter this, it is their full intention to landscape. Mr. Wrightman asked if there were any land dedications to be made, etc. Mr. Hull stated that full right-of-way had been dedicated. Mr. Lindhout advised that they had made a small change in the plan, the building had been placed at an angle. On motion made by Mr. Santo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously carried, it was 5756 #11-171-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on August 12, 1969 on Petition 69-5-2-13 submitted by Lindhout Associates for Livonia Education Association requesting a waiver use permit to erect an office building on property located on the west side of Middlebelt between Wentworth anr' Five Mile Road in Section 14, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 69-5-2-13 be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) that a detailed site and landscape plan be submitted within six months of this date for Commission approval; (2) that the approved site and landscape plan be totally implemented within two years of this date; for the following reasons: (1) it is logical to accommodate this type of use within this sector of the City; (2) this type of use will not adversely effect the adjacent development in any way; (3) this type of use is a relatively low traffic generator and will not conflict with the movement of traffic in the area; (4) the development proposal is of sufficient calibre to justify City approval; 1140110 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. Urightman announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 68-3-1-7 by Rodney C. Kropf, attorney for Helen Meining, requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in Section 21, from R-2 to R-7. Mr. Tent stated that Mrs. Meining through her new attorney, Steve Polgar, who replaced Mr. Kropf, wished to withdraw this petition. On motion duly made by Mr. LaBo, seconded by Mr. Wrightman, and unanimously carried, it was #11-172-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the request of petitioner by letter from her new attorney, Steve Polgar, dated November 18, 1969 to withdraw Petition 68-3-1-7 requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, north of Schoolcraft Road in Section 21 from R-2 to R-7, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the withdrawal of the petition for the following reasons: 5757 (1) it is logical to conform with the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition at this time, thus negating the need for further action by the City. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is a motion by the City Planning Commission to rescind previous action on Petition 69-9-2-21 by Angelo DiPonio and allowing petitioner to withdraw his petition, thus negating the need for any further action. On motion by Mr. Colomina, seconded by Mr. Tunis and unanimously carried it was #11-173-69 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a letter received from Mr. Seeley dated October 22, 1969 representing the petitioner, the Commission does hereby rescind previous action on Petition 69-9-2-21 by Angelo DiPonio and approves his withdrawal of the petition. Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wrightman announced the next item on the agenda is the preliminary plat approval for Canbros Buckingham Plaza Subdivision located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24. On motion duly made by Mr. Santo, seconded by Mr. LaBo and unanimously carried, it was #11-174-69 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on March 14, 1967 the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the preliminary plat of Canbros Buckingham Plaza Subdivision located in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 24 be denied for the following reasons: (1) the Planning Commission's requirement set forth to satisfy all legal and engineering problems has not been resolved by the petitioner; (2) the petitioner does not wish to pursue the approval of this plat any further at this time, Mr. Tent, Chairman, declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Tunis, seconded by Mr. Santo, and unanimously adopted the City Planning Commission adjourned its 211th Regular Meeting held on November 18, 1969 at approximately 11:40 p.m. Li A +T: CI P NNING Lay. d U. Ten hai pan Harry W Sf•htman, S"etary Jr