HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2005-05-1022282
MINUTES OF THE 9W PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, May 10, 2005, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia
held its 905" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000
Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: Robert Alanskas William LaPine R. Lee Morrow
Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley
John Walsh
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Ms. Debra
Walter, Clerk -Typist II, and Ms. Marge Watson, Program Supervisor, were also
present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on lonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or
vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City
Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If
a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City
Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become
effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission
and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling.
The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying
resolutions, which the Commission may or may not use depending on the
outcome of the proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2005-04-01-03 CADE INVESTMENTS
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2005-04-
01-03 submitted by CADE Investments, LLC requesting to
rezone portions of the properties at 36825 and 36905 Ann Arbor
Trail, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail Road between
Newburgh Road and Dowling Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 32 from RUF to R-1.
22283
Mr. Taormina
presented a map shoving the property under petiton plus the
existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak:
There is one item of correspondence from the Engineering
Division, dated April 14, 2005, which reads as follows:
`Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time, and the legal description is comect.
In developing this subdivision, it should be required that the
developer dedicate the additional 27 feet of right-of-way for Ann
Arbor Trail to make the one-half width dght-0f-way 60 feet wide.
A storm sewer to serve this site is being planned in conjunction
with the Ann Arbor Trail sewer separation project. Flow will
need to be detained to agricultural conditions in accordance with
Wayne County's Storm Water Management Ordinance." The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. That is
the extent ofthe correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff before we go to the
petitioner?
Ms. Smiley:
It doesn't bother them that they don't go right to the lot lines as
the lots are defined? That parcel, see how the red mark is to
the left of the actual lot line. It doesn't bother anybody that they
dothat?
Mr. Taormina:
I think I can explain the reason for that, and if it's not sufficient,
I'm sure the petitioner will. He has negotiated the purchase of a
portion of the lot to the east, which induces rezoning the
southerly portion. In exchange for the additional land area,
which would be utilized for the storm water detention basin, the
developer would split off about 10 - 15 feet of his lot in order to
compensate for some of the area being lost for the storm water
detention basin. Essentially, it's something that was negotiated
between the buyer and the seller, and what it allows for on the
one gentleman's property is for him to have some additional
width along the west side of his home.
Ms. Smiley:
Thankyou.
Mr. Taormina:
By the way, the property being split would be combined wth the
property to the east. That's the reason why there's that sliver of
land that separates the two. That would be combined with the
existing lot to the east.
22284
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, for the two lots that are deficient, he has to have 90 feet in
width, which abut Ann Arbor Trail. Correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Correct.
Mr. La Pine:
How does that 27 feet work? Are we figuring 90 feet from the
proposed 27 feet that we hope he will donate to the City for the
width of Ann Arbor Trail with the 60 foot wide?
Mr. Taormina:
It is exclusive of the nghtof-way. So the width would not be
measured from the existing right -of my but from the future
nghtof-way.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Louis Ronayne,
310 W. Dunlop, Northville, Michigan 48167.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Ronayne:
I just want to follow up on the one question on that one sliver
that we're giving to the homeowner to the east. Part of that is
very close to his house and when we negotiated with him, he
wanted some more breathing room in there. There's probably
going to be an easement for the storm going up through there
anyways. So if he ever wanted to put a driveway there or he
wanted to ... it's
pretty tight to his house. So we gave him that
piece of property
in exchange plus what else we did on the back
to negotiate the back piece.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Shane:
Mr. Ronayne, are you aware that Lots 1 and 11 are deficient in
width?
Mr. Ronayne:
I found out Iasi week, and we have since gotten with our
engineer. I'm pretty sure we're going to be able to resolve that
by reconfiguring Lots 1 and 2.
Mr. Walsh:
Anything else, Mr. Shane?
Mr. Shane:
No, thank you.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I don't know if the petitioner is aware the reason for that 30 feel.
That 30 feel is to gel you set back from the main road. So your
lot line really for building will be 30 feet plus the normal setback,
22285
which if it's R-1, would be five feet. So you'd be 35 feel from the
road area there, that boundary line. Do you understand that?
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes, I'm aware of it. We have a new drawing that we worked
out with the Planning Department showing that. What I think
we're going to end up doing, we have to move some things
around to allow Unit 11 to be able to slay where it is. We don't
have a drawing completed yet, but it looks like we're going to
have to flip Lots 1 and 2 to face on Ann Arbor Trail.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
I just wanted to make sure. I don't know if everybody
understands that because we're just adding 30 feel of setback
really when you gel that. I wish it could be 50, frankly, but I
guess that's going too much for the way Livonia has been laid
out in the past, but that's the reason for it with the setbacks. So
you cant build in that 30 feet.
Mr. Ronayne:
Actually, if you look at the setback the way it is right now and
the way its drawn up, that would take away the whole house
next door to the east.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
What are you talking about? Take away the house next door?
Actually, Mr. Chairman, I contributed to it. We're really
premature here. We will respond accordingly when you bring in
your site plan.
Mr. Ronayne:
Okay.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
But tonight we're here to decide whether R-1 is the proper
zoning for that piece of property in that part of town. Thats our
purpose here, not to analyze how many houses you're going to
gel in there. That will all come out in the wash.
Mr. Ronayne:
No, l understand.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Pieroecchi.
Mr. Morrow:
I was basically going to say what Dan said. I have no problem
with the zoning, but my thing tonight was to make sure you're
aware of the deficiency on the setbacks so that when you begin
to plat it, you'll be aware of what you'll be faced with when you
come back before this body.
Mr. Ronayne:
Yes.
22286
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one in the audience coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was
#0532-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-04-01-03,
submitted by CADE Investments, LLC, requesting to rezone
portions of the properties at 36825 and 36905 Ann Arbor Trail,
located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail Road between
Newburgh Road and Dowling Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 32 from RUF to R-1, be approved for the following
reasons:
1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in
harmony with the surrounding zoning districts and land
uses in the area;
2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject properly in a manner that will
be consistent with other residential developments in the
neighboring area;
3. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the
Future Land Use Plan designation of Medium Density
Residential land use for the subject property; and
4. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the
development of the subject property in a manner that is
consistent with its size and location.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2005-03-02-09 S&W DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
03-02-09,
00503-02-09, submitted by S+W Development, requesting waiver
use approval to operate a full service restaurant at 17370
Haggerty Road, on property located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Six Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in
the Southwest''/.of Section 7.
22287
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Madam Secretary. I'm going to excuse myself from
the discussion on this item. I am an employee of Schoolcraft
College and this development will take place on SchoolcraR
property. I'm going to tum the gavel over to Mr. Alanskas.
Mr. Alanskas:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taormina, would you please
present the petition.
Mr. Taormina
presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is there any correspondence, Mr. Nowak?
Mr. Nowak:
There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated March 30, 2005, which reads as
follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. Additional right-of-way is not
required at this time. The legal description to be used with this
waiver petition is as follows." The legal description is provided.
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated March 30, 2005, which reads as follows: `This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
construct a full service restaurant on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
April 18, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal for Cheeburger Cheeburger
located in the 17370 Haggerty business complex. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March
31, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
March 24, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. This Department has no objection to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of
Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Alanskas:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. La Pine:
Yes, just one question. Mark, I'm just curious. When we
originally approved the proposal on this area that we're referring
to tonight, the total panting spaces that we calculated we
needed for the 14,505 square feet for that building, was that
22288
predicated on having five restaurants in there? Do we have
enough parking? Normally a restaurant needs a little more
parking that normal. The only two places in there, the wireless
telephone company and the barbershop, which I don't think
really probably needs that much parking, but I'm just worried.
Every time I go in that complex it seems the parking is getting
tougher and tougher all the time.
Mr. Taormina:
We did not know at the time of site plan approval for the
Marketplace that such a large proportion of the floor area would
be utilized for restaurants. In the case of a group commercial
center, the zoning ordinance does factor in the possibility of a
mix of retail uses, including restaurants. For that reason, it
requires a ratio of one space for every 125 square feet for
parking purposes as opposed to one to 150, which is what we
normally apply for retail uses. You're right. If we had applied
the parking for this center for each individual use, then I'm sure
it would have come up with a higher number of required parking
spaces. But since we did not know at the time what the
percentage of restaurant uses were going to be, we applied the
single factor that was a bit more conservative. Whether or not
there will be a parking problem out there, we don't know at this
time. Certainly, there's parking available to the north as part of
the expanded College Park development, both where the
restaurants are located as well as the office development.
Mr. La Pine:
Just one other question because I wasn't at the study session.
Is this basically more of a sit-down restaurant because I counted
123 seats? Or is a large portion of their business carryout, like
Potbelly? Potbelly is a lot more carryout I think than it is sil
down.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know the answer to that question. I think the petitioner
will have to answer that.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Brian Switalski,
2735 Stanton Street, Canton, Michigan 48188. Regarding the
restaurant, just to give you a little background for those that are
not familiar with Cheeburger Cheeburger, it is a full-service
franchise restaurant that is family oriented. It is in a 50's style
theme. Your question regarding sit-down, primarily the bulk of
the business is a sit-down restaurant. It caters to cheeseburgers
ranging from 5-1/2 ounces up to 20 ounces with roughly 82
flavors of milkshakes and home cul fries. It is a 50's style diner
more so, but with a nicer, more appealing look to it. The parking
22289
issue also, to the west, there are approximately 25 to 30 parking
spaces that generally people, as they pull in, don't recognize.
They'll actually be on my side of that building toward the
restaurant. So there are additional spots there that most people
aren't aware of because theyre going to Potbellys right now.
Mr. La Pine:
Your outside seating ... people will go through the outside to
sit. Will they be serviced by a wailer or waitress?
Mr. Switals1k:
They will be serviced by a wailer. We have two front doors:
one for takeout and then one that has the vestibule where they
will be seated by a hostess. So anyone going outside will still
come through the inside and go to a hostess and then be
directed if they want to sit outside.
Mr. La Pine:
Primarily, it's mostly sit-down versus carryout?
Mr. Switalski
Yes.
Mr. La Pine:
Potbelly, I think, isjusllhe opposite.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Sir, do you have any other locations close by?
Mr. Switals1k:
Currently, this will be the first one in Michigan. Cheeburger
Cheeburger operates out of 14 states, currently with about 50
restaurants. I became the franchisee for this area of the state
for Wayne and Oakland Counties. Over time, I will proceed to
open additional restaurants.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What is the typical number of seals?
Mr. Switalski:
The older ones, probably around 80 to 90. Theyve opened a lot
of the newer ones that have this theme and they're in the 120 to
140 seat range.
Mr. Piercecchi:
And you have no problem filling them?
Mr. Switals1k:
No. They're very popular in Florida right now. That's where the
bulk of their restaurants are. They've moved into the northeast
and had a lot of success there also with restaurants that are in
that size range.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are they associated with a great university like we have with
Schoolcraft? Are they in the same type of complex or are they
stand alone?
22290
Mr. Switalski:
They are all generally in a strip center complex. I think there's
only one that's actually a stand-alone.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Theyre in plazas?
Mr. Switalski:
Plazas. Yes.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
The way our parking has been calculated, you have no
problems. But like our friend here, Mark, said, we didn't figure
on five restaurants going in one place. But if you can live with @,
I guess it's your problem with seating. If you look at the 125 ...
you know, Bill, I do a lot of math. The 125 allows you 22
parking spaces based on your size. You're 3,315. We lake
80% of that, and you got 2680 square feel of usable space.
Divide that by 125, and you gel roughly 22.
Mr. Switalski:
I think our business will be, since it is primarily sit-down,
Potbellys and Caribous are not. A lot of that space will probably
honestly be directed more toward our restaurant than the others
because they have a lot of takeout business. It won't be long-
term parking.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
We're on your side here. We're not the enemy.
Mr. Switalski:
ON I know.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Can I ask Mark a question?
Mr. Alanskas:
Sure.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Mark, who owns the property south of that strip mall there?
Mr. Taormina:
That's the Comerica operation center.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
It would sure be nice to gel some land there and put some
parking in there.
Mr. Taormina:
I don't think they have any room available there.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Pardon?
Mr. Taormina:
Theyre pretty much built to capacity on that site.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
How much space is there between, let's say, that building and
the Comerica building?
22291
Mr. Taormina:
That I don't know, but I know that they utilize every square inch
Of it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
They do, eh?
Mr. Taormina:
There's a grassy knoll that's probably 15- 20 feet wide between
the end of their parking lot and where this building would be at.
Mr. Piercecchi:
It sure would be nice to get 100 feel there.
Mr. Shane:
Just one quick question. Do any ofthe Cheeburger Cheeburger
restaurants have beer and wine and/or liquor licenses?
Mr. Switalski:
Some of them do. The new plan is none of them will carry beer
and wine or liquor licenses. Some have beer and wine, not
liquor.
Mr. Shane:
So this location has no plans for that?
Mr. Switalski:
No. The ones that do account for less than two percent of their
business, so its not a venture to really entertain at this point.
No need to.
Mr. Morrow:
This is a little bit off the subject. You mentioned cheeseburgers
and malts?
Mr. Switalski:
Yes.
Mr. Morrow:
You must have other items on the menu. Could you give me an
idea?
Mr. Switalski:
There are chicken sandwiches, a large choice of salads that are
handmade essentially to the customer's order. There's
porlabella mushrooms, veggie burgers. So there's a full service
of food on the menu besides just cheeseburgers.
Mr. Morrow:
Not the normal restaurant entrees for full service restaurants.
It's more of like sandwiches and salads and the cheeseburgers.
Mr. Switalski:
I mean the specialty is cheeseburgers. I mean that's what we
focus in on. There are additional items, but we're not like a
typical Fridays where we could have 40 different things on the
menu. It is limited probably to 15 main items, with
cheeseburgers being the primary, and the milkshakes and fries.
Mr. La Pine:
Do you take reservations?
22292
Mr. Switalski:
No.
Mr. La Pine:
Secondly, I'm going to outdate myself, but you say you have 91
varieties of milkshakes.
Mr. Switalski:
Eighty-two.
Mr. LaPine:
I'm back from the old days where we used to sit at the counter
and the soda jerk would shove the thing up and mix it. Are they
mixed to order or are these the ones you pull down?
Mr. Switalski:
Everything is made to order, including the burgers. At the time
you order it, we start grilling them. There's no pre -making of
any food. It's all done and the shakes are the same way. You
sti l put them up in the spindle and have them spin with the
ingredients mixed in.
Mr. La Pine:
I like to hear that. What are your hours?
Mr. Switalski:
They are open from 11 to 9, and Saturday and Sunday until
930.
Mr. Alanskas:
For outside seating, are you going to have outside speakers?
Mr. Switalski:
No.
Mr. Alanskas:
You are not. Okay.
Mr. Switalski:
And there will be no additional lighting besides what the landlord
provides. The seating will be during the daytime or while it's
IgM out.
Mr. Alanskas:
Is @ safe to say that most of your business is during lunchtime?
Mr. Switalski:
They do a very good dinner crowd also.
Mr. Alanskas:
For cheeseburgers?
Mr. Switalski:
Yes. Fridays and Saturdays are very popular. Its family
oriented. Kids meals come like in little cars, little plastic cars.
So kids like going there. There's a Mole range of things that
attracts. We have Trivia Pursuit cards on the table. So it's like
a family can do things while they're sitting there waiting for their
food to come out.
22293
Mr. Alanskas: You're not going to have any type of video games in the
restaurant?
Mr. Switalski: No.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
againstthis pelifion? Hearing none, a resolution is in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#0533-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-03-02-09
submitted by S+W Development requesting waiver use approval
to operate a full service restaurant at 17370 Haggerty Road, on
property located on the east side of Haggerty Road between Six
Mile Road and Seven Mile Road in the Southwest '/of Section
7, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Fixture Floor Plan marked Sheet No. 1.04
prepared by A & E Designers, Inc., dated March 16, 2005,
is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That the maximum number of customer seats shall not
exceed 147 seats, including 123 seats inside the building
and 24 outdoor patio seats;
3. That the outdoor dining shall be confined to a portion of the
adjacent easterly patio as illustrated on the outdoor seating
plan submitted with this request;
4. That the outdoor dining shall be conducted in a manner
that will ensure that sufficient dear space for pedestrian
circulation is maintained on the patio area at all times;
5. That a trash receptade shall be provided for the outdoor
dining area;
6. That only conforming signage is approved with this pefifion,
and any additional signage shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission and City
Council;
7. That the awnings of this unit shall not include any
identification sign, and shall not be baddil;
22294
8. That wall signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1)
hour after this business doses;
9. That no LED lightband or exposed new shall be permitted
on the site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
10. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the building permits are applied for.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use;
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Ms. Smiley: I would also like to add that I dont think you will have a problem
with the parking because of the uniqueness of the restaurants
that are in there. There s a coffee shop, Potbellys, an ice cream
place, and they may wander from your restaurant down to
theirs. So I dont anticipate a problem. Good luck.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you, Ms. Smiley. Would the Secretary please call the roll
for the approving resolution?
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Smiley, La Pine, Shane, Piercecchi, Morrow,
Alanskas
NAYES:
None
ABSTAIN:
Walsh
ABSENT:
None
22295
Mr. Alanskas, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing
resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution. Mr. Walsh returned to the podium at 8:05.
ITEM #3 PETITION 2005-04-0240 HEALTHY CHOICES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
04-02-10
00504-02-10 submitted by Healthy Choices Cafe requesting waiver
use approval to add outdoor restaurant seating on the sidewalk
area in front of 33523 Eight Mile Road in the Northridge
Commons shopping center, located on the south side of Eight
Mile Road between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast
114 of Section 4.
Mr. Taormina presented a map showing the property under petition plus the
existing zoning of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nowak: There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 15, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time. It is noticed that the rough sketch
submitted defining the limits of the seating extends across the
frontage of the adjacent tenant, Rio Wrap. The legal description
to be used with this waiver petition is as follows." The legal
description is provided that describes a 10' x 36' area. The
letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
April 15, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
add outdoor seating on property located at the above -
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 26, 2005,
which reads as follows: 'We have reviewed the plans in
connection with a proposal by Healthy Choices Cafe located at
33523 Eight Mile Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 18, 2005,
which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of April 13,
2005, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The
following is noted. (1) Care must be taken to ensure that
walkways and seating aisles maintain their clearances. The
walkway from the door should be a minimum of 44 inches clear
22296
and the exterior seating aisle should be a minimum of 36 inches
clear. This Department has no further objections to this
petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director
of Inspection. The next letter is from the Manager of the
Northridge Laurel Shopping Center which reads as follows: 'We
have reviewed the proposed summer outdoor seating for
Healthy Choices Cafe of 33523 Eight Mile Road, Suite F4,
Livonia, 48154, and fully support their efforts to procure such
amenities. We believe it will provide a wonderful atmosphere
for the customers of Healthy Choices Cafe and will benefit all
tenants located within the Northridge Mall. Residing in
Michigan, it seems we have little time to enjoy the outdoors, and
this seems like a wonderful idea." The letter is signed by David
Field, Property Manager, Northridge/Laurel, LLC. That is the
extent of the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Ty Nuollila, 1194 Clearwater, White Lake, Michigan 48386.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation?
Mr. Nuotilla:
Just that we really are limited on our interior seating. We have
seating for 14-15, inducing a child seal. Most of our business is
canyoul, but we've had a lot of people who have basically said,
why don't you have outdoor seating? There's a lot of room
there with the canopies, as Mark said. And it does seem like a
great idea, and I think it would be just nice to be able to sit
outside. I mean our food is amazing. We have struggled with
marketing type issues. A lot of people that shop at Kroger and
go to Blockbuster, they don't even see that we're there. The
same thing with the Rio Wraps. We're in the back of the mall.
When you're driving down Eight Mile, you rbn't just see it. Ifs
hard to see. You have to be actually loolang for it. Even if you
are looking for it, you may miss it. So I think this will help draw
attention to our businesses and help ensure our success as
well because it has been a stmggle. We've been open eight
months, and its been a long road to get to this point.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Just one comment here. How long has Rio Wmps been ...
Mr. Nuotilla:
We opened late June, last summer. So less than one year.
22297
Mr. Piercecchi:
Because when I inspected your area for this great idea, @looked
like they were just remodeling inside.
Mr. Nuotilla:
That is the unit next to us. They're putting in an Ebay drop off
store where you drop off your goods to be sold on Ebay. So
that's my new neighbor. When we moved in Iasi year it was
Kit's Taekwondo and since then, they have left. Now we have
the new Ebay store.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I see. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one come forward, a motion
would be in order.
Mr. Piercecchi:
I think outdoor sealing in this particular section of the plaza is
going to do a lot to enhance it, and I think its going to serve as
an economic stimuli for that area too. I think outdoor dining is a
thing of the future, and we're finally catching up to the
Europeans as far as outdoor dining is concerned. I'll offer an
approving resolution.
On a motion by
Piercecchi, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0534-2005
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-04-02-10
submitted by Healthy Choices Cafe requesting waiver use
approval to add outdoor restaurant seating on the sidewalk area
in front of 33523 Eight Mile Road in the Northridge Commons
shopping center, located on the south side of Eight Mile Road
between Farmington and Gill Roads in the Northeast 114 of
Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the outdoor dining shall be confined to porfions of the
sidewalk directly in front of the subject restaurant units as
illustrated on the proposed outdoor seating plan submitted
with this request;
2. That the portions of the sidewalk areas utilized for outdoor
seating shall be enclosed (except for the width of the
walkway leading to and from the restaurant doors) by a
temporary fence during the seasonal times when the
outdoor seating is in use, as shown on the proposed
outdoor seating plan;
22298
3. That the maximum number of outdoor seats shall not
exceed 32;
4. That this approval for additional seats is applicable to the
outdoor dining areas only and shall not be construed as to
permit additional seating inside the building;
5. That the petitioner shall comply with the following
stipulations in the correspondence dated April 18, 2005,
from the Inspection Department;
- Care must be taken to ensure that walkways and
seating aisles maintain their clearances; the walkway
from the door should be a minimum of 44 inches clear
and the exterior seating aisles should be a minimum of
36 inches dear;
6. That a trash receptade shall be provided for the outdoor
dining area;
7. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolutions
#124-04 and #299-04, which granted waiver use approval
of the indoor seating for the subject restaurants, shall
remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict
with the foregoing conditions; and
8. That the specific plan referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time of application for a Zoning Compliance Permit
for the outdoor dining.
Subject to the preceding conditions, this petition is approved for
the following reasons:
1. That the proposed use complies with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set
forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance
#543;
2. That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the
proposed use; and
3. That the proposed use is compatible to and in harmony
with the surrounding uses in the area.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
22299
Mr. Alanskas: I hope the petitioner in regards to outside trash . usually
outdoor seating is done by the younger group and a lot of times
they don't want to put trash where it belongs. So I would hope
that you would police that area and always make sure it is
clean. Thankyou
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM #4 PETITION 2005-03-06-01 RETAIL USES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
03-06-01,
00503-06-01, submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant
to Council Resolution #137-05, and pursuant to Section
23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Livonia, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend
Section 11.03(p) of Article XI of Zoning Ordinance #543, as
amended, to give the Planning Commission and City Council
additional authority to regulate new retail uses in excess of
30,000 square feet.
Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there anything to add to that description?
Mr. Taormina: Just basic comments regarding this language amendment. The
Council has referred to the Planning Commission for action and
recommendation a proposed ordinance amendment to Section
11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, which would give the City
Council additional authority to regulate new large retail uses.
The provisions of this section of the ordinance require waiver
use approval for all retail uses that have a gross floor area in
excess of 30,000 square feet. Currently, there are five special
requirements to the granting of such a waiver use. This would
add a sixth paragraph that would state that a retailer cannot
obtain waiver use approval to operate within a new building of
30,000 square feel or more if the resulting building would be
occupied by a tenant or owner which would, in consequence,
leave vacant a building of 30,000 square feel or more elsewhere
in the City of Livonia.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions or comments from the Planning
Commissioners before we go to the audience?
Mr. Alanskas: We had quite a good study session on this last week with our
City Attorney. I, as one commissioner, am concerned. I don't
22300
want to push someone that wants to be in our city for business
out of the city by saying that you have to get a tenant for where
you are now before you can go to another area in the city. I just
think that we should either be tabling this for further discussion
or let our current resolution take care of this situation. Thank
you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Mr. Chairman, when I first read this and looked at it, I wrote
some notes, and I will read them to you. It starts out saying that
it is my understanding that this petition revolves around empty
commercial sites and would make the relocation of an existing
Livonia business to another Livonia site, which was newly
constructed to accommodate said transfer, a variance item
which would require public hearings and Council approval. It
would limit its scope to buildings in excess of 30,000 square feet
and require assurances that the move would not result in an
empty building at the previous location. Frankly, I question the
wisdom of going forward with this action, especially approving it.
Tabling it perhaps for more discussion. Although I realize the
intent of this proposal is to minimize the number of empty
commercial buildings and sites, especially in regards to large
buildings, it is out of character for Livonia. This legislation would
target sites solely on their square footage, square footage that
currently is associated in particular with big box discount outlets.
Although the cause is noble since empty big boxes are the most
difficult to revitalize, it is discriminatory, anti -business and
contrary to the way we do business in Livonia. I am of the
opinion this proposal will not stop movement or prevent an
empty building, but will result in law suits and the business
leaving Livonia to build their new facility in another city. In
addition, and I will close with this remark, it is redundant since
11.03(p) provides adequate regulation and control of retail sale
uses in excess of 30,000 square feet.
Mr. LaPine:
Seeing that I wasn't at the study session, does City Attorney
Kavanagh believe that this ordinance is defendable in court, that
we are on legal ground to approve such a thing as this?
Mr. Walsh:
He did make that statement when we were together, yes.
Mr. Morrow:
Just a comment. The question I have is because we are looking
at this ordinance, you know we've indicated 30,000 square feet.
At the study session, we weren't really sure that perhaps that
was the right number to use, which might require a little more
time to more specifically come up with a number of square feet.
Secondly, are we plowing new ground? Are we aware or can
22301
we find out if any other city may have a similar ordinance, or are
we unique in this regard? Should we be able to find a city that
currently has a similar ordinance, what is their track record with
that particular ordinance as far as any successes or any
failures? I kind of feel the same way. I don't want to do
anything to preclude people developing in the city. By the same
token, I don't want to just shuffle this thing off. I think it may
need a little more study before we make a final determination.
Mr. Shane:
I'd just like to say amen to Mr. Pieroecohi and Mr. Alanskas. I'd
like to further say that vacant buildings are a problem. Idon't
care what their size. I just don't understand singling out a
particular building just because they're large and holding them
hostage so to speak, not even allowing them to move unless
they find a occupancy for their present site. It just seems to me
that since we have an Economic Development Department that
ought to be one of the things they should be doing is helping
these vacant buildings find tenants, and I'm sure they do. We
put a lot of time and effort in trying to gel good site plans on
these new buildings. We put them through the wringer so to
speak and now all of a sudden we're going to add another
stumbling block to their bettering themselves, finding a different
location, finding a better location. With all due respect to the
drafter of this ordinance, I think it's a bad idea, and I have no
intenfion of voting for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morrow:
Just an additional comment. I think it was stated by Mr.
Kavanagh at the study meeting that this particular ordinance
should be adopted as written. That requirement could be
waived by the City Council with a two-thirds vote. Is that an
accurate statement? Its not etched in stone, that there is relief
should the City Council decide to give them permission?
Mr. Walsh:
I dont personally recall.
Mr. Morrow:
Do you recall that, Mr. Taomina?
Mr. Taormina:
Well, it's true. Any special requirement of a waiver use can be
waived or modified by a two-thirds vole of the City Council. It
may have been touched upon at our study meeting.
Mr. Morrow:
As I recall, it was that it's not etched in stone. They can gel
relief from that requirement should they try and fail to
accommodate the vacant building.
22302
Mr. La Pine: My position on this is, basically, I don't know what they're trying
to accomplish here because even if somebody moves out of the
building, and the building becomes empty, the landlord is still
obligated for the taxes to the City on the building even when it's
empty. The other point is, one point that I think we have to look
at is, when these buildings become empty, and one of the
problems that I think we have with the landlords when these
buildings become empty, they don't maintain the buildings; they
don't maintain the grounds. Consequently, when a potential
lessee for that building comes in and the building is in very poor
shape because it hasn't been taken care of over a period of time
it's been empty, it causes more heartaches than that building
being empty. I have to agree with Mr. Shane at this point.
Unless somebody can convince me otherwise, I think it's a very
bad precedent to set for the city, quite frankly.
Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Is there any further discussion? A motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Shane, and seconded by LaPine, it was
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-03-06-01,
submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council
Resolution #137-05, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of
Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as
amended, to determine whether or not to amend Section
11.03(p) of Article XI of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to
give the Planning Commission and City Council additional
authority to regulate new retail uses in excess of 30,000 square
feet, be denied forthe following reasons:
1. That the current language of Section 11.03(p) of the
Zoning Ordinance provides for adequate regulation and
control of retail uses in buildings in excess of 30,000
square feet of floor area;
2. That it has not been established that there is a need for the
proposed language amendment; and
3. That the proposed language amendment would
unnecessarily restrict and impede the movement of
businesses occupying large retail sales buildings in
Livonia.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any further discussion on the motion?
22303
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my remarks, I'm not saying that
I'm actually for this, but I had indicated that if we're under no
time constraints, I had indicated maybe a couple things we
should review before we move on this, and one would be
examination of the 30,000 square feet and then see if any other
cities or municipalities have a similar ordinance and what their
record was with it. So, I would like to offer a tabling resolution to
that effect.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Piercecchi, and adopted, it was
#0535-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that Petition 2005-03-06-01, submitted by the City
Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #137-05,
and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, to determine
whether or not to amend Section 11.03(p) of Article XI of Zoning
Ordinance #543, as amended, to give the Planning Commission
and City Council additional authority to regulate new retail uses
in excess of 30,000 square feet, be tabled.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Morrow, Piercecchi, Alanskas, La Pine, Smiley
NAYES: Shane, Walsh
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. This will be tabled until a date established by the
Planning Commission with our Planning Director. This
condudes the public hearing portion of this meeting. We will
now proceed with the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our
agenda. Members of the audience may speak in support or
opposition to these items. Will the Secretary please read the
next item?
ITEM #5 PETITION 2005-04-08-08 CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2005-
04-08-08,
00504-08-08, submitted by the Livonia Chrysler Plymouth
Dealership requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exterior of the automotive dealership located at
30777 Plymouth Road in the Northwest%of Section 35.
22304
Mr. Taormina:
I'll briefly describe this petition. It involves modifications to the
existing Chrysler Jeep dealership located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Meriman Road and Henry Ruff Road.
This property consists of land area of about 4.3 acres. The
building is approximately 33,000 square feel and is zoned C-2,
General Commercial. Commercial land uses exist both to the
east and west of the subject properly. There is M-1 zoned
property to the north across Plymouth Road and to the south
are residentially zoned properties that are part of the
Devonshire Park Subdivision. The existing building is used
primarily in connection with the sale of new and used
automobiles. The dealership also houses a service center. The
proposed renovations would transform the dealership to a new
modem appearance that several other Chrysler dealerships are
undertaking presently. The proposed renovations to the
building would involve both the entrance to the new car
dealership portion of the building, which is at the east end of the
structure, as well as renovations to the facade associated with
the used car dealership, which is at the opposite end of the
building. These changes are primarily cosmetic in nature. The
most significant changes would take place to the front portion of
the new car dealership portion of the building where a new
tower element would be added. The design would bump out the
building approximately four feet for the purpose of adding a
vestibule. There would be masonry columns supporting the
main portion of the structure, which would extend for a height of
approximately 24' feet. New glazing would be added to the front
along with a new cornice treatment along the top portion of the
facade. To a lesser extent, the same elements of design would
be incorporated at the opposite end of the building, which is the
entranceway to the used car portion of the dealership.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Alanskas:
How did we come up with the wraparound of 27 feet on the
sides?
Mr. Taormina:
This is the west elevation and this is east elevation of the
building. The area you're referring to is probably right here.
Mr. Alanskas:
Can we go further than 27 feet?
Mr. Taormina:
No, because really that becomes the other main portion of the
structure. That's primarily masonry at that point. There is some
offset in the building. That's where the building jogs. So this is
22305
where the EIFS would be located on the wraparound. I think
that's the area you're refening to.
Mr. Alanskas:
Yes, it is. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi:
What is the status of signage on that building?
Mr. Taormina:
I don't know exactly the extent of variances that have been
granted at this location for signage. I do know that they are
showing new wall signs on the elevation plans; however, we
don't have any details with respect to signage. I'm not sure
whether or not there will be additional variances required for the
new signs.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Is this signage that's proposed, I noticed three. One said
Livonia, one said Jeep, and one was Chrysler. Plus there's
some on the other end on the used cars. Is this new signage?
Mr. Taormina:
I dont think we have enough information at this time. That's
something that either is going to have to be referred to the
Zoning Board of Appeals for final approval or would have to
come back as a callback item.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. Nowak, is there any correspondence?
Mr. Nowak:
There are five items of correspondence. The first item is from
the Engineering Division, dated April 22, 2005, which reads as
follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has
reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections
to the proposal at this time as this is a building renovation only."
The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer.
The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division,
dated April 27, 2005, which reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
renovate the exterior of the dealership on property located at the
above -referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
April 26, 2005, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the
plans in connection with a proposal by Livonia Chrysler
Plymouth located at 30777 Plymouth Road. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April
27, 2005, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
April 19, 2005, the above -referenced petition has been
22306
reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition."
The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assislart Director of
Inspector. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road
Development Authority, dated May 4, 2005, which contains the
resolution of the PRDA adopted on April 21, 2005, which reads
as follows: "#2005-14 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road
Development Authority does hereby recommend that the
request submitted by Mr. Joe Jeffreys, Vice President of
Schafer Construction, Inc., on beha# of the Livonia Chrysler
Plymouth Dealership, located at 30777 Plymouth Road in the
Northwest X of Section 35 (Petition 2005-04-08-08), be
approved subject to compliance with all City codes and
ordinances and the Plymouth Road Development streetscape
goals and objectives, as such may be modified by the action of
the Planning Commission and/or City Council." The letter is
signed by John J. Nagy, PRDA Director. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Dave McDonald, Livonia Chrysler Plymouth, 30777 Plymouth Road, Livonia,
Michigan 48150.
Mr. Walsh:
Mr. McDonald, if you want to show us something, would you put
it on the tripod please? I want to make sure we can gel a
camera angle on it.
Mr. McDonald:
The purpose of this facelift, if you will, is Daimler Chrysler asked
all of its dealers to do what they call a branded showroom so
anytime people are coming across a Dodge, Chrysler or Jeep
dealership, they want it to be the same on the inside as well as
the exterior. So if you notice the arch, you will hear people say,
Did you put the arch on? They want the arched entryway.
They've gone across the country, and we went and looked at
several stores that had the same look that we had because
back in the 60's when they built the majority of these stores,
they all had that same branded look across the front of it with
the little fascia. It's just a nice clean look. We're not tearing
down walls or anything like that. Its just a more modem,
cleaner look that will associate us with the factory and all of us
will look the same.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
22307
Mr. Alanskas:
I have two. You'll have to excuse me. I may be wrong, but al
your dealership, do you have an extended ramp where you
show a car four feet off the ground in the front?
Mr. McDonald:
Yes, we do.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, is that permitted? The reason why I ask is because
Tennyson Chevrolet, two or three years ago, did a big
renovation. He had one of those ramps and we made him take
@down. Mark?
Mr. Taormina:
I would have to check at this location to see if there are any
special exceptions granted, variances or anything like that. I
can't answer off the top of my head. Normally, we don't allow
the display vehicles to be hoisted up like that.
Mr. McDonald:
For those of you that remember, what that was at one time, was
a spinning car out in the front at that comer at Milburn when that
dealership was built. I believe it was in the 60's. B. J. Radigin
built that. I remember it as a kid. It was an electric car that
used to spin around that was out there. That was eliminated
and they just kept the ramps.
Mr. Alanskas:
Number two, do you open the hoods of your cars and put a big
sign that says 'tor sale $13,000 or $14,000" - additional signage
on Plymouth Road?
Mr. McDonald:
Asign in the...
Mr. Alanskas:
A lot of dealers, bey open the hoods and they put these big
signs up.
Mr. McDonald:
If we're having a special sale, sometimes on occasion we will,
sure.
Mr. Alanskas:
Mark, is that permitted?
Mr. Taormina:
Noltypically.
Mr. McDonald:
It was my understanding that if anything was attached to the
vehide, I thought that was okay.
Mr. Alanskas:
The thing is, if we allow one dealership to do that up and down
Plymouth Road, you could have them all do it and that would
look kind of gaudy. That was my question. Thank you.
22308
Mr. McDonald: Okay. Sure.
Mr. LaPine: I'm glad to hear your opening statement, because for many,
many years, Chrysler Corp's identity was an area that I called
on, and they were so strict on everything. I mean if we did logos
or anything, they had to be so exact. If any renovation to any
building no matter where it was across the country, then they
had to approve it because they wanted, like you say, the same
thing. If you go from one end of the country to the other end of
the country, you always would know their dealership. I was just
curious if they had approved this type of design.
Mr. McDonald: That came right from identity.
Mr. LaPine: Verygood. Thankyou.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? A motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#0536-2005 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2005-04-08-08,
submitted by the Livonia Chrysler Plymouth Dealership,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of the automotive dealership located at 30777 Plymouth
Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 35, be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked At dated
April 15, 2005, as revised, prepared by Linchoul
Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
2. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are
approved with this petition;
3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site inducing, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows; and
4. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
atthe time the building permits are applied for.
22309
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any additional discussion?
Mr. Piercecchi:
Are you going to amend the motion to take away the car on the
ramp?
Mr. Alanskas:
I would like to if its not permitted. Yes.
Mr. Piercecchi:
Now is the time to do it.
Mr. Alanskas:
That's correct. We did it for Mr. Tennyson. I think Mark would
have to look into that though.
Mr. Morrow:
As the maker of the motion, I don't want to predude anything
like that in the particular motion that I made until Mark has a
chance to research it and see if its grandfathered in or whether
or not there's anything surrounding the use of it.
Mr. Piercecchi:
You can put a proviso on that.
Mr. Morrow:
I know I can, Dan. What I'm saying is that I don't want to make
a part of this resolution.
Mr. Pieroecchi:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
So the motion stands as stated. Is there any further discussion?
Mr. Alanskas:
I think that the petitioner has stated that he would go along with
that if necessary, and we can leave it at that.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is canned and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 904TM Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes oflhe 904"' Regular Meeting held on April 19, 2005.
On a motion by Shane, seconded by Piencecchi, and adopted, it was
#0537-2005 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 904" Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on April 19, 2005, are hereby
approved.
22310
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Shane, Pieroecchi, Alanskas, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: LaPine
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 905" Public
Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 10, 2005, was adjourned at 8:45
p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman