HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2000-10-17 18068
MINUTES OF THE 813th REGULAR MEETING HELD BY
THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
New
On Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its
813th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. James C. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: James C. McCann Robert Alanskas Dan Piercecchi
William LaPine Elaine Koons H. G. Shane
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller, Planner II
were also present.
Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn,
will hold its own public hearing, and will make the fmal determination as to whether a petition
is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for
preliminary plat and/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
'go,, petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan 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 filing.
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. We
will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plans for our agenda.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2000-10-08-16 Deerfield Woods Apartments
(Home Properties)
Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 2000-10-
08-16 requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning
Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a clubhouse on property
located at 19683 Farmington Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4.
Mr. Miller: This site is located between the 7-Farmington Shopping Center and the Knights
of Columbus Hall. Immediately adjacent to the south of the property is the
closed Fire Station No. 3 site that was recently rezoned from PL and RUF to
OS. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a clubhouse on a small
vacant piece of land next to the existing swimming pool of the apartments
,o, complex. Right now this area contains a couple of in-ground barbeque grills,
picnic tables and benches and is used primarily as a common picnic grounds.
18069
The new clubhouse would be 1,993 sq. ft. in size. The submitted Floor Plan
shows that this building would contain; both, a manager's and a leasing office,
a social room with adjoining kitchen, an exercise room and his and her
`�.. bathrooms. Because this facility is only intended to be utilized by the renters
of the complex, the overall parking requirement is not affected. The plan does
show five (5) additional spaces proposed out in front of the new clubhouse.
The new building would be constructed out of brick and vinyl siding. The
petitioner has stated that the brick on the clubhouse would match that of the
existing apartment buildings. The roof would be covered with asphalt shingles.
Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first letter is from the
Engineering Division, dated October 4, 2000, and reads as follows: "Pursuant
to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced
petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the
legal description contained therein. We trust that this will provide you with the
information requested." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil
Engineer. The second letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 11,
2000, and reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans regarding the
proposed construction of a clubhouse for the Deerfield Woods Apartments. We
have no objection to the plans as submitted except that we would recommend
that one of the proposed parking spaces be designated as handicap parking."
The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The third
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 12, 2000, and reads as
*au, follows: "Pursuant to your request of October 2,2 000, the above referenced
petition has been reviewed. The following is noted: (1) The scale noted on the
floor plan is incorrect. It is 1/4"per foot. (2) The elevations do not clearly
show that the exterior is to be constructed of maintenance free materials and
should be clarified exactly for the Commission's review. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop,
Senior Building Inspector. The fourth letter is from the Livonia Fire &Rescue
Division, dated October 13, 2000, and reads as follows: "This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a
clubhouse on property located at the above referenced address. We have no
objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Joel R. Williamson, Fire
Marshal. That is the extent of the correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening?
Marc Dykes, Home Properties, 26899 Northwestern Hwy., Southfield.
Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about this project?
Mr. Dykes: Not at this point. We recently purchased the project in March and what we do
is we come in and put some renovations into it. One of the things that we try to
target is the facility that our staff works out of and presentation to the
`�... community. That is what we are looking into, putting in new community
centers and leasing offices. That is what we are proposing here.
18070
Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
`�.. Mr. Alanskas: Upon visiting your site, exactly where you are going to put this? There are
three beautiful trees. What are you going to do with those trees?
Mr. Dykes: Can you be more specific?
Mr. Alanskas: There are two large pine trees and the third one, it is not a pine tree, but it looks
like it is going to be right where the clubhouse is going to be. They are about
30 or 40 feet tall.
Mr. Dykes: There is one pine tree as you approach into the property and there is one pine
tree as you come into it. That is probably the tallest. That one we are
attempting to save. Because we are thinking the way the building is going to
face, we can still see the front entrance of the community center.
Mr. Alanskas: Because the building is only going to be about 23 feet from the existing pool.
Mr. Dykes: Correct. At this point we will be able to save the one tree. There are two other
deciduous trees that we will be removing and/or taking down. There is another
pine tree in the back that currently that will also come down just because of the
location.
Mr. Alanskas: I just didn't want it to go to waste. I thought maybe the City could use them.
r..
Mr. Dykes: By all means. We could discuss any options with the City. I know the one
pine tree in the back is so close that we will have to remove it and relocate it to
some extent.
Mr. Alanskas: Maybe you could discuss that with the Planning Department when that time
comes.
Mr. LaPine: Is the clubhouse going to be used for rentals for the people in the complex for
having a shower or something like that?
Mr. Dykes: There is a social room with a kitchenette and it will be open to the residents for
their use. We will have resident functions there.
Mr. LaPine: These are still rentals, are they not?
Mr. Dykes: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Do you have any plans in the future of making them condos and selling them
off as condos?
Mr. Dykes: No. The current structure of our company, we are a real estate investment trust
company, and it has been the target of our product that we just own and operate
rental communities.
18071
Mr. LaPine: I have lived behind there. That facility has been there a long time. It has been
well kept and I hope that you can keep it in the same way that Mr. Schostak
�.. kept it during the years that he owned it.
Mr. Dykes: Most definitely. We have 23 communities around the southeastern Michigan
area and that is what we strive to do is to go in and buy older communities and
when we do that, we come in and put in investment dollars into it. That
usually entails new community centers, upgrades to the unit, exterior and
interior, so we can maintain them.
Mr. LaPine: Thank you.
Mr. McCann: Are there any further questions? Hearing none, I have a couple. Would it be a
problem to take the brick up to the first level? As a clubhouse, it seems like it
would get a little more use and if you brought it above the window level, it
seems to me, that it would last a little better. It would be less subject to abuse
and damage. It looks like it has about a three foot wainscot now and if you
brought it above the first level of the windows, it appears it would look a little
nicer and last a little longer.
Mr. Dykes: This was recently completed. In our design process and planning, we do site
evaluation and determine what type of building will blend in. Obviously, we
are dealing with old materials that are currently outdated and trying to match
them sometimes is not feasible. Is it out of the question to do that? No, we can
go back and suggest to the architect that we bring up the brick and add brick in
certain areas. With the initial plan, the concept they come up with, they look at
the mix and try to see that it gives us a good balance. Is it out of the question?
No. We can go back and add more brick in some areas, but again, we try to get
a blend. It is going to be difficult to find but we try to come as close as we can
to matching what is out there.
Mr. McCann: It just looks half done by bringing it up three feet and stopping half way into a
window. It just doesn't do it for me. Anybody else? I will go to the audience.
Is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition?
Seeing nobody, a motion is in order.
On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously approved, it was
#10-186-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to
the City Council that Petition 2000-10-08-16 Deerfield Woods Apartments by
Home Properties requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of
the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a clubhouse
on property located at 19683 Farmington Road in the S.E. 1/4 of Section 4 be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated September 13, 2000 prepared by
Warner, Cantrell& Padmos, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
18072
2) That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding;
3) That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan prepared by Alexander V.
Bogaerts &Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on
September 29, 2000, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to;
4) That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4-inch brick, no
exceptions;
5) 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, and;
6) That the petitioner shall increase the height of the brick on the building.
Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion?
Mr. LaPine: Mark, you said in the correspondence we got from the Inspection Department
that had something to do with the material. Will you see that that is taken care
of?
Mr. Taormina: Yes. Their concern is the type of materials and whether they would be
maintenance free. That is partially addressed in our resolution this evening.
Mr. LaPine: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with your findings on this brick area. I made this point at the study
meeting. I would like to offer an amendment because I am sure that they will
be happy that we did this, that they move the brick over the window areas.
Mr. McCann: Mrs. Koons did add that in.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It
will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the
Miscellaneous Site Plan portion of the agenda. We will now proceed with the
Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length
in prior meetings therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight.
Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission.
ITEM #2 PETITION 2000-08-01-15 Livonia Public Schools
Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2000-08-01-15 by
Livonia Public Schools requesting to rezone Lots 1137 to 1146, inclusive, and
lots 1167 to 1176, inclusive, of Rosedale Gardens,No. 4 Subdivision,
including the east half of the adjacent vacated Hubbard Road in the N.E. 1/4 of
Section 34 on the west side of Cranston Avenue between Orangelawn Avenue
�,�, and West Chicago Road from PL to R-1.
18073
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-187-2000 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
'N.• that Petition 2000-08-01-15 by Livonia Public Schools requesting to rezone
Lots 1137 to 1146, inclusive, and lots 1167 to 1176, inclusive, of Rosedale
Gardens, No. 4 Subdivision, including the east half of the adjacent vacated
Hubbard Road in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 34 on the west side of Cranston
Avenue between Orangelawn Avenue and West Chicago Road from PL to R-1
be removed from the table.
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is
there some new correspondence in the file? Do you want to read them into the
record?
Mr. Taormina: There are three letters that have been received by the Planning Department. The
first letter is from Irene Kracht Turner, 9629 Cranston, Livonia, dated October
11, 2000 which reads as follows: "Dear Friends, I am writing this in reference
to the use of the land where Rosedale School was located. Our home is the
first house south of the property and we are very concerned about what the
Livonia School Board proposes to do with that property and also the length of
time they will be doing it. We are concerned about the style of the one-story
homes they will build and how they will fit into our very unique neighborhood.
Eight homes, all the same style and mostly garage frontage, are not in keeping
with our street. There must be other options, even to keeping the area as a
park. Please consider this. Also, the School Board is saying this will take 8
\Nu, years to complete and will last through the school year (nine months) each
year. We are Senior Citizens, in our seventies, and the thought of hammering
and pounding and other construction noises and the traffic it will bring until
the year 2009 is almost more than we can comprehend. We are already feeling
very stressed about all this. I am a life long resident of Livonia (from the
Wilson pioneer family) and I have been a resident of Rosedale Gardens since
moving here in 1936 with my parents. I feel we deserve better than 8 years of
stressful activities next door to us. We attended the meeting on October 3rd
and will be at the meeting on October 17`h. Please take into consideration the
points I have made in this letter and please let it help you make the right
decision. Thank you. Sincerely, Irene Kracht Turner." The second letter is
from the Livonia Public Schools, dated October 13, 2000, which reads as
follows: "Dear Mark, Listening to the individuals in attendance at the October
3,2 000,planning commission meeting, there appeared to be three main issues:
(1) Concerns over the length of the building process (2) The desire for two
story homes (3) The design of the homes proposed. In response to items one
and two, the Livonia Public Schools is currently reviewing the needs of the
Home Construction Program and available resources to determine the
possibility of selling two of the five lots on Cranston. This change would
reduce the time required to complete the building process, and make space
available for the possible construction of two-story homes. The district also
realizes the need to construct homes that blend in with the area and are
marketable to prospective buyers. To address this concern, I have requested
N..
that the Livonia Career/Technical Center, through the architectural drafting
18074
class, develop two floor plans and two elevations of each of those floor plans.
This is a great opportunity to have additional students involved in real life
situations; however, it does take additional time." The letter is signed by
``- David L. Watson, Director of Operations. Lastly, we have a letter from Mike
McGee, President of Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association, dated
October 17, 2000, which reads as follows: "On behalf of the Board of
Directors of the Old Rosedale Gardens Homeowners Association, I am writing
to confirm and repeat the comments made by members of our Association at
the October 3 public hearing on this petition. We respect the School District's
commitment to the Career Center training program and understand the
District's need to find additional properties for home construction. By the
same token, the prospect of converting the Rosedale School site from public
land to residential property is perhaps the single most significant development
proposal to be made within our neighborhood in the past 50 years. As a
community we are understandably very concerned about all of the details - the
fine print- of whatever proposal is finally made by the School District. We are
willing to work together with the School District to reach a mutually
satisfactory agreement. There remain many issues, however, that are not yet
resolved. These include how much property will be left as public land and
open space, the possibility of finding alternative locations in or near the City
for the program, the number of homes to be constructed, the architectural
style, the type of building materials, the timing of the construction, and other
issues. Because these questions remain unanswered, in particular the question
of how much open space will remain, we believe the rezoning petition is
premature. We therefore cannot support the rezoning petition at this time.
Thank you for your consideration." That is the extent of the additional
correspondence.
Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything additional besides your
letter that you wanted into the record before the motion is made?
Dave Watson, Director of Operations for the School District. No, I don't think so. The letter
pretty much speaks to the issues that we heard from the people the last time.
We realize, the District realizes, probably being the largest holder of land
within the City, that any of the properties and attempting to continue our
program, we are going to impact our green space somewhere. Looking at the
alternatives that were presented in the letter, we think we are beginning to
address some of the issues that were raised.
Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anything from the Commissioners?
Mr. Piercecchi: Inasmuch as this is somewhere down the road, would it be possible, or would it
be practical for you to ask that this be postponed for a while?
Mr. Watson: Looking at the length of time the process is going to take, I guess we are using
our last lot currently on Stark Road. Therefore, we need a space available next
spring to be able to put a basement on so that the basement and everything is
ready for the kids in the fall. I would appreciate moving ahead. There is
engineering work that has to be done. Obviously, we have to go through
18075
different issues with the Council so any delays at this point could jeopardize the
place to have the kids work in the fall.
'ow Mr. McCann: Mr. Taormina, I have been looking at this. We will go from here to the Council,
correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Will it come back to us for a preliminary plat approval?
Mr. Taormina: In this particular case, no, it would not.
Mr. McCann: And that is because there is multiple lots and they will be doing lot splits?
Mr. Taormina: The lots they plan to build on are existing-platted lots of records. They propose
to combine these lots and utilize them as they were originally platted.
Mr. McCann: These are as they were originally platted?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. McCann: Will there be any splits required?
Mr. Taormina: The only split that would be required involves the vacated street. None of the
lots fronting on Cranston would require any further divisions nor would the lots
presently located along that portion of vacated Hubbard Avenue. But again,
there needs to be action taken relative to reopening that portion of Hubbard
Avenue that would provide access to the proposed building sites.
Mr. LaPine: Mark, their request is for rezoning R-1. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: But they are 80-foot lots. Why aren't they being rezoned R-3?
Mr. Taormina: The initial request came to the City without any specific details on to the size of
lots that were being proposed. Since then we viewed various options. The
current proposal provides for 80 foot wide lots.
Mr. LaPine: They mention that they may be willing to sell off two lots. Let's say they sell
each one of these lots to an individual. They are 80-foot lots. As long as they
meet all the requirements of the zoning, setbacks etc., anybody who bought
those two lots could build any type of home they want as long as they met the
requirements of the ordinance. Is that correct?
Mr. Taormina: Once the property is rezoned, that is correct.
Mr. LaPine: So which means in effect, we may have some control over the lots on Cranston,
the School District, but we may not have any control over the two lots that are
18076
sold off as individual lots because they met the requirements. They meet the
setbacks. They meet the side yards. They meet the rear yards.
�• Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure what additional control we would have in terms of the School
District's development of those sites. Once the lots are rezoned and sold for
building purposes, the answer is yes, as long as they meet the City's codes and
ordinances. I am not aware that there would be any additional restrictions
pertaining to those developments. I am not sure the subdivision has any rules or
regulations that apply to these lots.
Mr. LaPine: You don't know if they have any deed restrictions or things of that nature?
Mr. Taormina: I have not been made aware of any deed restrictions that apply to these
particular lots that differ from the City's zoning requirements.
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, there is one other point I want to bring up. One of the problems
I have about this also is that Rosedale Gardens was just repaved in the last year.
If it takes eight years to develop these lots, in my opinion, I don't know how
long that road was built for.
Mr. McCann: There is not a table on the motion. Is this a question?
Mr. LaPine: It is a question. Is the up and down of that road for eight years with heavy
equipment, is that going to be any strain on that road?
`%r. Mr. McCann: I think that question is better directed to our staff even though I do some work
for companies in that respect. I don't know if the stress would be any greater
over eight years with the trucks or doing eight lots in one year.
Mr. LaPine: The only difference is you would bring the heavy equipment in one time. Say
it was a subdivider building these lots. He would do all of his basements all at
one time, take out his heavy equipment then you wouldn't have his heavy
equipment coming in. That is the only thing I was bringing up. Thank you.
Mr. McCann: As I stated in the beginning, a motion is in order at this point because there is
no audience participation unless there is unanimous support from the
Commission because we have reviewed this. First I need to know, is there
anybody who has additional or new information that wanted to address us
tonight with something different than what we heard at the other public
hearing? I don't see anyone so I am going to ask for a motion.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, in my view of this piece of property, there are only four types of
zoning that would be practical in this area. It is residential, commercial, office
or leave as public land and inasmuch as the likely winner in this process is
residential, I will move to approve this change of zoning.
On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. McCann, and approved, it was
18077
#10-188-2000 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 3,
2000, by the City Planning Commission on Petition 2000-08-01-15 by Livonia
Public Schools requesting to rezone property located on the west side of
`r.• Cranston Avenue between Orangelawn Avenue and West Chicago Road in the
N.E. 1/4 of Section 34 from PL to R-1 be approved only with respect to Lots
1137 to 1146 and also Lots 1167 to 1172, also including the East one-half of the
adjacent vacated street, of Rosedale Gardens Subdivision No. 4 for the following
reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the
surrounding zoning and land uses in the area;
2)That the proposed change of zoning will provide for development of the
subject property for single family residential purposes in a compatible
manner with other developed properties in this area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the established
character of the area.
Mr. McCann: I will pass the gavel in order to offer the supporting motion.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any discussion?
Mrs. Koons: Because I am an employee of the School District, I will abstain from voting.
Mr. Alanskas: Is there any other discussion?
Mr. LaPine: My gut feeling is that I am opposed to this. I am opposed to this because I don't
think we should develop land basically because I don't think we should take
public land and put it into this unless we went through every perceived thing we
can think of to come up with a solution that would make both the School Board
and the residents happy. I think tonight we might end up with a 3 to 3 tie vote
here.
Mr. Alanskas: Mrs. Koons is abstaining so there won't be a tie vote.
Mr. LaPine: I guess I am going to vote for it and pass it on to the Council and let the Council
in their wisdom do what they think is the best for the City. Thank you.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else?
Mr. McCann: I am going to pass the gavel to Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, and support this
resolution. There are a lot of reasons why. I have had houses built in my
backyard. We are all residents in Livonia. It is not this against you or you
against us. What it is, is the right to develop this property. The school system
owns this property. The School Board is an entity. They have decided to sell
this property or to use it in this instance for the betterment of yours and my
'sow children. You can complain and say "Not in my backyard or I don't want a group
home in my backyard. I don't want them developing." These are things that
18078
society needs. My kids go to Livonia Public Schools. I am very proud of the
fact that they are doing well in school and the school has done well by them. We
have to support them. Now you are saying, "This is my backyard." No matter
where the school picks, the people at the other site will have the same problem.
But it was all part of it. As Mr. McGee knows, this is privately owned property.
They have an absolute right to develop it as a reasonable use. This is a zoning
issue before us. That is how we have to decide it. We can't look at how long it
goes. You can take that to the Council and they can look at that a little bit closer.
They can work on the type of homes a little bit closer. We have to look at it as a
zoning issue. If we went before the Court and the Court said, "Wait a minute,
they are building 80 foot lots in a residential area that has 60 foot lots. What
basis do you have to deny them as this community?" You don't. The school
system is saying they are going to work with you as to the type of homes. I have
been up and down that street. There are wood sided, two story homes, there are
tri-level homes and there are ranches. There is a multiple of homes. I am sure
that the school system said if they are trying to work with you, they are. For me,
as a Planning Commissioner, there is one issue I have to look for. The one issue
before us tonight is, is it proper zoning? They are putting in 80-foot lots. I don't
see how you could ask for any better zoning on that property. That area does
have quite a bit of parkland. You say, "Well the school should just give us more
park land." The school is already renting a large park to the City for a dollar a
year. They have a real good relationship between the school system and the
City. To deny this and to hold it up would be improper. I think it should be sent
to the Council. Hopefully these problems and concerns that you have can be
taken care of or at least softened so that it doesn't have as great of an impact on
`sl,,,, the residents. But it is proper zoning and that is the issue before us. I have
nothing further.
Mr. Alanskas: Anybody else? I just have one thing I would like to say. Just so you know, the
Planning Commission only has 60 days on a petition to act on it. I personally
think this petition needs a lot more time, however, we have to pass it on to the
Council and I think in my aspect, it is best to pass it along with an approving
resolution. Hopefully, the Council and the neighbors can get this resolved
within the next two or three months. Thank you. Would the secretary please
call the roll on the approving resolution?
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: Piercecchi, McCann, Shane, LaPine, Alanskas
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Koons
Mr. Alanskas, Vice Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
Mr. Alanskas returned the gavel to Mr. McCann.
18079
ITEM #3 Approval of the Minutes 811th Regular Meeting
Mr. Piercecchi, announced the next item on the agenda is Approval of the Minutes of the 811th
�'" Regular Meeting held on September 19, 2000.
On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was
#10-189-2000 RESOLVED that, the Minutes of the 811th Regular Meeting held by the City
Planning Commission of September 19, 2000, are hereby approved.
A roll call vote was taken with the following result:
AYES: LaPine, Koons, Shane, Alanskas, Piercecchi, McCann
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted the 813th Regular Meeting held on
October 17, 2000, was adjourned at 8:05 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Nolp• L L)...airb(19
Dan Piercecchi, Secretary
ATTEST: '4 t'{ r: —
1-Lr�
James C. McCann, Chairman
/rw