HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1995-10-24 14445
MINUTES OF THE 713th REGULAR MEETING& PUBLIC HEARINGS
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
LIVONIA
On Tuesday, October 24, 1995 the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held
its 713th Regular Meeting& Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. Jack Engebretson, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., with
approximately 25 interested persons in the audience.
Members present: Jack Engebretson James C. McCann Robert Alanskas
R. Lee Morrow William LaPine Daniel Piercecchi
Patricia Blomberg
Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Ass't. Planning Director; and Scott
Miller, Planner I, were also present.
Mr. Engebretson informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a
rezoning request, this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council
who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and decide the question. If a petition
involves a waiver of use request and the request is denied, the petitioner has ten days in
which to appeal the decision to the City Council; otherwise the petition is terminated. The
Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a preliminary plat and/or a vacating
`%0, petition. Planning Commission resolutions become effective seven days after the
resolutions are adopted. The Planning Commission has reviewed the petitions upon their
filing and have been furnished by the staff with approving and denying resolutions. The
Commission may use them or not use them depending upon the outcome of the hearing
tonight.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 95-8-1-19 by
Louis J. Capra requesting to rezone property located north of Bretton Road
between Melvin and Oporto Avenues in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 2 from
RUFA to R-1.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this rezoning proposal. However,
there are no sanitary sewers readily available to the west one-half of the
proposed zoning area. Further, according to their records a full width
easement was retained over vacated Pembroke Avenue pursuant to
Ordinance 1515.
14446
We have also received a petition signed by nine residents, which states:
I have signed this petition as a note of rejection to the request
#95-8-1-19, in regards to a rezonement of the property located north of
Bretton Road between Melvin and Oporto Ave. in the SE 1/4 of
Section 2 from RUFA to R-1. I am rejecting this because I feel that the
size of these new lots could not accommodate homes that would
coincide with the present homes in this neighborhood. As a result I feel
very strongly that my property value, as well as the value of my home
would be greatly depreciated.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please come forward and give us your name and
address for the record and explain your reasons for making this request.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Nagy. Did the fellow in the
letter indicate what size the home was?
Mr. Nagy: No.
Mr. LaPine: One other thing Mr. Nagy, the lots to the north there, they are all the
same width and length as these lots they want to split so potentially all
those lots could eventually be split if this goes through?
Mr. Nagy: Yes they could.
Guy Trantham: Mr. Capra had a meeting prior to this. He should be here in just a few
minutes. If you could give him a moment or two.
Mr. Engebrtson: We can't give him a moment or two. What we can do is see if there is
anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this proposal
and if he appears when they finish, we will give him an opportunity at
that time. Otherwise we will have to keep moving forward. This is a
bit unusual. The procedure is to let the petitioner explain what he
intends to do. Obviously it is hard to speak to what they intend to do if
you haven't heard it but apparently there is some knowledge in the
neighborhood of what is being proposed, so at this time we will go to
the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak for or against
this proposal.
Doris Klepsch, 19817 Oporto: That is in a flood plain for us there and it does fill up with
water quite a bit. I have paper work here that I had to have done when
I had my house built, and I am pretty sure the City knows about it. Its
been since 1977 I think. This was actually done 11/21/86. We know
where the six foot drain is all the way down through there. It does fill
up 5 feet all the way over to Bretton Street and there is no sewer line
through there because the City said he could not go over because it
14447
was already in there. I am opposing this petition on that account
because of the water line.
Mr. Engebretson: Madam would you please explain again where you live.
Mr. Klepsch: I am her husband. (He pointed out their house on the plan)
Mr. Engebretson: You referred to five feet of water accumulating. Where does that
water accumulate?
Mrs. Klepsch: It accumulates right in front of our home.
Mr. Klepsch: This land they are proposing is not ordinary flat land. It is one great
big hole and it holds tons of water. If they fill this land in to make it
level so they can build a house, this street will flood all the way back. I
would like to show you some pictures. (He passed pictures to the
Commissioners)
Mr. Morrow: I believe the petitioner came in.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner here?
Louis John Capra, 41772 Aspen, Novi: I am petitioning to develop the property. We
feel, based on what the Engineering Department has said, they have
�.. corrected the problem resulting in part of those flood pictures, I am
sure. They seem to think it is adequately corrected and if we were to
fill the grade in, the water would run the appropriate path.
Mr. Engebretson: What is the appropriate path?
Mr. Capra: They said the plumbing that is already in existence there should be able
to handle that flow of water.
Mr. Engebretson: And keep the water in the pipe.
Mr. Capra: That is correct because they feel it is being diverted because of debris
falling and obstructing the opening. That is what causes the water to
then build up.
Mr. Engebretson: What else would you like to say?
Mr. Capra: The homes that we plan to build there are between 1800 and 2200 sq.
ft., multiple level dwellings. We don't feel it will compromise the value
of the neighborhood because the homes in the area are equivalent or
less than the homes we are planning on building.
14448
Mr. Engebretson: What kind of homes, all brick?
.,,.. Mr. Capra: They would be a combination . We are going to do some more studies.
What we feel the area can command as far as dollar wise. We don't
want to overbuild. We don't want to underbuild certainly. We feel
there could be a two-part value here. Number one, developing the
property and improving the tax base this year, as well as allowing the
other residents in the area to have some new and fresh homes to bring
up the value of their property.
Mr. Engebretson: Your contention is you would build homes compatible to the homes in
the neighborhood, They wouldn't overpower. They wouldn't
underpower. They would be approximately equivalent to the current
size in character.
Mr. Capra: Correct.
Mr. Morrow: When you say 1800 to 2200 sq. ft., are we talking two-story homes?
Mr. Capra: Yes sir.
Mr. LaPine: Have you built homes in Livonia before?
'qtr. Mr. Capra: No we have not sir.
Mr. LaPine: There are four lots involved here. I assume the four lots are owned by
four separate property owners.
Mr. Capra: That is correct.
Mr. LaPine: You negotiated a price with them to buy off the back portions of these
lots?
Mr. Capra: Correct.
Mr. LaPine: Now there are other lots all the way down the street basically the same
way. Did you make any effort to purchase any of those lots?
Mr. Capra: Actually it hasn't come to our attention that they would be available
until recently. We certainly want to look to see what problems might
exist currently trying to develop the street, but yes we have plans to
approach those home owners to see if we could do a similar situation
there as well.
14449
Mr. Alanskas: Have you built homes in any other communities?
Mr. Capra: Yes we have in the past, Canton, Westland area.
`r..
Mr. Alanskas: How many homes?
Mr. Capra: Less than ten.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Nagy, inasmuch as you are the wizard around here, what about the
flood condition out there. Would this really exaggerate it? Can that be
modified to satisfy the flooding and satisfy the planning of that area?
Mr. Nagy: We believe the Engineering Department, in their report, did evaluate
that matter and they have indicated in their report that other than the
availability of sanitary sewers, that all other utilities and development in
that area should be accommodated and there should not be storm water
drainage problems. The only problem they detected is that of the
sanitary sewer.
Mr. Piercecchi: Do you think this would improve the situation?
Mr. Nagy: I would tend to think that by proper development of the property,
proper grade on the homes, sloping of lots, the draining of the water
away from each of the road right-of-ways into the drain to deflect the
water into the appropriate designated channel for storm water runoff, I
think it would, yes.
Mr. LaPine: John, you mentioned the sanitary sewers. What is the problem, no
sanitary sewers in this area?
Mr. Nagy: No, not on Oporto. There are sewers on Melvin Avenue. They would
have to bring the sanitary sewer around from the east and extend it to
the west to serve those lots along Oporto Avenue.
Mr. LaPine: There is a sanitary sewer in the neighborhood. They would just have
to tie into that?
Mr. Engebretson: Correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Would that come across vacated Pembroke?
Mr. Nagy: Likely.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Capra, inasmuch as you are building homes of that size, is there
any reason why you are not requesting the R-2 classification, which is a
14450
70 foot front lot rather than the 60 foot front lot. According to your
plat, the lots are going to be 76 foot.
'`` Mr. Capra: Currently as it sits right now correct. We were looking at the
possibility of splitting it into five lots. Under R-1 the lots have to be a
minimum of 60 feet .
Mr. Piercecchi: You are coming in here and requesting four lots.
Mr. Capra: That is correct. We are requesting four lots because there was some
kind of a retainment on the easement because of the drainage pipe. I
believe that traveled through one of the lots. It is not feasible any
longer to do that. R-1 we feel is within the area, therefore it was
suggested we stay within the R-1.
Mr. Piercecchi: Is it because of the side lots? There is only a foot distance between the
R-1 and R-2 zoning. I would think you would want an R-2 there
rather than the 60. Put in your 76 foot lots which qualifies for R-2.
Would you object if we made the zoning from RUF to R-2?
Mr. Capra: I wouldn't have any objections.
Mr. Engebretson: What are your plans for improving that road?
�,r,,. Mr. Capra: We have looked at that. I think that is something we would want to
talk to some of the other people that live on that road to see what
things can be done as well as look at further development if it so merits
in the area the gentleman spoke to earlier. It is certainly something we
would look at.
Mr. Engebretson: Then you don't have any current plans?
Mr. Capra: No current plans at this point.
Mr. Engebretson: Now we will go back to the audience and start with the gentleman who
was at the podium previously.
Chris Meadows, 30011 Bretton: My house is on the southeast side. About the Engineer
that said there is not a problem with flooding, my front yard gets
flooded out about three times a year. I don't know that I am objecting
to the houses being built there. I really want to be convinced the
problem is not going to be worse than it is now because the water runs
over the back of that hole then, runs into Bretton and then runs on to
my front yard and sometimes into my garage.
14451
Mr. Engebretson: Are you directly across the street?
Mr. Meadows: Directly across the street. The last house on the right. The water flows
�.. under the road there and then heads back towards Livonia Mall. When
the receptor can't handle that water, it comes up over the top of the
road and I have a receptor at the end of my driveway and when that
gets plugged or it can't handle the load, it starts running up on my
property. This happens two to three times a year during heavy rains.
This has been going on, I have lived there for eight years, and in the last
five years I have had this problem. I am concerned about the fact that
if you fill that hole up, I am not convinced this water is going to be
running underneath the sewers. If the engineers can come up with a
plan to take care of this, I don't have a problem but my feeling is I want
to be convinced this is not going to be just blown over. That is my
main concern.
Mr. Engebretson: I understand your concerns sir. I would like to ask Mr. Nagy, while he
is not an engineer he is certainly very familiar with these kinds of issues.
Mr. Nagy, would it be your expectation that if and when a development
like this were to occur and additional cuts are put into the storm sewer
to accept water, etc. is it likely that the problems would, in fact,
become less of a problem than it is now, or about the same as it is, or
would it be worse?
Mr. Nagy: Certainly the volume of water is not going to increase and storm water
runoff is going to run off water whether there are four additional
houses in that area or not. What we really like to do is get the water
that is already in there as a result of rainfall and get it into the pipes and
carry it on out of that area into the proper outlets for the area. I think
what the engineering would look at in terms of that site development is
to make sure the water is properly channeled into the designated drains
to carry it out of the area rather than leave it stand within the area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would that process be dealt with in great detail at the plat
approval process?
Mr. Nagy: Yes at the site development phase when the developer comes in and
obtains the building permits.
Mr. Engebretson: So whatever opinions we have heard from the Engineering Department
at this point, it doesn't necessarily involve the same amount of in-depth
analysis that would be done with the site plan approval process. Let's
say the zoning were successful and the Engineer determined that there
wasn't likely to be relief, would that be reason to not approve a plat?
14452
Mr. Nagy: I think that would be.
Mr. Engebretson: I am trying to give the gentleman some things to think about that would
hopefully address some of your points of concern that there are
multiple issues involved here. There is the zoning process, and then
there is a platting process where the actual proposal is looked at in
great detail as to how it all fits into the surrounding area, and I actually
knew the answer to those questions but that was hopefully to bring
some information out that would be helpful to you.
Mr. Morrow: Just to amplify what you said. This is certainly not the first time we
have looked at zoning and we have heard concerns about water. We
can't look into a crystal ball and see what will happen here but we can
reflect on many other zoning requests where drainage has been a
concern, and through the development of the site and engineering it has
relieved the problem and in many cases, I don't know if it was 100%, it
did relieve the water problems. That would be something this
Commission would be sympathetic to and certainly something that is
beyond our scope but I can only reflect on what has happened in the
past and they have cleared up a good many water concerns through the
site development process.
Ray Tucker, 19936 Doris: The storm drain is in that corner. In the spring when all the
snow melts because that drain is in my yard, I know all about it, it has a
20 foot retaining pond that they built without asking me. It doesn't
flood my yard that much but the two just below me, in the spring they
have as much as three to four foot of water in their backyard. The man
on this side just moved into his house this last year, and there is a little
shed back there, and he stored a bunch of stuff in it and he didn't know
that it flooded, and when the flood came it went up about two to three
feet and everything he had in that little shed got wet. If these down
here are tapered back to the north, that will increase the flooding in
their area plus it will put it into my yard now because mine is higher
than the other ones. If they are going to do it, I won't object if they
taper it to the south, but he will because it will flood his yard. Every
year they come out and they try to keep that drain unclogged and there
is just no way to do it. There is just too much water. There is a big
apartment complex toward Eight Mile. That all washes down this way.
Everything washes back to that little corner right there. Right now it is
being held a little bit. We didn't have this problem until they put that
underground culvert from the Livonia Mall over. I don't know if you
guys have been here long enough to know Livonia Mall used to flood.
Well they alleviated that problem and they passed it over to our
properties. I don't care about the houses because I have built houses
too and it doesn't bother me at all for having houses built, but that
14453
water backup onto my property would aggravate me quite a bit. I can't
see any way that they can cure the problem because they have this big
20-foot retaining pond now, they have a eight foot grade to let the
water down and it is just not big enough.
Mr. Engebretson: There is an eight-foot drop-off from your property down to Bretton. Is
that what you are telling me?
Mr. Meadows: No it is a little bit deeper than that. It is where they have it hollowed
out for the water to stay. In the back corner of my yard there is a pond
about as big as this area right here and it is about six to seven feet deep,
which they built without even asking me. Since I own all that property
it doesn't really bother me that much but if all this water starts going
back this way, then it is going to start flooding my property as well as
the property of these two people. It will probably go all the way up to
their back doors. Now it stays about 20 foot behind their house, and it
does get really deep. It always happens in the spring. If they are out
there cleaning it out every day, it still does it. There is just too much
water for that storm drain to hold. I don't object to the houses as long
as it doesn't flood my property.
Gerald Schnute, 30055 Bretton: I have lived here for 31 years. For 31 years every spring
my appeal, again, is to the flooding problem. For 31 years every spring
we have watched the waters come over Bretton and flood out across
the street and down towards Sears. That whole area in red that you see
to the west of where the houses are built now would be completely
under water. This is going back before Bretton Street was approved
and before that storm sewer was put in. That area through the red
square from the corner almost to the corner of Bretton and Melvin was
a former creek bed that angled up through that property. The creek
bed is still there. It shows itself every time there is a heavy rain. It
begins with a slow trickle and finally it gets to a point where none of
the catch basins can take the runoff. There was this huge watershed
that this area is draining into and it all channels down into that corner
right there. I have the same concern as the former resident although
none of the water has ever come up within one lot of where we live.
Our homes are bi-levels and obviously if we did flood, it would create a
great deal of problems for those of us who have homes set in the
ground. Our concern is this and I hope this board would seriously
consider the ramifications of doing anything to alter a known flood
plain. We hope you would be responsible to recognize that anything
you would do to a problem that is known in a flood plain, could cause
ramifications that none of us at this point in time know. At least please,
please seriously consider any of your decisions because they could
have serious consequences to those that live in the area.
14454
Mr. Engebretson: We certainly paid careful attention to everything you said. I want to
make sure we are on the same wave length. If there were something
`.. developed there that could in fact improve a bad situation, you would
be in favor of that?
Mr. Schnute: Yes. Can I also relate one thing. When Bretton Street was improved
and paved and the storm sewer was put in, I remember the engineering
report that was given to us at that point in time saying that would take
care of the flooding. Every spring and every summer when we have a
series of heavy rains, it still floods over, and anything that you do to
interrupt a flood plain like that is going to depend on properly
maintained catch basins, and like the former gentleman said can we be
responsible to make sure that every time of the year those drains are
completely cleared? Well, I am not sure, and I will tell you the first
time that does happen and it floods, then the engineering is only as
good as the maintenance, but I will say this, the first year that was put
in, the following spring it flooded and it flooded every year since. We
saw actually no relief from the flooding.
Mr. Alanskas: Can I have your address please?
Mr. Schnute: 30055 Bretton.
Mr. Alanskas: Thank you.
Richard Parent, 19843 Melvin: The third house north of the red area. Aside from
repeating the flooding problem, which everybody already knows, the
builder said he wanted to build approximately 1800 sq. ft. houses. The
four lots that he is going to abut up to are approximately 1,000 sq. ft.
The houses across the street are approximately 1,000 sq. ft. and the lot
size does not dictate a house that big. I do not want them there.
Neal Krantz, 30126 Bretton: I am also concerned with the flooding. I will even go one
step further to say I have seen it flood right up next to Oporto and
freeze for the winter where it stayed there as long as a month or more.
I have also seen where the trucks have come down through Oporto to
clear it and it is still flooded. This has gone on for the last ten years
that I have lived there. I would like to also address the value of these
homes. My home was just appraised at $155,000. I seriously doubt
that these are going to improve the value of my home. In fact, I am
sure it is going to depreciate the value of my home. When I bought
that home I was informed that this was RUF and this would not be
improved property. I have a certain degree of privacy which I enjoy
right now. If those homes are built there, I will lose that privacy. I
14455
have arborvitae there and I am told the road will be expanded to tear
down my arborvitae and I will lose that privacy as well. I am
concerned and I am opposed to these changes.
Now
Lorraine Martin, 19844 Purlingbrook: I have resided there for 47 years. I live right on
the corner of Navin and Purlingbrook. I guess I am opposed to the lot
size because I have had the pleasure of living there with the 1/2 acre
lots and how nice it is. I would like to keep the zoning the way it is. It
is such a nice area, and I guess if you have never lived on a 1/2 acre,
you don't know how nice it really is to raise kids. We are retired now
but we still enjoy it. If it gets too much for us, we will move on and let
someone else enjoy it. I am opposed to the change from RUF to a
small size.
Steve Tannehill, 19811 Melvin: I am one of the people that owns one of the lots under
consideration here. I hadn't planned on speaking here this evening. I
am getting a little concerned hearing all those people that have
legitimate concerns about a flooding situation and I can appreciate that.
My concern is I don't know if the decision is going to be made finally
here tonight, yes or no, or if collectively we have enough engineering
knowledge to make that decision or is it going to be deferred to
engineers who can give us more definitive answers as to whether this is
going to have a negative effect or a neutral effect or possibly a positive
effect. My question is are we going to decide here tonight with the
Now board or is it going to be the possibility of turning it over to people
who have more specific knowledge in this area?
Mr. Engebretson: Let me try to answer by reviewing the process with you. Tonight is
just the beginning. This is a public hearing to determine whether or not
the zoning should be changed, having really nothing to do with what
might be built on that zoning. When a determination like that is made it
is not uncommon to get into some details as to what the plans for the
property are to determine whether or not the zoning change should
occur. The Planning Commission, in this role, is a recommending
body. It makes a recommendation to the City Council. They hold a
public hearing and then they make a determination as to whether the
zoning should change or not. If the decision is made to change the
zoning, that doesn't mean anything is going to happen. That means
something may happen. The developer would then need to go through
a site plan or platting process, which would consist of coming back to a
public hearing here, which as Mr. Nagy referred to earlier, would
involve a very detailed analysis by the Engineering Department to make
a determination whether there would be a negative impact on the
surrounding area or whether or not the proposal would work. If it is
determined that it won't work, then the zoning will be in place but
14456
nothing will happen. The Planning Commission would deal with that
public hearing. It would go on to the City Council. They would then
review the public record and make the final determination as to whether
or not to proceed. If that preliminary plat approval is successful, then
%kW there are a number of administrative things that have to occur that deal
with even more detail as to what will guide the development of that
property, and then it comes back for final plat approval. There is a
final plat approval on our agenda this evening. It involves a matter of
posting bonds and doing a number of administrative things that
guarantee that the proposal will be carried out as approved. So it is a
very long process. Tonight was just the very beginning. One of the
things that could happen here tonight is that no decision is made. The
Planning Commission always has the option of tabling any item to seek
additional expert opinion to be able to go back and revisit the site to do
whatever is appropriate to allow us to make the right recommendation.
That is our objective. That is how it works. I understand the question
you raised.
Mr. Tannehill: Thank you. Then I guess I would just like to briefly go on record
saying I have seen the plans for the homes and, while I am not a real
estate expert, I think it would increase the value of the property.
Mr. Engebretson: You would be one of the property owners to sell off part of your
property if I understood you correctly?
'`w Mr. Tannehill: Yes that is correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Would these homes, in your judgment be compatible with the homes in
the neighborhood or would they be larger and a little more expensive?
Mr. Tannehill: They might be a little more expensive, which I think of as positive. I
think if you are going to build a home, you want to build something
that will perhaps pull up the value of the surrounding homes. I know
they are going to be more expensive than my home. The homes that
are there, my guess is they are worth around $95,000, and the homes
that are going to go up are going to be in the neighborhood of$130,000
and $140,000. Mr. Capra can correct me if I am wrong about that.
They also have a nice design to them. I imagine some of the folks here
tonight might be concerned because there are trees in the back of my
property, which are nice to look out on. I have considered clearing the
trees anyway just to level off the land. I do have that right but I don't
know if I would or not but I think that might be an underlying issue
that some of these people are concerned about. I do, however, defer to
the experience of some of these people regarding the flooding, which I
see as a very valid point, one which would have to be fully examined
14457
and worked out before anything could be worked out but as far as the
other concerns, I am not so sure I agree with them.
*oft.- Lee Chwalek, 19815 Oporto: That is directly across from the proposed site. We do have
a problem with flooding, a tremendous problem with flooding. I just
don't see where if he brings in a bunch of fill dirt to put four houses on
where there are a few storm sewers, it would help the problem at all. I
am just wondering how wide does he plan on going with the street?
Mr. Engebretson: We are not really dealing with the street tonight. We are unable to
address that this evening.
Mr. LaPine: John, didn't the City Council send this to us at one time to look at this
area for another zoning and we decided to turn it down at that time.
We thought if it should be developed we should wait until the whole
area is developed because this is what we thought would happen it
would be developed piecemeal, and that is what is happening here now.
Is my recollection right?
Mr. Nagy: There was a lot split just north of the area under petition. On that
parcel there was an area of R-5 zoning and given the surrounding
zoning being RUF, the lot split that was proposed was less than the 100
foot minimum width of the R-5 zone, the Council asked the Planning
Commission to evaluate the appropriateness of the R-5 zoning to
Nifty determine if there was a more appropriate zoning classification for that
area. The Planning Commission evaluated that and decided the R-5
was inappropriate but what was appropriate was the RUF zoning,
which was the zoning of the surrounding area. So the Planning
Commission recommended the change from the R-5 to the RUF. The
idea that motivated that decision was if we did something less than the
RUF, which would be what is proposed here tonight, that if we did
something less it would bring about the division of those parcels so as
to create additional lots to the west. We wanted it done in a more
comprehensive way rather than just a lot here and a lot there.
Mr. LaPine: If we did it that way, the whole street at one time, we could get
improvements on the street and sewers, etc.
Mr. Nagy: Right, that is what is being proposed here.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-8-1-19 closed.
Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman I think there are some really legitimate concerns here
over flooding and I am not really comfortable starting a process with
14458
that hanging over this particular petition. I would like to table this
matter.
't' On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#10-202-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 24, 1995 on Petition 95-8-1-19 by
Louis J. Capra requesting to rezone property located north of Bretton
Road between Melvin and Oporto Avenues in the Southeast 1/4 of Section
2 from RUFA to R-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to table Petition 95-8-1-19 until the study meeting of October
31, 1995.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-2-26 by
AME Group, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a new Hyundai
Nola. car showroom to be located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Stark
Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they note that Plymouth Road has not been dedicated to its fullest
extent (60') in accordance with the Master Thoroughfare Plan. We
have also received a letter from the Fire Marshal stating his office
would have no objection to this proposal. Also in our file is a letter
from the Inspection Department stating the following deficiencies or
problems were found: 1. This building will be required to comply with
the Michigan barrier free standards, including parking requirements.
One (1) barrier free parking space would be required. None are
identified on the site plan. 2. Section 11.03(g)(2) requires that no
vehicle be parked within 20 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street.
Existing parking on the east and west lot line are within 20 feet of a
street. 3. The existing barbed wire abutting the side streets and
residential districts should be removed. Section 15.44.070 of the
14459
Livonia Code of Ordinances prohibits barbed wire in these instances.
4. Landscaping is deficient in area.
Mr. Engebretson: Would the petitioner please step forward and tell us your reasons for
making this request.
Harold Stein: I represent Livonia Volkswagen who is the petitioner. We are
representing them. I am with the AME Group at 1825 Brinston, Troy,
Michigan. We have been over this a number of times with your
Planning Department, and I guess before I make any comments I would
like to know if there are any questions I can answer or do you want me
just to respond to these items here that are on this sheet that Mr. Nagy
just read?
Mr. Engebretson: You can do whatever you wish but you surely need to address those
particular items, but perhaps it would be more appropriate to begin by
telling us what the proposed plan is all about.
Mr. Stein: We anticipate the owner adding this Hyundai dealership. We have
Volkswagen there now, as you know, and Subaru and Mazda, and in
order to accommodate this line that we want to add, Hyundai, we need
to add additional showroom space. We have sufficient room on the site
to do that and before we decided to do this we talked to your planners
about it and tried to make a plan that would be suitable to everyone. If
I may, a couple of the items here. I don't believe, according to the
ordinance now, the parking is a problem. Is it the way we are located
there? I guess I am directing that to the planners where you refer to
Section 11.03. I don't think that is a problem for us.
The barbed wire is a deterrent. There are some areas we try to keep it
light at night but the barbed wire has been on there for a long time and
it is only to protect the cars. You know we have quite a new car
inventory back there. We have had some instances of people trying to
get over the fence and into the lots, etc. We have noticed some of the
other car dealerships in the area have barbed wire on their fenced
inventory for the very same reasons.
Mr. Engebretson: Could you tell us who they are?
Mr. Stein: Tennyson for one has barbed wire. Also, Olson Oldsmobile, Bill
Brown Ford, Livonia Chrysler and Armstrong Buick. We were
concerned. We thought we were the only ones when we saw this but
we drove around purposely because it is a deterrent really. I can't see
where it would involve hurting anyone. It hasn't yet. We do need
some protection there.
14460
Mr. Engebretson: We understand sir. The problem is it is illegal, and we have been
uniformly consistent in our policy that when it is discovered that we
require that it be removed, and that has been true for churches,
hospitals, other businesses. You know everybody these days would
like to have electrified barbed wire to protect their assets I suppose but
it is just not permitted and you are going to have to deal with that. We
will have to be sure to have the Inspection Department visit these other
locations.
Mr. Stein: I thought if they were allowed to be fenced that way, we should be
allowed to, but if we can't, we will comply.
Mr. Engebretson: Your point is well taken. Any other comments you would like to make
relative to the inspection?
Mr. Stein: We have added some landscaping. We anticipate adding more in the
future. We hope to, if we are able to, purchase the property next door
that the City now has. We have talked to the City about that. We have
added some landscaping there, and as you probably all know if you
visited the site, we have some eyesores right next to us. We would like
to see that removed so we could clean up that area, and at that time we
would like to add more landscaping. The number one item on this list
was a mistake. I just neglected putting handicap parking designated on
s r" the plan but that is no problem to put that on. We have plenty of room
for it. It was an oversight on our part.
Mr. Engebretson: Our sharp staff catches all that.
Mr. Stein: I know.
Mr. Alanskas: Sir, if this petition goes forward and this is going to be strictly a
showroom, where would you service these cars?
Mr. Stein: We already have a service area in the back of our existing showroom.
Mr. Alanskas: You have enough room to take care of these new cars?
Mr. Stein: Yes.
Mr. Alanskas: It wouldn't be a burden on your customers?
Mr. Stein: No. I listed the number of bays on our site plan, plus we have a body
shop right next door.
14461
Mr. Alanskas: You wouldn't have an overflow?
Mr. Stein: No.
Mr. Piercecchi: Will parking continue to be off Plymouth Road? It appears as though
you have that big asphalt front.
Mr. Stein: We do not park there. If someone pulls up there, it is not parking there
by us.
Mr. Piercecchi: You don't have a plan that we could look at do you?
(Mr. Miller presented the site plan)
Mr. Piercecchi: What I was concerned about is right now there is room there but when
they widen that street they will get another 27 feet so I guess you
couldn't park there.
Mr. Stein: That is why we are not parking there now.
Mr. Piercecchi: You said you are going to increase your landscaping?
Mr. Stein: We hope to increase it. We have done some more landscaping around
the existing new showroom as much as we can. We are putting that
building right in the middle of our parking lot basically. It is all asphalt
so we are putting a perimeter of landscaping around the new showroom
and we are adding as much as we can to the west side of the building
next to the City property. Mr. Nagy asked that that be increased. We
have matched that and done a little bit more but that is about as much
as we can do at this time. With the car inventory that we have, and I
am sure you have been on car lots before, when it snows or rains in the
middle of the winter, you have to design it so you can remove that
snow otherwise you create a safety problem, and we try to keep that
ice buildup and everything down. We have added some additional
drainage in the back and we are running the runoff of this new
showroom building to the sewer to keep the ice from building up so we
can keep that lot clear in the winter time because we have people
walking through there daily to look at cars.
Mr. LaPine: The new building is going to be a standing building by itself?
Mr. Stein: Yes.
14462
Mr. LaPine: You don't have any plans on hooking up the buildings so if somebody
wants to walk from the Volkswagen dealership to the Hyundai
dealership, they have to go outside. Is that correct?
Mr. Stein: The reason we don't is because we are kind of under a restriction. If
we have this Hyundai they wanted to be separated so to speak. They
didn't want a Hyundai car next to the other three cars so we kept them
separated for that reason.
Mr. LaPine: I just wondered. It would seem to make sense to me if someone was
shopping around for four different cars and you have four different
dealerships you wouldn't have to walk outside.
Mr. Stein: I would agree with you and that is our main driveway right through
that area for the large trucks that come through there too. That is one
reason we don't have a large canopy there.
Mr. LaPine: The other question I have is the construction of the new building will
be compatible in material and everything to the existing building?
Mr. Stein: Yes it will. In fact, the intention of the owner is to remodel the old
building and we are going to remodel the used car building too so it
will all be symmetrical and it will put new faces on it. I know that is
the interest of your Downtown Development Authority to clean up
`'"" Plymouth Road and we hope to be able to, if we are able to, get that
property next door and blend it in with ours then we figure we could
have nice looking landscaping all through there.
Mr. Morrow: If the staff has an elevation plan they could run that by us so we could
get an idea of the building. While we are waiting for that I will say in
site checking this site, the petitioner does have very good housekeeping
there. The landscaping is right up to snuff The parking lot has been
duly resurfaced and painted black so he is a good citizen in that regard.
(Mr. Miller presented the elevation plan)
Mr. Miller: Does it say the building will be painted?
Mr. Stein: It will be painted to match the existing building.
Mr. Morrow: Is there any roof mounted equipment?
Mr. Miller: The roof top mechanical units will be concealed by dryvit screens to
match the fascia on the front and sides of the building.
14463
Mr. Morrow: As far as the site plan, is there any new lighting or any change in the
lighting that you have on the lots?
Mr. Stein: No, the only thing that we will be doing is putting a couple of wall
packs on the back to light up the dead area the building is taking up
now, so to keep our inventory lit up at night, but it will just be shining
on the cars. We won't be adding any lights.
Mr. McCann: Right now you have quite a number of vehicles there. What are you
going to do with your excess capacity? I assume you are going to have
to bring a whole line of those vehicles in, correct?
Mr. Stein: We feel we have adequate parking for inventory. We have indicated
the number of parking spaces on the site plan.
Mr. McCann: Is the site plan increasing spaces?
Mr. Stein: To some extent it is because we are going to eliminate some of the area
where we park now to accommodate the building. We have excess
space on the site already that we are not using.
Mr. McCann: It is not marked for parking right now. When I was there it appeared
all your parking spots were full with vehicles, new cars and cars in for
repair and other types of vehicles.
New
Mr. Stein: I don't feel we have a parking problem. I feel we have adequate space.
Mr. McCann: You appear to right now but you appear to be full. I am saying
bringing in a new line of cars. How many cars would you have to bring
in for the Hyundai dealership?
Mr. Stein: They have decreased their line this year so I assume we won't keep
over 35 cars at the most.
Mr. McCann: You are going to lose space you already have?
Mr. Stein: Back behind the building there is adequate space. It has never been
full. If you went over and looked at the site and drove around from
Laurel Street all the way to the east property line, you would notice
there is a lot of empty spaces there even with the new car inventory and
you have three lines there now.
Mr. McCann: What about the property you are proposing to buy from the City?
What would you do with those buildings that are existing?
14464
Mr. Stein: The intent would be to knock down the front building. We have
walked through it and checked it out and we feel that should come
down. We want to demo that and make that additional parking in there
and also add that additional landscaping and greenbelt along the front.
We would work with the planner on doing that. We talked to them
about that and they said that would be the way to add the additional
landscaping.
Mr. Engebretson: We will go to the audience to see if there is anyone wishing to speak
for or against this proposal.
There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the Public Hearing on Petition 95-9-2-26 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#10-203-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 24, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-9-2-26
by AME Group, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to construct a new
Hyundai car showroom to be located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section
33, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that Petition 95-9-2-26 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 9-01-95 prepared by
Jarrett-Mills Schron and Associates, Inc. which is hereby approved
shall be adhered to;
2) That the landscaping shown on the approved Site Plan shall be
installed prior to final inspection and thereafter permanently
maintained in a healthy condition; and
3) That the Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 1 dated 9-27-95, as
revised, prepared by Robert A. L. Williams, Architect, which is
hereby approved shall be adhered to.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use complies with all of the special and general
waiver use standards and conditions as set forth in Section 11.03
and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use;
14465
3) That the proposed use represents only a minor expansion of an
*4•11. existing and established use.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-204-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Petition 95-9-2-26 by AME Group, Inc. requesting waiver use approval to
construct a new Hyundai car showroom to be located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Stark Road and Laurel Avenue in the Northwest
1/4 of Section 33.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-2-27 by
Michael C. Petty, D.V.M. dba Arbor Pointe Veterinary Hospital, requesting
waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic within the Four Oaks Plaza
shopping center located on the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads in
the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
they have no objections to this waiver use proposal. The Traffic
Bureau states they have no objection to the site plan as submitted. We
have also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating
14466
Section 10.03 (f) of the Zoning Ordinance details the special
requirements for veterinary hospitals. The plan submitted does not
provide sufficient detail to presume that Items 4, 5 and 6 of these
requirements have been met. Please see the attached copy. We have
also received a letter from the Fire Marshal's office stating they have no
objection to this proposal.
Mr. Engebretson: Is the petitioner present?
Michael Petty, 37823 Ann Arbor Road: I am making this request because our lease is
currently up and we have been in business in Livonia for ten years at
Ann Arbor Road and Ann Arbor Trail and have steadily grown and
outgrown our space and are looking to get into a larger area to
practice.
Mr. Morrow: Mr. Petty, you might respond to the Inspection report.
Mr. Engebretson: I was just going to inquire as to whether or not the petitioner is even
aware of those findings by the Inspection Department relative to the
special requirements.
Mr. Petty: As a matter of fact I responded to Mr. Woodcox in a letter, and he
subsequently called me and said everything is fine. I answered
specifically those questions about insulation, ventilation, disposal of
medical waste, things like that.
w..
Mr. Engebretson: Do we have that on file John?
Mr. Nagy: Yes we do.
Mr. Engebretson: So are you satisfied?
Mr. Nagy: Mr. Shane handled it and with Mr. Woodcox resolved it to their
satisfaction.
Mr. Engebretson: And you are satisfied as well?
Mr. Nagy: Yes.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against this proposal in the
audience?
There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Engebretson,
Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-9-2-27 closed.
14467
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was,
#10-205-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 24, 1995 on Petition 95-9-2-27 by
Michael C. Petty, D.V.M. dba Arbor Pointe Veterinary Hospital,
requesting waiver use approval to operate a veterinary clinic within the
Four Oaks Plaza shopping center located on the northwest corner of
Newburgh and Joy Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-9-2-27 be approved subject to the following conditions:
1) That there shall be no open or outdoor runways, kennels or pens;
2) That the disposal of rubbish and litter shall be in such a manner as
to not be obnoxious or offensive; and in no case shall there be any
harboring of vermin or decaying matter on the premises;
3) That effective provision shall be made to confine all noise,
confusion and odor to the premises; and
4) That the subject building shall be soundproofed to the extent
necessary to insure the elimination of all noise from the area used
'*— for the treatment and temporary keeping of such sick and diseased
household pets.
for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 10.03 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.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance
#543, as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
14468
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-2-28 by
Arbor Drugs, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license for a
``• proposed store to be located within the Four Oaks Shopping Center
located on the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31.
Mr. Miller presented a map showing the property under petition plus the existing zoning
of the surrounding area.
Mr. Nagy: We have received a letter from the Engineering Department stating
their office has no objections to this waiver use proposal. We have
also received a letter from the Inspection Department stating no
deficiencies or problems were found to exist.
Mr. Engebretson: Madam I assume you are the petitioner or a representative of the
petitioner.
Kim Sinclair, 24631 Patricia, Warren: I am representing Arbor Drugs and they are asking
the Commission's approval for a beer and wine license, or SDM, at our
new store at 8881 Newburgh.
Mr. Morrow: Just one question. If I read the background correctly, there is no
violation as far as any type of separation of other SDMs or schools or
churches or anything like that?
`..
Mr. Nagy: You are reading the report correctly.
There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-9-2-28 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously
approved, it was,
#10-206-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 24, 1995 on Petition 95-9-2-28 by
Arbor Drugs, Inc. requesting waiver use approval for an SDM license for a
proposed store to be located within the Four Oaks Shopping Center
located on the northwest corner of Newburgh and Joy Roads in the
Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-9-2-28 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and
general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in
Section 10.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543;
14469
2) That the subject site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed
use; and
144.10,
3) That the proposed use will provide a service not readily available in
the subject area.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in
accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543,
as amended.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-6-7 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section
2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to increase the size of detached garages
on lots 1/2 acre or more in area.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, I will ask you if there is any correspondence, and whether
there is not not, would you then please give us some background as
to what this proposal intends to accomplish since we are the
petitioner.
`kr.. Mr. Nagy: Since H was the author of this, maybe I will just turn it over to him.
Mr. Shane: This comes to the Planning Commission by way of a Council
resolution having discussed with the Zoning Board of Appeals the
matter of garage sizes in the City. It seems that the Zoning Board
has received a lot of requests for garages which exceed the allowable
size in the City, and therefore they asked the Planning Commission to
look at the Zoning Ordinance to see if, in fact, residential garages
should be increased in size in certain instances, and that is what this
ordinance amendment would do. It would increase the size of
detached garages in 1/2 acre lot or larger up to 900 sq. ft. provided
there were no other accessory buildings on the site, and also all
garages would be hereafter limited to no more than three vehicle
openings, in other words three garage doors. Also, that the percent
of lot coverage and yard requirements which would otherwise be
required would also be adhered to. In other words, this would be
allowing larger garages on larger size lots.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Shane. Is there any downside to passing an ordinance
like this relative to home occupations?
14470
Mr. Shane: This is the reason why it is limited to one garage, one accessory
structure. It is large enough to, in fact, invite home occupations such
as repair shops, and other things. On the other hand if you only have
1`"' one garage with only three garage doors, it is unlikely you are going
to have that kind of activity if you don't have any other garage to put
your own vehicles in. So while there is a downside, I think the fact
these are on larger lots and there is only one garage allowed, it will
somewhat minimize that situation.
Mr. Piercecchi: I have a question. In the background information it was determined
that since 1995 the Zoning Board of Appeals has had 25 requests for
oversized garages or additions to existing garages. Of the 25
requests Mr. Shane, how many of those were 1/2 acre lots?
Mr. Shane: All the requests which I mentioned were 1/2 acre lots.
Mr. Piercecchi: Of the 25 requests?
Mr. Shane: Yes.
Mr. LaPine: Can these garages be detached or do they have to be attached?
Mr. Shane: We are talking about detached.
Mr. LaPine: You say you can have no more than three openings. Can they have a
900 sq. ft. garage with one opening?
Mr. Shane: Sure.
Mr. LaPine: Which would leave me to believe if they had one opening, you
wouldn't know what was going on. I really have a problem with this.
My problem is under the R-1 building classification you can have a
house of 1,050 sq. ft. I think that is the minimum size. This is 990
sq. ft. This is almost as big as a home we can build on a 60 foot lot.
The other problem I have with it is the fact I don't think that 25 cases
over a one-year period, is a hew and cry that we should change the
ordinance. I think we should leave it the way it is and on these
instances where people feel they need a larger garage, they should go
to the Zoning Board of Appeals and let them make the determination
based on each individual case. To change the ordinance, I am not
really that in favor of I just don't think there is that big hew and cry
to change it. I think number one, someone could put a bathroom in
there and do other things and before you know it people are living
there, and number two, they could start operating a business out of
14471
there. Therefore, at this point I am not in favor of changing the
ordinance.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal?
There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-9-6-7 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-207-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City
Planning Commission on October 24, 1995 on Petition 95-9-6-7 by the City
Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section 2.10 of
the Zoning Ordinance so as to increase the size of detached garages on lots
1/2 acre or more in area, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-9-6-7 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the existing language with reference to residential garages is
sufficient to provide for reasonable size garages; and
2) That the proposed language amendment will permit larger garages
Now which are not needed to provide for adequate storage of vehicles
under normal conditions.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance#543, as amended
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-6-8 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section
18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to commercial wall signs on
corner lots.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, would you care to enlighten us on this matter or would you
like Mr. Shane to handle it?
Mr. Nagy: I will let Mr. Shane handle this one also.
Mr. Shane: Currently the sign ordinance with respect to commercial shopping
centers permits a wall sign for each unit within a shopping center as
o..
14472
well as a freestanding sign. This is another of these instances where the
Zoning Board of Appeals has been asked a number of times to grant a
variance where the end unit on a corner lot, which then has frontage on
both the primary street and a secondary street, that is the corner unit
has asked the Zoning Board to allow them a second sign. One sign for
each frontage. Again, the Planning Commission has been asked by the
City Council to consider changing the ordinance to accommodate that
in some way. What this ordinance would do is to permit the normal
sign on the front of the building for the end unit as all the other units
would have, which is 1 sq. ft. for each lineal foot of frontage, and allow
a second sign on the side street of 1/2 of that. That basically, I think,
would answer the concerns of that unit for having exposure on both
frontages with signs. The reason we think the primary sign could stay
the same is it would have the same relationship as all the other signs as
the rest of the shopping center for the primary location, and then
because they have chosen to probably pay a little premium for the
corner, it would allow them to have at least 1/2 of that size for the
other corner.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
petition?
There was no one in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-9-6-8 closed.
Now
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. McCann, it was
#10-208-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the
City Planning Commission on October 24, 1995, on Petition 95-9-6-8 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to commercial wall
signs on corner lots, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-9-6-8 be approved for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment will provide more flexible
controls with respect to signage for shopping center buildings on
corner lots;
2) That the proposed language amendment is consistent with normal
practice of sign location on multi-tenant buildings located on corner
lots; and
14473
3) That the proposed language amendment will continue to provide
the City with adequate control over the placement and nature of
commercial signage.
Now
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was given
in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended
Mr. Morrow: Just to make sure, we are talking two major thoroughfares not just
corners?
Mr. Shane: Any corner lot. You are always going to have one major thoroughfare
and a local street or a secondary thoroughfare or a major thoroughfare.
Mr. Morrow: That is what I am trying to clear up.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, McCann, Piercecchi, Engebretson
NAYS: LaPine, Morrow
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
_,_. Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-9-6-9 by
the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend Section
18.50D of the Zoning Ordinance regarding political signs.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, here is your big chance.
Mr. Nagy: I will let H handle this one also.
Mr. Shane: Essentially what this does is to prohibit candidates for an election who
do not appear on the primary ballot but will be on the main election, it
prohibits them from having signs up prior to the primary. In other
words, anyone in the primary can have their sign put up 30 days prior
to the primary, but anyone who is not in the primary, case in point is
the Mayoral election that we have now there are two candidates
therefore there is no primary. This would prohibit them from putting
any signs up until five days after the primary election is finished.
Mr. Engebretson: It would be our understanding in view of recent Supreme Court
decisions having to do with first amendment rights, that while this may
not be enforceable, this would really depend on the goodwill of all the
14474
participants to agree to adhere to these rules. Is that your
understanding Mr. Shane:
`w Mr. Shane: That is essentially correct.
Mr. Engebretson: Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this
proposal.
There was no one in the audience wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr.
Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 95-9-6-9 closed.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-209-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
October 24, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-9-6-9
by the City Planning Commission to determine whether or not to amend
Section 18.50D of the Zoning Ordinance regarding political signs, the City
Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that
Petition 95-9-6-9 be approved for the following reasons:
1) That the proposed language amendment provides for more
adequate control over political signs in the City;
`.. 2) That the proposed language amendment more clearly defines the
rules with regard to the erection of political signs.
FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was
given in accordance with Section 19.05 of Ordinance #543, as amended
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the public hearing portion of the meeting is
concluded and the Commission would proceed with items pending before it.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 95-6-1-12 by
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#418-95,
proposing to rezone 41.5 acres of the Greenmead property which lies west of
the US Post Office and north of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from PL to R-4.
Mr. Engebretson: We need a motion to remove this from the table.
e.-
14475
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-210-95 RESOLVED that, Petition 95-6-1-12 by the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Council Resolution#418-95, proposing to rezone 41.5 acres of
the Greenmead property which lies west of the US Post Office and north of
Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6 from PL to R-4, be taken
from the table.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Nagy: During the intervening week since our study meeting of last week we
did go out and do a little more detailed site investigation as to the
specific wooded area, and we do have that mapped on a drawing which
we will put up so you can look at it, but to make a long story short, we
feel there is a considerable amount of growth but the heavily wooded
area represents about five acres of that area not the initial 6 1/2 acres.
What we are proposing here, and it is illustrated on that map, of that
approximate five acres that we would delete from the area to be
rezoned, 3 1/2 acres is the most heavily of the wooded area where the
stand of trees are really significant speaking to the size and growth and
number. The balance of that area, the other 1 1/2 acres, would come as
a result of the set-aside which would be obtained through the open
space provision of the platting ordinance so that we could see that the
full five acres would be protected, 3 1/2 would be part of the
permanent area and not be part of the petition. The other part, 1 1/2,
would come through the set-aside. The exact configuration of the set-
aside, which we indicate where it is on the map, we do not have a rigid
boundary on that because it would actually be defined when we got the
plat for that area. That is the area we would encourage the developer
of the property to set-aside and use that open space provision. What
we are looking at in the end is 37 1/2 acres that would be proposed to
this zoning change.
Mr. Engebretson: Thank you Mr. Nagy. If this zoning change were to occur, would you
envision that portion that is not being changed may be rezoned from PL
to something more appropriate like Nature Preserve?
Mr. Nagy: Yes. We have looked at this. We see this proposal going forward to
the City Council and if that was ultimately supported and they liked
what was being recommended here by the Planning Commission and
would support it, then we would initiate on our own, subsequent to
their approval of the concept in the zoning change, the rezoning of the
Public Lands to the Nature Preserve that 3 1/2 acres.
14476
Mr. Engebretson: I was out there again today and I was having a little bit of difficulty
when I was on Pembroke to determine where that area that is being
taken out of the zoning petition occurs. Would it be fair to say it is that
area that would start approximately in the middle point of the Victor V
property and extend east to the end of the John Dinan building that is
under construction now? It appears that is approximately the area but I
can't really tell.
Mr. Nagy: You are exactly right. It starts at the easterly driveway of the John
Dinan proposal. That would be where the new boundary lines would
begin and everything from the point to the westerly end of the City
property would be in the Nature Preserve area.
Mr. Shane: If you were to stand at the driveway of the Victor V at Pembroke and
look straight across, it would be right on the line between the Victor
parcel and the City property.
Mr. Engebretson: So everything to the west of that would be Victor property and
everything to the right would be City property. I would like to
comment briefly that in the intervening period here we had an in-depth
conversation with Mayor Bennett relative to the evolution of this
property as to how it was acquired and what the original intent was,
etc., and I wish the Mayor were here tonight to repeat that presentation
because it was very useful, in my mind, to understand what was in the
'tow minds of our City at the time we acquired the land, what options they
had. The option basically was that they were required to buy the entire
Hill farm rather than the portion of it that they really intended to and
the conclusion that he made was that the area that is being planned to
sell off probably wouldn't have been purchased at that time had they
had the option to do it. He further pointed out that the current plans
for Greenmead would not be affected in any way by rezoning this
property and that there is still some built-in growth available with the
existing Greenmead property for further expansion if expansion would
be appropriate some time down the road. That would not be affected
by this zoning change. He commented on the anticipated value of a
sale of this magnitude to be somewhere in the neighborhood of a
million and a half dollars all of which would accrue to the benefit of
Greenmead in some form. Not necessarily as a trust fund but with
special accounts that would follow the type of accounting procedures
that have been implemented for the sale of other City properties, such
as Devon-Aire, etc. that currently has worked out well. He is
convinced that the benefit of such a sale would accrue to the
Greenmead property as compared to being brought back into the
general fund. Those were some of the comments that stand out in my
mind. Perhaps others might wish to amplify on those comments. I see
14477
we have a couple of people in the audience that were at that meeting.
They were at the public hearing, and I certainly want to give them an
opportunity to make whatever observations they have.
Mr. Morrow: The only other thing I would add to what I have seen tonight is aside
from preserving the major stand of trees with the retention of the
property in the set-aside, the other benefit I see to it would be high-rise
office to the west that would serve as a buffer to the residential to the
east as it separates that particular site from the could be more intense
use to the west.
Mr. Engebretson: The Mayor also pointed out that this zoning change, if successful,
would result in the City taking bids. This is not being offered to the
adjacent property owner, although I guess the adjacent property owner
has an equal right as everyone else but they don't have any special
rights in this particular matter, that the City would go out and seek bids
and that the final determination would be made based on whether or
not the bidding process produced adequate bids. The point being there
is no compelling need to sell the property at any price only if the price
were appropriate.
Robert Currier: I am a 24-year resident of Livonia. Just very briefly, we were looking
at six acres the other night when the Mayor spoke. We are now down
to three acres. I believe that is what Mr. Nagy indicated.
Mr. Engebretson: Plus 1 1/2 to 2 acres to the north that would be tied to the set-aside for
open space that would be required by any development of that
residential property. (Mr. Engebretson pointed this area out on the
plan)
Mr. Currier: So the set-aside would really be the responsibility of the developer that
would buy that property?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes but under tight control of the City because that would be part of
the process in order to meet the requirements for platting that property.
They have a prescribed amount of space that has to be set aside and
they have to come to agreement with the City as to how much and
where. So we can pretty much determine that is the area and that is the
size.
Mr. Currier: What would be the means of ingress and egress for the public to that
proposed nature preserve?
Mr. Engebretson: There wouldn't be any development of anything in that area. It would
be just as it is right now. If we were to zone that Nature Preserve, all
14478
that would really do is prevent any kind of development from occurring
there. We have a number of nature preserves around the City but there
are no walking paths or bike paths or anything like that necessarily. It
''` is just a zoning classification that clearly identifies what purpose it is
there to serve.
Mr. Currier: On the western boundary of that proposed set-aside and the proposed
approximately three acres, does that parallel the property that sets the
boundary line of the property that is owned by Victor?
Mr. Engebretson: Yes sir that is correct, and he has the right to develop his portion of
course within the boundaries of the zoning that exists there. We have
no awareness of current plans to do anything. John, isn't that zoned
for professional office?
Mr. Nagy: Yes not to exceed six stories.
Mr. Currier: You have spoken and I appreciate the opportunity to allow me to
speak.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Currier do you feel you had the opportunity to get all of your
comments and feelings onto the record?
Mr. Currier: During the last two to three times I have spoken before this body I
v.. have spoken my piece and I think everyone on the Commission is
cognizant of how I feel about it. It is in the record and once again I
thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Engebretson: Before you leave, and we appreciate your comments, now that you
have heard some of the changes that have been made, in part to
accommodate some of the issues that you raised, those comments that
took some 45 minutes to an hour when the Mayor spoke to these
issues, do you have any different feelings than you had when you first
appeared here?
Mr. Currier: Actually no. My feelings haven't changed. I think one of my primary
concerns is protecting the diversity that exists on that property. There
are animals on that property that are not going to be able to live on the
small set-aside that you are proposing. The deer that are on there need
a far greater range than three or four or five acres. That is not where
they stay in the daytime. They stay close to the post office in the
daytime and in the evening they venture out. They are going to end up
being hit by cars and they will all end up being dead in a very, very
short period of time. If you are going to develop houses on that
property, a great deal of trees are going to be cut down. I feel that
14479
property is so unique to the City that any type of development is going
to jeopardize the enjoyment of that property for future generations, and
it is going to severely hamper the continuation of the animals now
living on there. That is my concern. I don't think it should be
developed. I beg to differ with the way the Mayor expressed his
feelings when he sat on Council when that property was bought. It was
my understanding that property was bought with money that was raised
from a bond issue that was specifically intended to buy property for
parks and for recreation and if the taxpayers of the City of Livonia have
been paying money on a bond issue, paying it off with their taxes, and
this is now going to be sold and converted in cash, I think the taxpayers
have been duped to a certain degree for something that is not going to
be turned into cash but is going to go into the general fund. I also feel
very insecure about the fact that any revenues that are derived from this
does not legally have to be specifically devoted to the preservation of
Greenmead. A new administration will be coming in the first of the
year and if that administration sees fit to appropriate those funds for
something else with the approval of Council, so be it. Another thing
that troubles me is the anticipated revenue from the property. There
were 17 acres of land that were sold in Farmington Hills at Nine Mile
between Drake and Halstead for over one million seven hundred
thousand dollars. That is twice the estimate that the gentleman at the
study session the other evening indicated this property was worth. If
this has to be sold, I don't want to see the City taken advantage of
Mr. Engebretson: I think we can assure you that won't happen. Again, thank you for
your participation in the process. As you know this is just the
beginning. There will be a number of hearings on this matter. I am
sure you know the process to make sure you are kept aware.
Mr. Currier: Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to explain to Mr. Currier that with the set-aside in our
subdivision ordinance, we can, where it is possible, take 720 sq. ft. for
every lot so they estimate it would be, if this property were developed
into this R-4 subdivision, which is 90 foot lots, we would have
approximately 100 lots in there and that is where the acre and a half
comes from. Sometimes it is not addressed but in this case obviously
41 1/2 acres they can certainly subscribe to those rules. One thing Mr.
Chairman, he brought up a point I didn't know about, this bond issue.
Can anyone elaborate on that?
Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I don't believe, I may be wrong, but I don't
believe the bond issue that was passed to buy land, money from that
bond issue was used to purchase this property. I might be wrong
14480
Mr. Nagy: It was not. There was no bond money involved.
't` Mr. LaPine: I didn't think there was on this particular parcel. Now that I have the
floor I might as well state my position. I have a problem with selling
that property. As I stated at one of the study sessions, I wasn't here at
the last meeting when Mayor Bennett was here, and I am a good friend
of Mayor Bennett, but he and I disagree on this proposal. My position
is we have very little open land left in Livonia and for us to sell off that
land at this time doesn't make good sense to me in my opinion. I don't
think we need to sell it off just to raise a million and a half dollars just
to have Greenmead, and I am troubled by the fact that there is no
assurance that money when it goes into the general fund is going to be
used strictly for Greenmead. When money goes in the general fund,
when emergencies arise and there is money there, it is my opinion the
City fathers will say we have an emergency, we have to use these funds.
The original plan I heard, this money was going into a trust fund and
the interest that was made from the money was going to be used for the
upkeep of Greenmead. I understand that's not true. That can't be
done and that troubles me too. I am not saying at some time in the
future we might have to sell off this land but at the present time I am
not in favor of selling off this parcel.
Mr. Morrow: John, it seems to me this particular parcel was bought on land contract.
Mr. Nagy: It was.
Mr. Morrow: So we don't have to worry about duping the citizens.
Mr. Engebretson: It's nice to have all these veterans around that remember all this.
Mr. Nagy: The City did sell off the post office site. The proceeds of that went into
a special account and all the proceeds from the sale of the post office at
the corner of Pembroke and Newburgh Road went to the benefit of the
Greenmead development. The same principle will be applied in this
case. While we can't have a true trust, as the Mayor pointed out when
he spoke to you last week, the law does permit the City to do those
kinds of things. The clear intent and it has been so stated publicly and
it is in the record and that is the purpose for the sale of the property, is
to create a special fund for the ongoing use and development of the
Greenmead property itself.
Mrs. Blomberg: I have a very hard time peeling this off This is my heritage. This is
what Livonia looked like when I was growing up and I know I can't
keep it forever but this is part of it. This is the last part, and those trees
14481
are older than the buildings. They are older than probably most of
Livonia. The deer will be run over probably anyway but should we
`�.. take away their land? I talked with Mr. Bishop today and there is no
guarantee that the money will go to Greenmead. It probably will he
said but we don't know that. We have a new administration coming in.
I don't think Livonia is that poor right now to give up our heritage,
which is my heritage.
On a motion duly made by Mrs. Blomberg and seconded by Mr. LaPine, it was
#10-211-95 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on
September 26, 1995 by the City Planning Commission on Petition 95-6-1-12
by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution#418-95,
proposing to rezone 41.5 acres of the Greenmead property which lies west of
the US Post Office and north of Pembroke Road in the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 6 from PL to R-4, the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 95-6-1-12 be denied for the
following reasons:
1) That the proposed change of zoning is contrary to the Future Land
Use Plan which recommends Community Service land use for the
subject property.
2) That the proposed change of zoning will remove a substantial
amount of community open space from the area; and
3) That the proposed change of zoning will provide for a substantial
amount of additional vehicular traffic in the area.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, LaPine, McCann, Piercecchi, Morrow
NAYS: Engebretson
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is the Six Year Capital
Improvement Program 1996-2001.
Mr. Engebretson: This is the Capital Improvement Program which has been prepared by
the Planning staff We have all had it for a week and had an
opportunity to study the matter. What we need to do is to pass this
program, which has been developed by the staff in conjunction with the
14482
various department heads, we need to move this on to the City Council
and the Mayor to comply with Michigan law.
No` On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. McCann and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-212-95 RESOLVED that, the City of Livonia Planning Commission hereby
authorizes the Planning Department to transmit the document titled "Capital
Improvement Program, City of Livonia, 1996-2001"to the Mayor and
Council as a realistic program to aid in the determination of a complete fiscal
planning strategy for the City of Livonia, and
FURTHER RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission stands ready to
do all things necessary to cooperate with the Mayor and Council in
maintaining a functioning Program of Capital Improvements and Capital
Budgeting for the City of Livonia.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for
Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located on the east side
of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Vargo Avenue in the
Northwest 1/4 of Section 8.
William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcra$: I guess none of us are strangers to the layout. At
this point we are asking for Final Plat approval for Caliburn Estates No.
2. It is an R-4 zoning. All lots are 90'x130'. In this case I think all the
lots are 135 feet deep. There are 56 lots in this phase two. I think the
drawing itself shows all the information. We have been through the
master plan of all three subs on each side. At this point I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Engebretson: Mr. Nagy, is everything in order.
Mr. Nagy: Everything is in order. We have a recommendation of Final Plat
approval from the City Engineer and also a letter from the City Clerk
indicating all financial obligations have been satisfied.
Mr. Roskelly: In the event this board graciously gives me approval, I would also like
to ask, in view of the fact Mr. Taylor has allowed me to go on as an X
item tomorrow if you will waive the seven days due to the fact we have
waited four years with the water ban.
14483
On a motion duly made by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Morrow and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-213-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #2 proposed to be located on
the east side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Vargo
Avenue in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 8 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat has been drawn in complete compliance with the
Preliminary Plat;
2) That all conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat have been
satisfied;
3) That the City Engineer has recommended approval of the Final Plat;
and
4) That all of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by
the City have been satisfied.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Alanskas and seconded by Mrs. Blomberg, it was
#10-214-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Final Plat Approval for Caliburn Estates Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be
located on the west side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and
Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, LaPine
ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Final Plat Approval for
Caliburn Manor Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be located on the west side of
14484
Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4
of Section 7.
Mr. Roskelly: Just a few minor changes. This, of course, is a twin to the Estates. This
is on the west side of Newburgh south of Seven Mile. This is zoning of
R-3, which is the minimum lot size of 80'x120'. You will find all but a
few of the lots are a minimum of 125 feet in depth and certainly they are
80 ft. or wider. There are 71 lots in this specific phase II. Again, I
would ask that in the event you approve this, I would like you to waive
the seven days.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow, seconded by Mrs. Blomberg and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-215-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the
Final Plat for Caliburn Manor Subdivision #2 proposed to be located on the
west side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and Laurel Park Drive in
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7 for the following reasons:
1) That the Final Plat has been drawn in complete compliance with the
Preliminary Plat;
2) That the City Engineer recommends approval of the Final Plat;
`''w 3) That all conditions of approval of the Preliminary Plat have been
satisfied; and
4) That all of the financial obligations imposed upon the proprietor by
the City have been satisfied.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made by Mr. Morrow and seconded by Mr. Alanskas, it was
#10-216-95 RESOLVED that, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to
waive the provisions of Section 10 of Article VI of the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure regarding the seven day period concerning
effectiveness of Planning Commission resolutions in connection with
Final Plat Approval for Caliburn Manor Subdivision No. 2 proposed to be
located on the west side of Newburgh between Seven Mile Road and
Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
14485
AYES: Alanskas, Blomberg, Piercecchi, Morrow, Engebretson
NAYS: McCann, LaPine
'01..., ABSENT: None
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
Mr. Alanskas, Secretary, announced the last item on the agenda is approval of the minutes
of the 712th Regular Meeting held on October 10, 1995.
On a motion duly made by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. LaPine and unanimously
approved, it was
#10-217-95 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 712th Regular Meeting held on
October 10, 1995 are hereby approved.
Mr. Engebretson, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 713th Regular Meeting
and Public Hearings held on October 24, 1995 adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
/W, /� :_
Robert Alanskas, Secretary
ATTEST: ' t v1,1 , .^,-1 ;.
IJac Engebrtson, Chairman
Jg