HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2007-11-13MINUTES OF THE 950 REGULAR MEETING
HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA
On Tuesday, November 13, 2007, the City Planning Commission of the City of
Livonia held its 954" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center
Drive, Livonia, Michigan.
Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present: William LaPine Deborah McDermott R. Lee Morrow
Carol A. Smiley Ashley Varloogian Ian Wilshaw
John Walsh
Members absent: None
Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were
also present.
Chairman Walsh informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs agenda
involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the
City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final
determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning
Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat 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 petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the
petitioner has len 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 oflhe proceedings tonight.
ITEM #1 PETITION 2007-10-0846 WOODLAND LANES
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2007-10-
08-16 submitted by Landmark Group, on behalf of Woodland
Lanes, requesting approval of all plans required by Section
18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to
renovate the exterior of the bowling alley located at 33775
Plymouth Road, on property located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road in
the Northeast % of Section 33.
November 13, 2001
24434
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of
the Woodland Lanes bowling alley located on the south side of
Plymouth Road between Farmington Road and Stark Road.
The subject site is split zoned. The northerly 400 feet is zoned
C-2, General Business and the remaining southerly 240 feel is
zoned P, Parking. The existing bowling alley, which has a gross
floor area of 26,271 square feel, is situated within the C-2
district. The primary change to the exterior would take place on
the north elevation of the building, which is the front facade that
faces Plymouth Road. An overhanging porch would be created
over the main entrance area. The new structural canopy would
be roughly 12 feel wide and extend approximately 20 feel out
from the existing building. Two (2) fabricated steel columns
would support the overhang. The front edge of the canopy's
roofline would be rounded. Tracing the lop edge of the canopy
would be a vertical stepped parapet. Consistent with the
curvature shape of the canopy and parapet, a four (4) fool
diameter sphere -shaped finial would rest geometrically on lop of
the canopy. A 6 foot high by 10 fool wide raised decorative wall
panel would be positioned behind the finial and provide a solid
background for the canopy's rooftop objects. New wall signage
would be positioned along the parapet. Accent lighting located
between the steps of the parapet would cast illuminate the
objects on the rooftop. To straighten out the lines of the existing
building, a new 6 foot high aluminum parapet wall would be
installed along the front elevation's roofline. The existing stucco
wall panels of this elevation would be repainted. The four
existing stucco panels along the east side of the building would
be repainted to match the bowling alley's new color scheme.
Installed along the top edge of the stucco panels would be low
profile valances. These valances would screen new light
fixtures that would downcast subtle illumination on the wall. The
entrance door on this elevation would be modestly identified and
remain low key. The south elevation would be repainted to
match both the east and north elevations. The existing mansard
canopy over the rear entrance would be replaced with a new
raised trim canopy that would correspond with the architectural
changes of the front elevation. The new canopy would be
approximately 7 feel in height, 29 feet in length and would
extend out from the building 3 feet.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is
from the Engineering Division, dated October 15, 2007, which
reads as follows: `Pursuant to with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced
November 13, 2007
24435
petition. We have no objections to the proposal and see no
problems with respect to traffic, site capacity or public safety
issues. The above address number of 33775 Plymouth Road
has been verified for this parcel. Please be advised that there is
an error in the letter dated 10S-07, in that Woodland Lanes is
located in the Northeast X of Section 33 and not in the
Southeast X of Section 14, as stated in the letter." The letter is
signed by John Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The second letter
is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated October 23,
2007, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site
plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the
exterior of the bowling alley on property located at the above
referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal."
The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire Marshal. The
third letter is from the Division of Police, dated October 15,
2007, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in
connection with Woodland Lanes Facade Remodel, located at
33375 Plymouth Road. We have no objections or
recommendations to the plans as submitted." The letter is
signed by David W. Sludl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth
letter is from the Inspection Department, dated October 31,
2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
October 5, 2007, the above -referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This Department has no
objections to this Petition. 1 trust this provides the requested
information. (2) No signage has been reviewed. However, the
existing nonconforming pole sign would be allowed to be
effacer." The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Senior Building
Inspector. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road
Development Aulhod,�, dated October 25, 2007, which reads as
follows: "At the 194 Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road
Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on October
18, 2007, the following resolution was unanimously adopted.
#2007-32 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development
Authority does hereby support the proposed plans as presented
by Landmark Group, on behalf of Woodland Lanes, in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
bowling alley located at 33775 Plymouth Road, on property
located on the south side of Plymouth Road between
Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Northeast X of Section
33 (Petition 2007-10-08-16), subject to the addition of
streetscape elements to be designed by the Plymouth Road
Development Authority which will include eight columns with
wrought iron fencing to be installed by July 1, 2009, with
plantings and irrigation to be installed and maintained by the
Plymouth Road Development Authority, and further subject to
compliance with all City codes and ordinances and all other
Plymouth Road Development stmetscape goals and objectives,
November 13, 2001
24436
as such may be modified by the action of the Planning
Commission and/or City Council." The letter is signed by John
J. Nagy, Executive Director. That is the extent of the
correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Phil Venables,
Vice President, Landmark Group, Inc., 130 E. Liberty Street,
Plymouth, Michigan 48170. My partner and president is ill
tonight, so I'm going to be his voice. We're representing the
Winkel family, the owners of this beautiful bowling alley inside
and it needs help so badly outside. That's basically our mission.
Our goal is to give the building a little nicer look and make
Livonia proud of the building. Scoff pretty much covered all of
the elements of the project. I'd be glad to answer any questions
you may have.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the petitioner?
Mr. Morrow:
In the PRDA resolution, its my understanding that the petitioner
is to pay for this addition of the columns and the wrought iron.
Mr. Venables:
That's correct.
Mr. Morrow:
Have your clients agreed to that?
Mr. Venables:
We've had discussion with our clients, and at this point, they're
willing to make that expense.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Because I wasn't sure if the PRDA is going to pay for it
or your clients.
Mr. Venables:
John Nagy actually developed this drawing. As you can see, it
pretty much outlines the layout of the various walls. We've
discussed it with our clients and they are in line with that.
Mr. Morrow:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
If I may ask a question of Mr. Taormina. Now, the PRDA gets
money. What do they use that money for? I thought that
money was to beautify Plymouth Road, and they put in these
improvements out of the money they're collecting on the taxes
they're getting. I cant believe that Sheldon Center paid for all
that improvement along Plymouth Road. How do we determine
who pays and who doesn't or does everybody pay?
Mr.Taormina:
The Plymouth Road Development Authority certainly has
expended a significant amount of the money it has captured to
November 13, 2001
24431
finance much of the streetscape improvements that have taken
place on Plymouth Road, including the piers and fencing that
exist along much of the rightof-way. It has been a coordinated
effort over the past years, with the diminshing funds that are
available to the PRDA, to get some voluntary contributions on
the part of the businesses along Plymouth Road. We have
succeeded in doing that as I'm sure you're aware. Through our
efforts as part of our site plan review process, we've worked
with applicants and business owners to do that. In addition, the
staff has individually gone out and worked with property owners
and has received cooperation. So its really been a combination
of efforts, Mr. LaPine. In this particular instance, the PRDA was
hoping that it would be voluntary on the part of the property
owners to do the improvements, inducing the piers and the
fencing. Then the PRDA would install the landscaping and the
irrigation, and thereafter maintain all of the improvements, and
that's in addition to doing the design work.
Mr. LaPine:
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is, if you were first in
line, I guess you didn't pay. I guess that's what we're saying
because we've con out of money, but it seem to me that a big
business can pay for a lot more than a small businessman like
this putting in these improvements. It just doesn't seem fair to
me that the small guy has to pay and the large guy isn't paying.
That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I have a couple questions for you, Mr. Venables. The first one
is in regards to the vertical columns that are going to hold up the
new canopy. Those are essentially located next to two parking
spaces. Is there anything that's going to protect those from
being hit by a driver who's pulling in or out oflhose spaces?
Mr. Venables:
Indeed there are. The parking lot area will be painted out
around there identifying that as an entrance to the building. As
mentioned in the description of the construction, they are
fabricated steel plate supports. They're like a tube design, but
they're basically a steel column support at the base and they
are very, very sturdy. So we've taken that into consideration
that they will be in an active parking area.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. That's good. Thank you. We talked at our study
meeting about the existing pylon sign and possibly seeing if you
were willing to reduce that sign to a monument sign. You've
had a couple weeks to think about it, and I don't see any
changes. Can you elaborate on that forme?
Mr. Venables:
The difficulty with this particular location is the significant
setback from the road and the fact that the neighbors on both
November 13, 2001
24438
sides block the building and the access area around the
building. Without that sign, it becomes virtually impossible to
find the building. It's very, very difficult to see. There's been a
number of people that have driven by there that know of the
building being there and actually have driven right past, and
they know where it is. It's difficult even as it is. We hope that
the new logo we want to introduce to the sign will help it get a
little bit more impact, but being at a low profile, we don't think it
would have any effect in a positive way at all. We'd hate to see
our client go out of business because they're not visible to the
public, quite frankly.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay. Thank you.
Mrs. McDermott:
I'd like to ask about the lighting. Is there any new lighting
planned for the parking lot, say in the back?
Mr. Venables:
Parking lot lighting?
Mrs. McDermott:
Yes.
Mr. Venables:
We haven't introduced any new parking lot lights to the building.
I don't know if you have any photos of the lighting plans
. We've replaced some of the light fixtures in the area because
some of the lenses have worn and so forth. Those have been
replaced, and it's quite well lit.
Mrs. McDermott
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Thank you, Mr. Venable. We appreciate your time tonight. Is
there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or
against this petition? Seeing no one coming forward, a motion
would be in order.
On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-125-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-10-08-16
submitted by Landmark Group, on behalf of Woodland Lanes,
requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the
Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the
exterior of the bowling alley located at 33775 Plymouth Road,
on property located on the south side of Plymouth Road
between Farmington Road and Stark Road in the Northeast''/.
of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions:
November 13, 2001
24439
1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plans marked Drawing
Nos. A2, A3 and A4 all dated September 15, 2007,
prepared by Landmark Group, Inc., are hereby approved
and shall be adhered to;
2. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
3. That all new light fixtures shall not exceed twenty (20') feel
in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to
minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and
glaring into adjacent roadway;
4. That the conditions specified in the Plymouth Road
Development Authority (PRDA) Resolution #2007-32 shall
be resolved to the satisfaction of the PRDA Executive
Director;
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. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building permit is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Morrow: I just want to add a comment to this. In site checking this
particular establishment, I guess it was evidenced by the reports
from the various departments, if there's a well maintained facility
in Livonia, this is certainly one of them. There is no problem
with the parking lot, the stripping, and the existing landscaping
is right up to speed. The color renderings we saw tonight don't
do justice to the actual colors that they have on the building.
Everything is done in very good taste. For that reason, I will
support this resolution.
Mr. LaPine: Just two questions and one comment. Number one, you are
willing to pay for what the PRDA wants?
Mr. Venables: I guess we're willing if we have to. If the PRDA has the money
to pay for it, that sure would be nice.
November 13, 2001
24440
Mr. La Pine:
Well, I would think so loo. I think it should be a joint thing. Just
because they're out of money, doesn't mean you should pick up
the whole tab. To me there must be some money in there. I
don't want to hold up your development over that, although I
would. I would vole against it if you say definitely you don't
want to pay for it. I would be willing to vote against it. The other
question I have is for Mr. Taormina. They can keep the free-
standing sign, and they also can get the one wall sign. Is that
correct?
Mr. Taormina:
Based on the resolution that is on the table, that is correct.
Mr. LaPine:
I'd just like to add, Mr. Morrow and I have been to the facility
twice. We checked it out, and I have to be honest with you. We
missed it both times when we went by. We couldn't find R.
Believe it for not, we missed it twice. And we were there twice,
and both times we missed it. So it is a problem finding it, no
doubt about it. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshaw:
I just want to make the comment that I think this is a very nice
site plan that was presented to us, very thorough, and as was
staled previously, the folks at Woodland Lanes have done a
fabulous job of maintaining this property over the years. It is a
nice facility in our city and I think its going to be even more
attractive with these changes. That being said, I am a little
disappointed that no effort was made to try and remove the
pylon sign. Its something that we've done throughout the city
every time a petition comes before us, especially along
Plymouth Road where there are a number of pylon signs. We try
to reduce those down to monument signs, one sign at a time as
they're presented to us. One of our councilmen is fond of
saying that you fight blight by dealing with it one petition at a
time, and I do agree with that portion of that assessment. That
being said, I did drive by the facility a number of limes. I've
been in the facility. Its a very family friendly place and I didn't
have any particular trouble finding it because I knew where it
was, but I certainly can understand the concern about the
setback of the building. The wall sign that is permitted is
significantly less than what is normally permitted, and I think that
maybe offsets the retention of the pylon sign to some extent. I
would have liked to have that reduced to at least maybe an
oversized monument sign given my choice. But that being said,
I will support this motion as well.
Mr. Walsh:
I went out and took a look. I think you do need the pylon sign. I
am opposed to pylon signs on other petitions, but I really do
think you need it. That's my personal opinion and I'll vote in that
November 13, 2001
24441
regard. I want to compliment you on the project. I've seen
larger projects with less care. This is a hometown business with
a lot of time. You brought a lot of people out to our study
session. You came here tonight, and we really do appreciate
that lime and detail. We appreciate the investment.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#2 PETITION 200740-0847 FARMERS INSURANCE
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
10-08-17 submitted by Farmers Insurance requesting approval
of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance
in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the
office building located at 15619 Farmington Road, on property
located on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile
Road and Rayburn Avenue in the Southeast''/. of Section 16.
Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of
the office building located on the west side of Farmington Road
between Five Mile Road and Rayburn Avenue. Until recently
this building was used as a dance studio. This building is under
new ownership and is in the process of being converted into a
Farmers Insurance office. The subject site is zoned OS, Office
Services. The existing building has a gross floor area of 1,823
square feet. All four exterior elevations of the building would be
refurbished. One of the major cosmetic changes to the building
would be the removal of the existing mansard roof. Removing
the dated mansard roof and exposing the flat roofline would give
the building a more updated, simpler look. Another key aspect
to the remodeling is relocating the main entrance from the east
elevation (side facing Farmington Road) around to the south
elevation (side facing the parking lot) of the building. New glass
doors and surrounding windows would offer a more attractive
and convenient entrance directly off the parking lot. Presently
only the existing front facade (east elevation) is constructed out
of brick. The other three elevations are constructed out of
painted scored blocks. The plans indicate that the east (side
facing Farmington Road), south (new frontage facing parking
lot) and north elevations would be refaced with cultured stone
and dryvil. The west or rear elevation would only have the
cultured stone and dryvil wrap around its comers about 5 feel.
The rest of the back wall would remain painted scored blocks.
November 13, 2001
24442
A number of new windows would be installed throughout the
east, south and north elevations.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first dem is from
the Engineering Division, dated November 13, 2007, which
reads as follows: "Pursuant to with your request, the
Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced
petition. We have no objections to the proposal or legal
description contained therein. The above address number of
15619 Farmington Raod is the assigned address for this parcel."
The letter is signed by John Hill, Assistant City Engineer. The
second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated
October 29, 2007, which reads as follows: `This office has
reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to
renovate the exterior of the office building on property located at
the above-referenced address. We have no objections to this
proposal." The letter is signed by Andrew C. Walker, Fire
Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated
November 2, 2007, which reads as follows: We have reviewed
the plans in connection with Farmers Insurance Facade
Remodel, located at 15619 Farmington Road. We have no
objections or recommendations to the plans as submitted." The
letter is signed by David W. Studl, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau.
The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, October 31,
2007, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of
October 25, 2007, the above-referenced petition has been
reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Please note that the plans
call for a 'cultured' brick veneer not a full face brick. The
cement board siding will require a paint type of finish. These
items should be addressed to the Commissions and/or Council's
satisfaction. (2) No signage has been reviewed. This
Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter
is signed by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection. That is the
extent of the correspondence. I'd like to point out to the
Commission that revisions have been submitted. This is a
sample of the masonry product that would be used on the lower
part of the building. I think initially they showed a brick-type
veneer, and there were a lot of questions regarding that brick
veneer. While this is applied similarly onto the building, this is a
material that you can see offers more relief, and it is something
we see quite often in construction projects throughout the
community. This is, in fact, a similar product to what was used
at the Red Robin over on Six Mile. This is a similar application.
In talking with the Director of Inspection, he has no concerns
with the use of this type of material for this job. Thank you.
November 13, 2001
24443
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. LaPine:
Mark, is this put on the building with cement? Is that how ft's
done?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes, sir. That's correct.
Mr. LaPine:
Just like brick would be put on.
Mr. Taormina:
Its very similar. Mortar would be used and I think there is steel
mesh and possibly a weather barrier. The construction
manager is here and he can describe that more fully.
Mr. LaPine:
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh:
Is the petitioner here this evening?
Thomas Modrejewski, J.T.C. General Contractors, P.O. Box 1004, Warren,
Michigan 48070.
Mr. Walsh:
Do you have anything you'd like to add or can we go straight to
questions?
Mr. Modrejewski:
Straight to questions.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Ms. Smiley:
Are those awnings that hang down?
Mr. Modrejewski:
Yes. Mr. Piefila wanted to see how those would look and he is
entertaining the idea of awnings. We're not 100 percent that
we're going to go with the awnings, but those are awnings and
they would be possibly the ones that we would use to get more
daylight into the building.
Ms. Smiley:
I wanted to tell you that I thought this was very attractive, and
I'm very pleased about the stone. It's a very attractive building.
Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Could you just give us a run down on this material and the life of
it?
Mr. Modrejewski:
The stone?
Mr. LaPine:
Yes.
Mr. Modrejewski:
I gave Mr. Miller a pamphlet on the stone. It has a 50 -year
warranty. Typically, there are three different practices on how
November 13, 2001
24444
you apply it to the building. With masonry construction,
somefimes its necessary to have a metal lap as a backing
which you would fasten with a Remington anchor and fasten the
lap down, and then you would plaster the walls and then plaster
the actual pieces to that plaster wall. It's like a four step
process. Then after that, you go back and luck point all the
joints and fill them and brush them. There's two requirements
on the installation. Sometimes they request that you do not do
the metal lap. On that particular building because of the scored
blocks, we'd probably do the metal lap on every side that had
the scored blocks. But other than that, you wouldn't need the
metal lap.
Mr. La Pine:
Are there differenlshapes of block?
Mr. Modrejewski:
Yes. In that type of stone, there's probably at least 12 different
sizes. They range from a piece that's approximately this size
down to the ones you see there and longer and skinnier.
Mr. La Pine:
Itgives you kind of a design.
Mr. Modrejewski:
Yes. A variation of sizes and colors and tones.
Mr. Wilshaw:
This rendering that we're seeing here now is quite different than
the one that was presented to us before. What was the
motivation behind the change?
Mr. Modrejewski:
Actually, one, we were moving very quickly to get on the agenda
to get going before the weather changes. We have been doing
some research looking at different buildings in the neighborhood
and he actually found a building that was outside of the city but
was something similar to what he liked and that's what
motivated us to make this change. We were looking for a more
bank institutional look originally, but he softened it up a little bit,
and he's very excited about it now versus having the whole
masonry and busier facade.
Mr. Wilshaw:
This is a nice looking building. Are the colors that we see on
this color rendering fairly close to what we're going to get?
Mr. Modrejewski:
Fairy similar. The cultured stone, I can honestly 411 you you'll
probably have a couple stones that are a couple fints darker
than those lighter ones on the beige side, but the E.I.F.S. would
probably be, I'd have to say somewhere in a sand to light, light
khaki color. I didn't bring any E.I.F.S. swatches because he
hasn't really decided how tan that building will be, but
somewhere around an earth tone.
November 13, 2001
24445
Mr. Wilshaw:
It sounds good. The only concern I would have at this point is
there's a lot of unsuredness as to exactly what we're going to
gel as far as color, awnings, things like that. That's the only
reservation I would have aphis point.
Mr. Modrejewski:
I would say within two tones either way of that drawing. On the
E.I.F.S., he's probably going to go the lighter way.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Well, certainly the conceptual picture I see at this point is
attractive. I'd just like to see the details hammered down a little
bit. Thank you.
Mr. LaPine:
Is there going to be anything done to the parking lot?
Mr. Modrejewski:
I've talked to him about that. We have some concerns. There's
a couple spots
that are alligatored closest to the building. Other
than that,
it's in good shape. He said after the construction is
completed, the main heavy stuff is gone, he'd look at it and re-
evaluate it and possibly saw cul that area out, rebase it and
repave it.
Mr. LaPine:
I noticed that when I was out there. There's some spots, but
once it's done, then you'll double stripe it and do whatever.
Mr. Modrejewski:
When we're done we would actually like to clean the whole site,
have everything look brand new, be it seal coaling or possibly
reworking that one area.
Mr. LaPine:
And you're going to work in some landscaping?
Mr. Modrejewski:
On the plan, we have that front area. He's talked about
adjusting the islands because they're a little overgrown. It is a
re -nod but we want it to appear as anew site.
Mr. LaPine:
Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Vartoogian:
I have a question about the lighting. I noticed on the color
rendering there's lights along the front, inside of the building.
Are there also similar lights in the rear?
Mr. Modrejewski:
No. In the rear, there is residential right behind it. There will be
no lighting on the rear except what's required or a down light
just so it's secure. There will just be Ighting next to the exit
doors.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Okay. Thank you.
November 13, 2001
24446
Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions? Thank you, sir. We appreciate
your presentation. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by Morrow, seconded by LaPine, and adopted, it was
#11-126-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007-10-08-17
submitted by Fanners Insurance requesting approval of all plans
required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in
connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the office
building located at 15619 Farmington Road, on property located
on the west side of Farmington Road between Five Mile Road
and Rayburn Avenue in the Southeast I/ of Section 16, be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Schematic Plot Plan illustrated on the sheet
entitled "Title, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Data, Maps', dated
October 24, 2007, as revised, prepared by Mar-Que
General Contractors, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked A2.0
dated October 24, 2007, as revised, prepared by Mar-Que
General Contractors, Inc., is hereby approved and shall be
adhered to;
3. That the cultured stone used in the construction shall be
installed according to manufacturing specifications and
shall meet ASTM C216 standards;
4. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed
from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a
compatible character, material and color to other exterior
materials on the building;
5. That all new free-standing light fixtures shall not exceed
twenty (20') feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded
so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property
lines and glaring into adjacent roadway;
6. 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,
7. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a
November 13, 2001
24447
period of one year only from the date of approval by City
Council, and unless a building peril is obtained this
approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said
period.
Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion?
Mr. Wilshaw: Just a brief comment that I will not be voting in support of the
resolution, and its not because of any problem that I have with
the color rendering that I see. But its because the site plan that
is presented to us and referenced in the approving resolution
doesn't even match the building, so I don't feel comfortable
putting my name on it.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Morrow, LaPine, Vartoogian, Smiley, Walsh
NAYES:
McDermott, Wilshaw
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution.
ITEM#3 PETITION 2007 -10 -SN -07 T.G.I. FRIDAY'S
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2007-
10SN-07 submitted by WT Development Corporation, on behalf
of T.G.I. Friday's, requesting approval for wall signage for the
new restaurant at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight
Mile Road in the Northwest %of Section 6.
Mr. Miller: On February 14, 2007, T.G.I. Friday's received waiver use
approval (Council Resolution #51-07) to construct and operate a
full service restaurant on property located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road.
As part of the approving resolution it was conditioned: That no
signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with
this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for
review and approval to the Planning Commission and City
Council. This restaurant is part of the Chestnut Hills
development, which presently contains a Target store, a Costco
store and a medical facility known as the University of Michigan
Center for Specialty Care. A Panera Bread Restaurant was
November 13, 2001
24448
recently granted waiver use approval (Council Resolution #52-
07) to construct within this development on an adjoining site to
the north. The subject site is zoned G2, General Business. By
virtue of the C-2 zoning, this restaurant is permitted one wall
sign based on the lineal footage of the building frontage. T.G.I.
Friday's is requesting approval for two wall signs. One of the
proposed signs would be located on the west elevation over the
restaurant's main entrance. The west elevation faces Haggerty
Road and is the restaurant's building frontage. This sign would
be incorporated within an architectural feature identified on the
plans as the "Friday's Tumbler'. The second proposed wall
sign, identified as T.G.I. Friday's logo sign, would be positioned
on the north elevation of the building. Both signs would be
internally illuminated. By virtue of the lineal footage of the
building, this building is allowed one wall sign at 122 square feet
in sign area. They are proposing two wall signs at a total of 85
square feet. Because the proposed signage is in excess of
what is allowed by the Sgn Ordinance, a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals would be required.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any correspondence?
Mr. Taormina:
There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection
Department, dated October 31, 2007, which reads as follows:
"Pursuant to your request of October 11, 2007, the above -
referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted.
(1) The petitioner's plans show a total of four wall signs where
only one wall sign is permitted. The maximum size that the wall
sign is allowed to be is 107 square feet. The Tumbler sign
proposed projects 30 inches out from the wall. Zoning Board of
Appeals approval would be required for. (a) Excess number of
wall signs. (b) Excess wall sign area. (c) 30 inch projection of
wall sign where only 12 inches is allowed. (2) No ground sign
was presented for review in this petition. This Department has
no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by
Jerome Hanna, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of
the correspondence.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any questions for the staff?
Mr. Wilshaw:
The Inspection Department letter refers to there being a total of
four wall signs. On the plans, there appears to be only two wall
signs. Do we know where these other two are coming from?
Mr. Taormina:
The plans show two smaller signs on the canopies above the
main entrance. There is some question between the Planning
Department and the Inspection Department as to whether or not
these will actually constitute signs given the size of the lettering.
November 13, 2001
24449
The initial review by the Inspection Department is that they will
be considered signs under the ordinance. If they are signs, that
would increase both the total area of the signage as well as the
number of signs. Fortunately, it does not represent an increase
in area beyond what would typically be allowed for one sign for
this building; however, if they are viewed as signs, then it is an
excess of two signs. It would still require a variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals, but you can see from this rendering
they're rather small signs in the context of the two larger signs
which was really the focus of our presentation this evening.
Ms. Smiley:
Mr. Taormina, at other restaurants, don't they have little things
that say like fish, steaks?
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. In order to constitute a sign, it has to be something that
attracts attention and is legible from a public place or, in this
case, the public right-of-way. I think what you are referring to
are incidental signs that exists, for example, on the valances of
the awning at Mitchell's Fish Markel and maybe the Insh pub at
College Park. When the lettering was reduced down to a point
where it no longer was identifiable from Haggerty Road, we
discounted those as signs. They're obviously visible and legible
when you're on-site when you gel closer to the building, but as
you drive down Haggerty Road, the intent was that you really
wouldn't be able to identify those as signs. So in this case
there's still some question here as to whether or not the lettering
is small enough to remove itself from being considered a sign.
Ms. Smiley:
Because I would not consider that a sign.
Mr. Taormina:
It may or may not be.
Ms. Smiley:
Either way, they're under 122 square feel.
Mr. Taormina:
Either way, it's under the total area and it's really a call by the
Inspection Department in the end. They are the ones that will
make thaldecision.
Ms. Smiley:
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. La Pine:
Mark, is the T.G.I. Friday building under construction now?
Mr. Taormina:
The gentleman here is shaking his head, so that must be the
Panera Bread that's going up a little faster than the T.G.I.
Friday's.
Mr. La Pine:
Is T.G.I. Friday's is going on the south side of the road there?
November 13, 2001
24450
Bill Beckett, WT Development Corporation, 10223 East Cherry Bend Road,
Traverse City, Michigan 49684. In response to Mr. LaPine's
question, the building under construction is Panera Bread. We
just picked up a building peril for Friday's today, so you'll see
some activity out there.
Mr. La Pine: And that goes on the south side of the road coming off of
Newburgh, right? The one under construction right now is on
the north side.
Mr. Beckett: Yes.
Mr. La Pine: T.G.I. Friday's goes on the south side?
Mr. Beckett: That is correct.
Mr. La Pine: I wasn't sure. When I was out there today, I couldn't tell which
was which. I see something else you did. I just have to make a
comment. It looks like about two weeks ago when I drove up
there ... a couple of stop signs. You come up like a little hill
and I see they've taken some dirt out of there and lowered that
so now you can see the car coming off of Haggerty, which I
think was a smart idea because there was a problem there, in
my opinion. But anyways, I wasn't sure which one of these two
buildings was which. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
Mr. Beckett: Sir, if I might address ...
Mr. Walsh: Absolutely.
Mr. Beckett: I think there was a directional error made in the overview. The
primary entrance actually faces south and the bulk of the
parking at the shopping center and also Friday's parking is also
to the south. The other sign right here actually faces west which
faces Haggerty. I think that was just a mistake. But the intent is
to identify the primary entrance to the building, which actually
faces south. With this building design, originally there were two
entrances. You kind of come into an interior vestibule area.
Friday's has changed that design to have a single door entrance
now and that really is necessitating two signs, one for the
primary parking and one for road frontage. The secondary
signage, there are some small letters. They're seven inches
tall, similar to what you would have for an address letter. Its
probably about 120 feel to the right-of-way and then another 30
or 40 feel to the roadway. So the "In Here Its Always Friday' is
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -10 -SN -07
submitted by WT Development Corporation, on behalf of T.G.I.
Friday's, requesting approval for wall signage for the new
restaurant at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road
in the Northwest I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Plans marked Sheet Numbers /+201 and .4202
both dated September 14, 2007, prepared by WT
Development Corporation, are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour after this business closes;
November 13, 2001
24451
really meant as an accessory or a way to help customers
identity their primary entrance.
Mr. Taormina:
I'll just point out that if the lettering is seven inches high and it's
120 feet to the right-of-way, then that will be considered signage
and will require variances. My recollection is that, in the case of
College Park, the buildings are approximately 140 feet back,
and I think we went with four inch lettering. So my guess is that
these will be highly visible and legible from Haggerty Road and,
as such, would be considered signs. Maybe the petitioner can
make the lettering smaller orjust seek the variance if there is no
objection from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Mr. Taormina just look the words out of my mouth. Is there
potential that you could reduce the size of that lettering to be
similar to what we've done in other developments?
Mr. Beckett:
We can certainly lake that back to the corporation and see
aboulsome customization oflhe letters.
Mr. Wilshaw:
Okay.
Mr. Walsh:
Are there any additional questions for the petitioner? Thank
you, Mr. Beckett. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes
to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one coming
forward, a motion would be in order.
On a motion by
La Pine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, ilwas
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -10 -SN -07
submitted by WT Development Corporation, on behalf of T.G.I.
Friday's, requesting approval for wall signage for the new
restaurant at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road
in the Northwest I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Plans marked Sheet Numbers /+201 and .4202
both dated September 14, 2007, prepared by WT
Development Corporation, are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour after this business closes;
November 13, 2001
24452
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto; and
5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion?
Ms. Vartoogian:
I have a comment. Should we also add that in lieu of getting the
variance, they can come back with four inch lettering on that
sign above the doorway?
Mr. Taormina:
That's a question for the Commission.
Mr. Walsh:
Do we need them to come back if they go to four inches?
Mr. Taormina:
I think what you're saying is ...
Ms. Vartoogian:
I guess I'm amending ...
Mr. Walsh:
What you're suggesting is, if they do four inches, which we
consider not to be a sign, then they can proceed on that basis.
If it's more than four inches, they're going to have to deal with
the Inspection Department in any event.
Mr. Taormina:
I dont want to say it's limited to four inches necessarily without
reviewing it with the Inspection Department. Other factors may
come into play, such as the grade and the actual distance from
the travelled portion of the road. But if the Planning
Commission does not object to the plans as submitted, and the
variance is not obtained, you would have no objection to them
still placing some lettering on the canopy as long as its reduced
in size to a point where we agree that it's not really considered
signage.
Ms. Vartoogian:
Correct.
Mr. Walsh:
That's what Ms. Vartoogian is suggesting. If its permissible by
the maker and support ...
Mr. LaPine:
My position is, we're allowing what he asked. He asked to go to
the Zoning Board. He's going to go back to his client. If hs
Mr. Taormina: The plans as presented are subject to the petitioner being
granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If it is
rejected by the Z.B.A., then they would still be allowed smaller
lettering above the doors provided it is determined that it does
not constitute signage. We will fashion the resolution something
to that effect. I think what this does, without materially changing
the motion, is offer direction to the petitioner and to the Zoning
Board when they consider this.
November 13, 2001
24453
cilent says no, they he has to go to the ZBA. If the ZBA wants
to approve it, he gets the seven inches. If they say it has to go
to four inches, three inches, two inches, one inch, then that's the
way it's going to be. So I don't see any reason for it to come
back to us.
Mr. Taormina:
No, I don't think it would have to.
Mr. LaPine:
I say leave it the way it is - the motion - the way I made it.
Mr. Walsh:
Okay. Ms. Varloogian, would you like to formally offer the
amendment?
Ms. Varloogian:
I woukl.
On a motion by
Varloogian, seconded by Wilshaw, and adopted, itwas
#11-127-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
determine to amend the motion in connection with Petition
2007-10SN-07 submitted by WT Development Corporation, on
behalf of T.G.I. Friday's, requesting approval for wall signage for
the new restaurant at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east
side of Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight
Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 6, as follows: In the
event a variance is not granted allowing for a sign on the
canopy above the main entrance that reads: "In here, it's always
Friday", that the petitioner may work with staff to reduce the size
of the lettering to an extent where it is determined not to
constitute a sign under the ordinance.
Mr. Walsh:
Is there any discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Morrow:
Just so I understand, would you phrase what we're amending it
lo?
Mr. Walsh:
I'll ask Mr. Taormina to re -phrase it since he stated it so
eloquently.
Mr. Taormina: The plans as presented are subject to the petitioner being
granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If it is
rejected by the Z.B.A., then they would still be allowed smaller
lettering above the doors provided it is determined that it does
not constitute signage. We will fashion the resolution something
to that effect. I think what this does, without materially changing
the motion, is offer direction to the petitioner and to the Zoning
Board when they consider this.
November 13, 2001
24454
Mr. Morrow:
The other part of my question is, if the staff could research the
size of those letters we have on some of the other buildings.
Six inches sticks in my mind.
Mr. Taormina:
Yes. It could be actually.
Mr. Morrow:
But I'm not sure, so that the petitioner gets a little direction on
what constitutes the size of a sign.
Mr. Walsh:
Any additional comments on the amendment?
Ms. Smiley:
Dont we have to vote on the amendment?
Mr. Walsh:
We do indeed.
Mr. LaPine:
Wail a minute. Let me get this straight now. Are we polling on
the amendment to substitute a motion that we're going to say he
has to put up a four inch sign?
Mr. Walsh:
No.
Mr. LaPine:
Four inch letters? Is that what we're saying?
Mr. Walsh:
No. It's language that Mr. Taormina suggested which is that if
they are determined to have additional signage and they are
rejected by the ZBA, they have the opportunity to reduce their
signage in size to the point where the Inspection Department
and the Planning Department agree that it is not a sign.
Mr. LaPine:
Well, the motion as it was made allows them to do that anyway.
Ms. Vartoogian:
No, because it makes it subject to the variance being granted.
Mr. LaPine:
But the variance would be when they go to the ZBA and the
ZBA says no, you can't have the seven inches. Then they have
the option to lower it to four inches and go ahead and built it
without any other action taken. I dont see where what we're
trying to do here makes any sense in my opinion.
Mr. Taormina:
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think the benefit is that it provides
direction to the extent that if they are rejected, then it won't be to
anybody's surprise that they end up putting some wording up
above there if it's made smaller or it's determined that it's not a
sign. Anyways, that's all I can offer.
Mr. Walsh:
We have an amendment on the table.
November 13, 2001
24455
Mr. LaPine:
Well, the thing is, the ZBA would have that authority. If they
went there and said no, we won't give you a seven inch sign.
NAYES:
You can have four inches. I don't understand.
Mr. Walsh:
You haw the opportunity to vote in the manner than you deem
ABSENT:
appropriate.
Mr. Morrow:
Are we amending the original motion?
Mr. Walsh:
This is an amendment to the original motion.
Mr. Morrow:
So we're only going to vote one time.
Mr. Walsh:
No. We're voting on the amendment. It was rejected.
Mr. Morrow:
I thought we were amending the original motion.
Mr. Walsh:
You have to vole on the amendment first, and then we'll vole on
the original motion. This is a vole on the amendment to the
motion.
A roll call vole
on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Varloogian, Wilshaw, McDermott, Morrow, Smiley,
Walsh
NAYES:
LaPine
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh: The amendment passes. We now have a motion before us. Is
there any discussion on he primary motion? Seeing none, would
the Secretary please call the roll?
On a motion by LaPine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously approved, it was
#11-128-2007 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2007 -10 -SN -07
submitted by WT Development Corporation, on behalf of T.G.I.
Friday's, requesting approval for wall signage for the new
restaurant at 20120 Haggerty Road, located on the east side of
Haggerty Road between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mle Road
in the Northwest I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the Plans marked Sheet Numbers /+201 and A-202
both dated September 14, 2007, prepared by WT
Development Corporation, are hereby approved and shall
be adhered to;
November 13, 2001
24456
2. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one
(1) hour afterthis business closes;
3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted
on this site including, but not limited to, the building or
around the windows;
4. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted
a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excess
signage and any conditions related thereto;
5. In the event a variance is not granted allowing for a sign on
the canopy above the main entrance that reads: "In here,
it's always Friday', that the petitioner may work with staff to
reduce the size of the lettering to an extent where it is
determined not to constitute a sign under the ordinance;
and
6. That the specific plans referenced in this approving
resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department
at the time the sign permits are applied for.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
ITEM#4 PETITION 2003 -01 -PL -01 PASTENA VILLA
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-
01 -PL -01 submitted by Enrico Rosati, which previously received
preliminary plat approval by the City Council on September 28,
2005 (CR #484-05), requesting a two-year extension of the
plans approved in connection with the Paslena Villa Subdivision
to be located on the west side of Stark Road between Beacon
Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest % of Section 28.
Mr. Walsh: This is a simple request for an extension. There is no report
from the staff. If the petitioner would please step forward in
case there are any questions. Good evening.
Gino Rosati, 1112 Baker Court, Troy, Michigan. Hi. My father, Enrico, is also
here.
Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
November 13, 2001
24451
Mr. La Pine:
When did you start this project? It seems it's been about five or
six years. You have one building that is built and one under
construction.
Mr. Rosati:
Two finally.
Mr. La Pine:
Two finally. Everything dropped out. You put up a beautiful wall
and there it sits.
Mr. Rosati:
Yeah, I know. We still try to fight it, find 9?
Mr. Walsh:
Gentlemen, thank you for being here this evening. We have
nobody else in the audience, so I need not call them forward. A
motion would be in order at this point.
On a motion by
LaPine, seconded by Wilshaw, and unanimously adopted, 9 was
#11-129-2007
RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -01 -PL -01
submitted by Enrico Rosati, which previously received
preliminary plat approval by the City Council on September 28,
2005 (Council Resolution #484-05), requesting a two-year
extension of the plans approved in connection with the Pastena
Villa Subdivision to be located on the west side of Stark Road
between Beacon Road and the CSX Railroad in the Southwest
I/ of Section 28, be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the request for an extension of Preliminary Plat
Approval by Enrico Rosati, Proprietor/Developer of
Pastena Villa Subdivision, in a letter dated September 26,
2007, is hereby approved for a two-year period;
2. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #484-05
in connection with Petition 2003 -01 -PL -01, which granted
approval of the preliminary plat, together with development
plans and specifications for improvements approved by the
Engineering Division, shall remain in effect to the extent
that they are not in conflict with the foregoing condition.
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving
resolution.
November 13, 2001
24458
ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 952"" Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 952n0 Regular Meeting held on October 9, 2007.
On a motion by Wilshaw, seconded by McDermott, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-130-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 952n° Regular Meeting held by
the Planning Commission on October 9, 2007, are hereby
approved.
A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES:
Wilshaw, McDermott, LaPine, Morrow, Vartoogian,
Smiley, Walsh
NAYS:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
None
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 953m Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting
Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the
Minutes of the 953`° Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held
on October 23, 2007.
On a motion by Vartoogian, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it
was
#11-131-2007 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 953d Public Hearings and
Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on October
23, 2007, are hereby approved.
A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following:
AYES: Vartoogian, Smiley, LaPine, McDermott, Morrow,
Wilshaw, Walsh
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
November 13, 2001
24459
Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution
adopted.
On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 954" Regular
Meeting held on November 13, 2007, was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
CIN PLANNING COMMISSION
Carol A. Smiley, Secretary
ATTEST:
John Walsh, Chairman