Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1984-10-23 9253 MINUTES OF THE 485th REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA 1[10 On Tuesday, October 23, 1984, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 485th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings in the Livonia City Hall , 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. R. Lee Morrow, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with approx- imately 40 interested persons in the audience. Members present: R. Lee Morrow Donna Naidow Jeanne Hildebrandt Joseph J. Falk Herman Kluver Donald Vyhnalek Members absent: *C. Russ Smith Sue Sobolewski Messrs. John J. Nagy, Planning Director; H. G. Shane, Assistant Planning Director; and Ralph H. Bakewell , Planner IV, were also present. Mr. Morrow announced that Michael Duggan, newly appointed Commissioner, is present this evening but will not be voting inasmuch as his appointment has not yet been confirmed. Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 84-9-1-28 by Gary Orthner for Taco Bell requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 from M-1 to P. 11; Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating some surface drainage could be expected on the new parking area due to the restricted outlet of the internal storm sewer system on the Taco Bell site. There is also a letter from James H. Rossman, North Fort Myers, Florida, stating that he is in favor of this rezoning because it will improve the traffic flow and safety. That is the extent of correspondence in the file relating to this item. Mr. Morrow: Is he an abutting property owner? Mr. Nagy: I think they are and are selling it to Taco Bell . Gary Orthner, 23966 Freeway Park Drive, Farmington Hills , petitioner: This proposal is for the expansion of the restaurant and to include additional parking to relieve congestion that exists on the site and to increase the space between the curb cuts and move the northerly access approximately 100' from where it presents exists. Mr. Morrow: Do you find yourself a little pinched in there? Mr. Orthner: The site is tight. We meet all Ordinances at this time but we feel the proposal before you will improve on-site traffic patterns and also take the northerly approach and place it approximately 165' away. Mr. Vyhnalek: What are you going to do with the balance in the back -- the M-1 ? l 9254 Mr. Orthner: At this time, it is considered surplus because we are not involved in industrial development. We do not have any plans for develop- ment of that. We are offering to dispose of it to the lands in the back that are M-1 . Currently, the site is vacant . Mr. Vyhnalek: There is no maintenance done on it? Mr. Orthner: No maintenance at this point. Mr. Falk: There is a house on the parcel under petition. What do you intend to do with that building? Mr. Orthner: It is in extremely good condition. The residence will be made available for moving or for demolition in the process of site expansion. Mr. Falk: In other words, you intend to remove that house? Mr. Orthner: One way or the other. Mrs. Naidow: Do you still plan to have an in and out on Merriman? Mr. Orthner: That is correct. I understand we are in for rezoning only but it is a 25' cut and many people use it for in and out . Your concern is that we are moving in excess of 160' north. We will address that at the time of the site plan. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-9-1-28 closed. 4 On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Ms. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #10-219-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-9-1-28 by Gary Orthner for Taco Bell requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Merriman Road, north of Plymouth Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27 from M-1 to P, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-9-1-28 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed change of zoning would provide for a superior traffic circulation pattern for adjacent uses. (2) The proposed change of zoning will be compatible to and in harmony with the zoning in the surrounding area. (3) The proposed change of zoning represents only a minor encroachment of non-industrial zoning into the City's industrial corridor. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. ill Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 9255 f i Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-7-1-21 (rehearing) by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to P.O. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no objections to this petition. That is the extent of correspondence in the file . There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-7-1-21 closed. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Naidow, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-220-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-7-1-21 (rehearing) by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road, east of Haggerty Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to P.O. , the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-7-1-21 be approved for the following reasons : (1) The proposed zoning is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan which recommends general office use for the subject property. (2) The proposed zoning change is consistent with the zoning on the surrounding property. ti' (3) The proposed zoning would provide for uses that would be 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 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman , declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-9-1-29 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Farmington Road and Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 from P.S. to R-3B . Mr. Nagy: A letter in the file from the Engineering Division dated 9/28/84 states that there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . Greg Stempien, 16332 Newburgh, Attorney representing the property owner: Dr. Schwagle has owned the property for about five years. During that time it has been for sale. Currently, we are negotiating with purchasers to buy the property, raze the building and replace it with a single story office unit of about 80 ,000 square feet. If that is to be done, we anticipate it would happen soon . We are trying to work out some problems with utilities. My client bought the property and the house on it was in considerable bad shape when he bought it. Woodcreek Farms just north, was just being developed at that time. Anybody developing a home in Woodcreek Farms would have been aware that this was P.S. zoned here i because it is advertised as so. If it is rezoned, it will be a sub- stantial financial hardship on my client. He has been paying taxes for five years as professional service. We see no reason why it should be rezoned. 9256 Mr. Morrow:This piece was brought into view when we were looking at a vacating request by a Council resolution concerning property on Rayburn. Mr. Stempien: If this property were to be developed as general office, we would do what we had to do to accommodate the neighbors in the line of a wall or greenbelt. It is a group of CPAs we are negotiating with. If they can work out the utility problems , we would be dealing with a use primarily a day-time use. If it were left and developed as P.S. , it would have a minimum impact on the neighbors. Mr. Morrow: Your client owns both parcels? For about five years? Mr. Stempien: That is correct, and he purchased it with the understanding that it was professional service. At one time he himself was going to develop it. Mr. Falk: There is a difference between general office and medical office. What is the need -- general or medical offices? We are looking at the property to the south and what you do if you are successful the person to the south will do that too. Mr. Stempien: It is intended to be professional service. CPAs are looking at it and would use a substantial portion of it themselves and lease out a portion for professional service. I didn't mean general office in a specific sense. Mr. Vyhnalek: How long has it been P.S.? Mr. Nagy: It was changed from residential to P.S. in 1969. 4 Mr. Vyhnalek: Your client has been trying to do something with it? Mr. Stempien: Yes, there is a sign on it for professional service. Mr. Falk: If you retain the zoning, the house will be removed? Mr. Stempien: Yes , it would be almost impossible to use the building as an office. Tim Ryan, 15658 Farmington: I am the current tenant and keeping the rezoning to R-3B would be a detriment in that a power line divides the properties and if you add an 80' line there would be a power line 40' into the property. You would have to move the power line. This would make the lots very expensive, and a house on each of the lots would not fit in with the existing neighborhood in the area. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-9-1-29 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Falk and unanimously adopted, it was #10-221-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-9-1-29 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the northeast corner of Farmington I 9257 Road and Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15 from P.S. to R-3B, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to withdraw Petition 84-9-1-29 and deems that no further action by the City is necessary. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-8-2-31 by Robert Paciocco requesting waiver use approval to utilize property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Norwich Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 for general office purposes. Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating there are no engineering problems connected with this proposal . Charles Tangora, 32900 Five Mile Road, Attorney representing Mr. Paciocco: I think you are aware that the building is under construction. The waiver use is to allow us to put a general office building in. Mr. Paciocco plans to relocate his office into the building here. He can only do this with a waiver of use approval . tRon Srock, 33991 Gable: I need clarification on the term general office. Does that mean retail store or restaurants? Mr. Morrow: No, doctors, lawyers , cpas , dentists; those are professional office uses. General offices are, we find, less intensive uses than medical . Other types of uses would go in general office. No, it is not restaurants or retail stores. Mr. Srock: It would be something that would close early in the evening as opposed to a party store? Mr. Morrow: Yes. There was no one else present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-9-2-31 closed. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Naidow and unanimously adopted, it was #10-222-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-9-2-31 by Robert Paciocco requesting waiver use approval to utilize property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Farmington Road and Norwich Avenue in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 4 for general office purposes, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-9-2-31 be approved subject to the following condition: (1) that all site development shall be regulated in accordance with the previously approved site and building plans as approved by Planning Commission Resolution #6-109-84 and Council Resolution #479-84; 9258 for the following reasons: (1) The site has the capacity to support the general office uses proposed. (2) There would be little, if any, impact on the building or property development as the petitioner plans no changes in the building or site development to accommodate the general office usage. 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. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-9-2-32 by Farmbrook Construction Company requesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development of the east side of Louise Avenue, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 . Mr. Nagy: There is a letter in the file dated 8/27/84 from the Fire Department stating they have no objections to the concept or the overall develop- ment in general . We have a letter from the Traffic Bureau commenting that problems could be brought about by the use of Louise Street, which is gravel , by residents travelling to and from the development. Also, there is a letter from the Engineering Division outlining some areas of concern regarding the flood plain, water system and traffic on Louise. Murray Nadler, 795 S. Adams, Birmingham, representing the development company, was present. Mr. Nadler displayed an architect's rendering and interested persons in the audience were invited to view it along with the Commission. Mr. Nadler: What we are talking about is a large piece of property which is owned pro rata and the maintenance and plowing of the roads is borne by the condo association which assesses each property owner for the cost of maintaining the property with the exception of the property that is well wooded. Many of the structures will have a walk-out basement which will face that wooded area, the Tarabusi Drainage area. Every- body will have the opportunity to have the enjoyment of the aesthetic beauty of this wooded area. We feel the materials on the homes is typically acceptable to what is in the City of Livonia. The materials used architecturally and structurally will be basically masonry and textured wood. We do not feel that we can economically complete the plans until we have some indication of approval from the City. The Engineering Division will review the engineering designs and the costs of preparing all the necessary documentation will be borne when we are told by the authorities of the City that they like what we are proposing. There is a development on Telegraph called Sandalwood which is a develop- ment like what we would like to do. The ranch will be two or three bedroom and the colonial will be abutted on each side by the ranch. The colonial will have three bedrooms . We propose to have basements under these structures. We will offer to the public various options such as 9259 fireplaces and special equipment such as jacuzzis. 1 100 Mr. Morrow: Have you submitted typical line drawings of the units and architectural drawings for review? Mr. Nagy: I think they need a little more time on that. Mr. Nadler: We will go into exact materials and drawings within a reasonable amount of time assuming we have approval to progress with the development. Ms. Hildebrandt : You stated you have built this type of condo on Telegraph. Can you give me an average of the price differential on these units? Mr. Nadler: I didn't say we built those, I said these would be very close to those. Ms. Hildebrandt: The only ingress and egress will be from Louise? With an average of two cars per condo, that would be over 100 cars from this complex. Mr. Nagy : In terms of the total development of the property, the average density is driven down to about 3-1/2 units per acre. On the average, the total area is less than with a conventional single family development. Discussion was held concerning the sanitary and storm sewer systems by the audience, members of the Commission and a representative from the Engineering Division of the City of Livonia, Gary Clark. Mr. Kluver: Mr. Clark, being aware of the current topography, would there be any impact from a development of this type on the storm and sanitary sewer systems? 1 Mr. Clark: The Tarabusi Drain has an area of approximately seven square miles. There would be no impact on the existing sanitary system at all . Mr. Vyhnalek: Is is true that the residents north of this acreage are having some problems with their sewers? Mr. Clark: They outlet on Middlebelt Road. This particular area would drain south into a different system that was developed for the area north of this area. Mr. Vyhnalek: Does the Tarabusi ever back up? Mr. Clark: Yes, it is a typical flood plain . Mr. Vyhnalek: It looks like some of these units are pretty close to the flood plain area. Mr. Clark: Any door walls , etc. , must be at least three feet above the high water level . The City has had a Flood Plain Ordinance since 1960 and it was updated in 1981 . Detailed discussion resumed regarding height of land and water levels. 1 Mr. Kluver:1100 For clarification , the sewer system is not connected to the one where the current problem is . 4 Mr, Clark: That is correct. - 9260 Vincent DeSanto, 29967 Curtis: During construction there will be dirt taken out. If all this dirt is made part of the Tarabusi , it will force the water north of the Tarabusi . *Mr. Smith entered the meeting at 9:25 p.m. 10 Mr. Clark: The subdivision will not be impacted by the drainage. Mr. DeSanto: Livonia has always had big lots. You will have to build schools. Tex- tured wood could be merely plywood. This is a beautiful area. There aren't many places in Livonia where you can walk into a beautiful area like this. And, there is the wildlife. I think the traffic problem brought up was well taken. Robert O'Neil , 29446 Ravine: One of the reasons we moved to Livonia was for the open space. There are 350 multiple units between Six and Seven Mile Roads, just east or west of Middlebelt. We are concerned about the storm drain. We have had the City out regularly checking the direction of our down- spouts coming from our house so that we don' t flood our neighbors. This development could cause all of us to flood. Mr. Clerk: We are concerned about the downspouts because if they are not away from the house they pour into the sanitary sewer at the base of the house. Drainage into the sanitary sewer of storm water causes problems in that system. Mark Russell , 17232 Louise: As far as the flooding on the south side goes, I have lived 1: here for six years and have seen water almost knee-deep. With those condos going in, I don't know how they will keep the water our of there. There are houses in the area for sale so how are you going to sell condos. My major concern is the traffic on that 50' street and, also, we will lose five feet . Mr. Morrow: Can you give us an average price? Mr. Nadler: , Approximately $60,000. Mr. Vyhnalek: When would your property flood, Mr. Russell ? Mr. Russell : During the thaw. Mr. Vyhnalek: Did it bother the R-7 to the east? Mr. Russell : It was right up to the back of the wall of his pool maintenance building. Ambrus Balogh, 17326 Louise: We have had flooding the back of our yard but we don't pay much attention to that. My problem is with the small area and pro- posing so many houses. Everybody here has single dwellings. The traffic would be too much, I believe, and the improvements on Louise which would have to be done. Would there have to be a fence in order to have my property respected? Mr. Morrow: There would be no fence required along the property lines. liWO 4 Mr. Balogh: On these points, I would ask the Commission to deny this. • ` 9261 1: David Waldock, 29601 Ravine: In years past, given the permission of the property owners behind us, we were able to landscape the property to take care of any run-off so that no neighbor would have a problem but we were not able to even tough this flood plain property. These are cluster homes -- no backyards, no set boundaries. I would be concerned about the children in the area with the big down pours. The water rises tremendously in just a short time. I think it would be a health hazard. If this was single residential I would be for it because there would be fences to keep children from wandering. Marvin Donovan, 22511 Telegraph, developer: We are not going to create any more water by developing this development. By developing this seven acres, we are going to dedicate the rest of the wooded area for a natural area. Mr. Vyhnalek: What will you do about Louise? Mr. Donovan: I think that is a City decision and we will go along with whatever the City wants. Mr. Vyhnalek: Does the road have to be sixty feet? Mr. Nagy: No, fifty feet is adequate for the paving but Engineering may feel the maintenance of the utilities requires sixty feet. Leonard Mazur, 29685 Ravine: I wish to speak in opposition to this waiver use. He mentioned masonry and textured wood. That could be cinder block. The development of the twenty five lots to build single homes is much more in keeping with the homes in the area. I am opposed to this development. I also object on the basis that 1 ,100 square feet is not in keeping with 4 the neighborhood. $60,000 was not base but with some options. Resident, 29619 Ravine: What will happen to the dirt coming out of the basements? Mr. Clark: There is a drainage area seven miles upstream. By adding seven acres of homes here you won't add 1/8" of vertical height to that water level . Mr. Mazur: If the Tarabusi creek was cleared and the blocks taken out of there, the water might go through there. Mr. Donovan : The City will require us to have grading plans and if these kids enjoy the flood plan, why shouldn't other kids. Billey Rooker, 17391 Louise: I oppose this development. You are looking at about 125 cars on a dead-end street. I am going to lose some of my property and pave the street. These guyswill be going back to Birmingham with their pockets full and I will be having 125 cars running up and down my street. Jim Simmons, 29909 Bobrich : Who would have to pay for the paving of the street? Mr. Nagy: The residents who have frontage on Louise by a special assessment procedure. There was no one else wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman , declared the public hearing on -Petition 84-9-2-32 closed. 4 9262 On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was 1: #10-223-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-9-2-32 by Farmbrook Construction Company reuqesting waiver use approval to construct a planned residential development on the east side of Louise Avenue, north of Six Mile Road in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 11 , the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Petition 84-9-2-32 until the Study Meeting of October 30, 1984. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following : AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt , Naidow, Smith, Falk, Morrow NAYS: Vyhnalek ABSENT: Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announed the next item on the agenda is Petition 84-9-3-3 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolu- tion #659-84 to vacate a portion of Westmore Avenue, north of Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15. Mr. Nagy: There are letters in the file from Consumers Power Company and Detroit Edison Company, both indicating they have no objections to the proposed vacating request. There was no one present wishing to be heard regarding this item and Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the public hearing on Petition 84-9-3-3 closed. t On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted, it was #10-224-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-9-3-3 by the City Planning Commission pursuant to Council Resolution #659-84 to vacate a portion of Westmore Avenue, north of Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-9-3-3 be approved subject to the retention of a full- width easement, for the following reasons : (1) There is no public need to retain the subject right-of-way for street access purposes. (2) No public utility or City department has objected to the subject vacating. (3) The subject property should be returned to private ownership where it can be properly maintained and utilized for private purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 5-203 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. liw Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 4 Mr. Falk, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 83-9-3-4 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of - 9263 • 1: Shadyside Avenue north of Rayburn Avenue in the Southwest 1/5 of • Section 15. Mr. Nagy: We have a letter in the file from the Engineering Division stating they have no objection to the petition and making no recommendation to retain an easement because there are no City maintained utilities in the easement. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Ms. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #10-225-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on October 23, 1984 on Petition 84-9-3-3 by the City Planning Commission to vacate a portion of Shadyside Avenue north of Rayburn Avenue in the Sothwest 1/4 of Section 15, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 84-9-3-3 be approved for the follow- ing reasons : (1) There is no public need to retain the subject right-of-way for street access purposes. (2) No public utility or City department has objected to the subject vacating. (3) The subject property should be returned to private ownership where it can be properly maintained and utilized for private purposes. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with Section 5-203 of the Livonia Code of Ordinances, as amended. t Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek and seconded by Mr. Falk, it was #10-226-84 RESOLVED that, the minutes of the 484th Regular Meeting held by the City Planning Commission on October 9, 1984 are approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Kluver, Hildebrandt, Vyhnalek, Falk, Smith, Morrow NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Naidow ABSENT: Sobolewski Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Vyhnalek, seconded by Mr. Smith and unanimously adopted, it was #10-227-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition 84-10-8-37P by Edwin A. Tillman requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 in connection with a proposal to construct an addition to an existing building located on the east side of Newburgh Road between Joy Road and Ann Arbor Trail in Section 32 , subject to the following conditions: I 9264 (1) that Site Plan #35025, Sheet 1 , dated 10/23/84, prepared by Robert C. Doyle, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to; (2) that Building Elevations #35025, Sheets 1 & 2 , dated 10/23/84, prepared by Robert C. Doyle, Architect, which are hereby approved shall be adhered to; and (3) that Landscape Plan #35025, Sheet 1 , dated 10/23/84, prepared by Robert C. Doyle, Architect, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to and all landscaping as shown on the approved landscape plan installed on the site prior to building occupancy, if possible. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made by Mr. Smith, seconded by Ms. Hildebrandt and unanimously adopted, it was #10-228-84 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.47 of Zoning Ordinance #543, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table Sign Permit Application #1305 by Aaron's Sign Company requesting to erect a ground sign on the northwest corner of Five Mile Road and Hubbard in Section 15. Mr. Morrow, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanomously adopted, the 485th Regular Meeting and Public Hearings held by the City Planning Commission on October 23, 1984 was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. t CITY PLANNING COMMISSION J e J. F , ing Secretary ATTEST: C _• cti—St... (\ancry-N('`K`rt-4-1---' R. Lee Morrow, Chai rm ac 4