Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-09-16MINUTES OF THE 872n4 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 872nd Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Ala nskas William La Pine John Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; Scott Miller, Planner III; and Bill Popperger, Planner I, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that f a petition on lonighfs agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat anc/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolutions adopted by the City Planning Commission become effective seven (7) days after the date of adoption. The Planning Commission and the professional staff have reviewed each of these petitions upon their fling. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2001-03-0845 NEWPORT PARK Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2001- 03-08-15 submitted by Newport Park Condominiums, formerly known as Livonia Villa Condominiums, requesting approval to revise plans that were approved in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on property located at 9204 Middlebell Road in the Southwest%of Section 36. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebell between Joy and Grendon. On September 15, 1999, City Council granted Site Plan Approval for the development of a condominium project on this site. That development was never started and the one-year approval grace period expired. On June 4, 2001, City Council again granted Site Plan Approval for the development of a condominium development on this site. What was approved was essentially the same as previously approved in 1999. The project is currently under construction. The petitioner is requesting approval to revise the plans that were approved. Newport Park Condominiums consists of seven buildings containing a total of 27 units. Five of the buildings, containing between six and four units apiece, are to be located on the large section of the property that is north of the Mid - Plaza strip center. These buildings would contain 25 of the units. Each of these condominiums would be two -stories in height and have two bedrooms. On the tail of the site, which extends behind the strip center and a 7 -Eleven store, two buildings would be constructed, each containing a single condominium unit. These buildings would also be two -stories in height and contain two bedrooms. It is the footprint of these standalone units that the petitioner wishes to modify. In order to off -set the attach garages of the units, the buildings would be bumped -out 5 R. to the west or towards the back of the commercial buildings. The required side yard setback for an RC district is 25 R. The two modified condominium units would now encroach within that setback and only be 20 R. from the property line. Therefore, a variance for deficient setback would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The architecture and building materials would be consistent with what was originally approved. The units would be mainly brick on all four sides, with only the second floor of the front elevations being vinyl siding. This is also consistent with the other five buildings. The petitioner is also requesting to revise their Entrance Marker that was previously approved. Signage is summarized as follows: Signage permitted for this site under Section 18.50E: is one entrance marker not to exceed 20 sq. R. in sign area. One entrance marker16 sq. R. in area was previous approved. Proposed signage is for one entrance marker 20 sq. R. in sign area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item from the Inspection Department, dated August 27, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 18, 2003, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This is a revision of formerly reviewed and approved plans. Due to the encroachment of the two (2) south units (behind 7-11) into the side yard setback, this revised Petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The required side yard is 25 feet, proposed setback now is 20 feet, thereby deficient 5 feet. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? On a motion by Mr. e, seconded by Mrs. n, and unanimously adopted, ilwas #09-124-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2001-03-08-15 submitted by Newport Park Condominiums, formerly known as Livonia Villa Condominiums, requesting a revision to the petition that was previously approved by Council Resolution 357-01 on June 4, 2001, in connection with a proposal to construct a condominium development on property located at 9204 Middlebell Road in the Southwest '/of Section 36, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet CE -1 dated June 13, 2003, as revised, prepared by The Building Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A - 1D dated August 8, 2003, as revised, prepared by The Building Design Group, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient setback and any conditions related thereto; 4. That the Entrance Marker illustrated on the approved plan is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department atthetimethe building permits are appliedfor; and 6. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #357-01, which granted approval for the construction of a condominium development, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Denying Reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the layout and encroachment of the condominiums toward the neighboring properties would have a detrimental effect; 3. That the proposal creates significant adverse impacts on adjoining parcels, public services, and community planning efforts; 4. Allowing this expansion would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and appeal of the of the overall site, and thereby, inappropriately altering the character of the condominiums; 5. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Itwill go onto City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2003-08-08-20 AYYASH APARTMENTS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-08-08-20 submitted by Eddie Ayyash, on behalf of Ayyash Apartments, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment building on property located at 34960 Ann ArborTreil in the Southwest %of Section 33 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the west side of Wayne between Ann Arbor Trail and Plymouth Road. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an apartment building on a vacant lot that is located between a bank and the Parkway Heights Apartment complex. The proposed building would be two -stories in height and contain eight two-bedroom units and three one -bedroom units. There would also be an office unit, presumably for the manager, available on the first floor. The building's front elevafion would face south towards Ann Arbor Trail. The building would back up to the apartment complex to the north. All building setbacks are either met or exceeded. Access to the site would be by a single two-way drive off Wayne Road. Parking would be available within the setback of the building from Wayne Road and along the front or south elevation of the building. An enclosed dumpster area is shown near the southwest comer of the parking lot. Storm water detention would be handled by a basin area located in the southwest comer of the site. Parking is summarized as follows: required parking is 28 spaces; provided parking is 31 spaces. Because this site is zoned residential, a specific landscape percentage is not required. The ordinance does state, 'the parcel upon which a multiple dwelling is located shall be fully landscaped with appropriate materials as reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council". A Landscape Plan has been submitted and the site would be adequately landscaped throughout. The plant list includes a variety of trees, shrubs, evergreens and perennial flowers. No reference to an automatic underground irrigation system is mentioned under the headings "Landscape Requirements" or "Maintenance Schedule" portrayed on the plan. The Building Elevation Plan shows that the proposed structure would be constructed mainly out of brick on all four sides. The bumped - out areas and their peaks, as well as the entrance areas of the front elevation, would be covered in siding. Just the roof peak areas of the rear elevation would be sided. The roof of the apartment building would be shingled. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated September 10. 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right of way dedication is required. The storm water detention facilities shown and the drive approach to Wayne Road require the approval of Wayne County. We believe that Wayne County will request that the driveway be shifted to the north so that the drive return is not in front of the property to the south. Continuation of an Ann arbor Trail address will be confusing. We recommend that the petitioner request the Engineering division to establish a Wayne Road address for this project if it proceeds." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated August 22, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an apartment building on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 9, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plan to renovate the exterior of the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant and have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 10, 2002, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 26, 2001, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This petition This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? #09-125-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08-08-20 submitted by Eddie Ayyash, on behalf of Ayyash Apartments, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an apartment building on property located at 34960 Ann Arbor Trail in the Southwest %of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: Approving conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated July 14, 2003, as revised, prepared by Donald A. DiComo, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated July 14, 2003, as revised, prepared by Donald A. DiComo, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the lop leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 5. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 6. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-3 dated July 14, 2003, as revised, prepared by Donald A. DiComo, Architect, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick or in the case a precast concrete system is used it shall meet ASTM C216 standards; 8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 9. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the State of Michigan; 10. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across properly lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 12. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 13. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department allhe time the building permits are applied for. Denying Reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the layout and number of apartments proposed for the development would have a detrimental effect upon the neighboring properties; 3. That the proposed use would unduly tax and conflict with the established and normal traffic flow of the area; 4, That the proposal creates significant adverse impacts on adjoining parcels, public services, and community planning efforts; 5. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. ITEM #3 PETITION 2003 -08 -GB -05 BIG BOY RESTAURANT Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003 -08 -GB -05 submitted by Milton Y. Zussman, on behalf of Big Boy Restaurant, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast%of Section 33. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth between Farmington and Stark. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between commercial zoned property and land zoned residential. Behind or to the south of the restaurant is the American House Senior Living Residences, which is zoned R-9, Housing for the Elderly. It is along this south property line where Big Boy is requesting to retain an existing greenbelt. The existing natural greenbelt is approximately 45 R. in depth. It extends from the restaurant's west property line to an asphalt driveway. This drive alloys Big Boy customers to either enter or leave the site by way of Farmington Road. The drive connects to the driveway of the American House facility. The 'Tree Inventory List" shows that there are a number of deciduous trees such as Elm, Ash and Box Elder throughout the greenbelt. It explains under the "condition" subheading that all the Ash trees are dead. There are only two (2) evergreen type trees within the greenbelt and they basically rim the rear drive. The greenbelt does have very thick undergrowth. A note on the plan clarifies that this undergrowth is predominantly buckthom, wild rose, grapevine, poison ivy, honeysuckle, and 1-3 inch saplings. The dumps of small ash trees occurring in the undergrowth are dead. Because of the composition of the greenbelt being deciduous trees, it is unclear how well the screening arrangement works during the fall and winter months when the leaves fall off the trees. Also, it is presumed that the dead Ash trees are going to be removed, further depleting the greenbelts effectiveness. At the August 26, 2003 Study Meeting, the discussion centered around the effectiveness of the greenbelt once the dead Ash trees are removed and the ability of its screening mechanism during the fall and winter months. It was suggested that evergreen type trees should be planted in replace of the Ash trees Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 7, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 3, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the restaurant on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 9, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plan to renovate the exterior of the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant and have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 3, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 16, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site's parking lot needs repair and sealing at the west drive entrance area and the rear lot area. (2) The parking spaces need to be double striped. (3) Some of the parking bumper blocks along the west side are deteriorated and need to be replaced and/or repositioned. (4) The fence with slots installed along the west property lined needs repair. (5) The mortgage survey provided details a masonry wall behind the dumpster which is, in fact, a four (4) foot tall chain link fence. (6) The existing greenbelt is 96% deciduous trees with an understory of green growth, which includes poison ivy. Approximately 30% of those trees are dead ash trees and another 33% of those trees are dunk trees' (elm/cottonwood) in fair to poor condition. In fall to spring, this greenbelt will not be as effective as desired. Consideration should be given to additional plantings of evergreens and other species. (T) The parking light pole on the east side needs paint and maintenance. (6) The accessible parking spaces need to be properly marked. (9) The landscaping at the base of the pole sign consists of weeds and is next to an abandoned pay telephone box and pole, which should be removed or restored and maintained. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mrs. Dolan, and unanimously approved, it was #09-126-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -08 -GB -05 submitted by Millon Y. Zussman, on behalf of Big Boy Restaurant, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as ou0ined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 33427 Plymouth Road in the Northeast '''/ of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: Tabling motion: Table in orderlo allow the removal ofthe dead Ash trees, to pennitthe establishment of evergreen trees, and provide time in orderto observe the greenbelt during the fall and winter months. Approving conditions: 1. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the south property line, as shown on the plan marked sheet 1 dated 8/1/03 prepared by Devlin Land Design, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 oflhe Zoning Ordinance; 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts effectiveness as a prolective barrier, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 3. That using a combination of tree species, along with other landscape materials, will contribute to the sites aesthetic attractiveness, help reduce visual monotony, and provide year-round appeal; and 4. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Departmenfs satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated September 3, 2003: That the entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That any deteriorated parking bumper blocks shall be replaced and/orrepositioned; That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be at least 6 feet in height and constructed out of the same material as the of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; That the parking light standards on the east side shall be repaired or replaced and painted; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barner Free Code; That the landscaping at the base of the pole sign and next to an abandoned pay telephone box and pole shall be reestablished and maintained. Denying Reasons: 1. That this request for the permanent substitution of the prolective wall with a landscaped greenbelt is hereby denied for the following reasons: That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements as set forth in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; That because of the operations of this tidlity and the traffic it produces, a masonry wall would offer better screening ofthis propertyfirom the residential district; 2. That the protective wall shall be erected immediately. ITEM #4 PETITION 2003 -08 -SN -08 BRITISH PETROLEUM Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 2003-08SN-08 submitted by Nafional Specialties, on behalf of British Petroleum, requesting approval for signage for the gas station located at 27428 Schoolcrett Road in the Southeast %of Section 24. • Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Schoolcrett and Inkster. On November 20, 2002, this site received waiver use approval for the construction of a gas station and carry -out restaurant. As part of the approval, it was conditioned: 'Thal no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; all such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council." The applicant is requesting approval for wall signage for the building and a ground sign for the site. The ground sign would be located near the intersection of Schoolcratt Road and Inkster Road. Signage is summarized as follows: Signage permitted is a wall sign, window signage and a ground sign. Proposed signed is one building sign and ground sign. Excess signage consists of 46 square feet in sign area of the ground sign and 12 feet in ground sign height. The Sign Package does not actually define or identify the signage that would be attached to the building or the pump island canopies. A note on the plan only goes so far as to point out that such signage would not exceed 100 sq. R. Two "slick figure" type signs are shown on the elevation plans but they are just representations as to how signage might be placed on the building. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, the applicant would be required to be granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Regular Meeting 9/16/03: At the August 26, 2003 Study Meefing, the Planning Commission was very apprehensive as to the overall size of the proposed ground sign. They did not see the need for such a large sign. The pefifioner explained that the reason for such a large sign was to be more visible. The Planning Commission felt that a more conforming sign would attract costumers just fine. Because the graphics of the sign included a panel for the restaurant use, the Planning Commission was not against increasing the square footage of the ground sign the dimensions ofthe panel. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 7, 2002, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal at this time." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 3, 2002, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the restaurant on property located at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 9, 2002, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plan to renovate the exterior of the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant and have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated September 10, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of August 18, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site will need the following variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the signage as proposed. (a) A variance for excessive ground sign height. 24 feet proposed, 12 feet allowed, (b) A variance for excessive square footage of ground sign. 86 feet proposed with pricing, 40 feet allowed with pricing. (2) The size of the 2 proposed building signs should be detailed. We have estimated them at 2.5 feet by 12 feet for a total each of 32.5 feet. This would be allowable. The size of the logos on the canopies should be detailed for size also. This Department has no further objection to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? On a motion by Mr., seconded by Mr., and unanimously adopted, it was #09-127-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-08SN-08 submitted by National Specialties, on behalf of British Petroleum, requesting approval for signage for the gas station located at 27428 Schoolcraft Road in the Southeast ''/ of Section 24, be approved subjectto the following conditions: Recommendations: Approving conditions: 1. That the Sign Plan marked sheet A7 dated 8/4/03 prepared by National Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Sign Plan marked sheet A6 dated 7/2/03, as revised, prepared by National Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except for the fact that the ground sign shall not exceed 14 ft. in height and 50 sq. ft. in sign area; 3. That all signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business doses; 4. That no LED Iightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to, the building, pump island canopies or around the windows; 5. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 6. 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; 7. 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. Denying Reasons: 1. That the applicant has failed to comply with all the requirements outlined in Section 18.50H of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That the applicant has not justified the need for excessive signage for this location over what is permitted by the sign ordinance; 3. That approving this signage request would set an undesirable precedentfor the area; 4. Approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best interest. ITEM#4 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 83C Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 838" Public Hearings and Regular Meefing held on January 29, 2003. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously approved, it was #0236-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 838" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 29, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Smiley, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 872nd Regular Meeting held on September 16, 2003, was adjourned at ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mgr CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary