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