Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-01-1320941 MINUTES OF THE 877 1h REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, January 13, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 877" 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 Alanskas William LaPine John Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; Al Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in tum, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat and/or vacating petition. The Commission's recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for the final determination as to whether a plat is accepted or rejected. If a petition requesting a waiver of use or site plan approval is denied tonight, the petitioner has 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 dale 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 2004-01-08-01 COMERICA Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 01-08-01, submitted by Comerica requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a canopy to the office building located at 39200 Six Mile Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 7. 20942 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Six Mile Road between Haggerty and the 1-275/96 Expressway. Comerica is requesting approval to construct a canopy on their Livonia Operations Center. This facility is Comerica Bank's critical intersection for electronic and paper transfer of all transactions conducted throughout Comerica's 500 -plus customer service locations. The canopy is needed for security reasons and would be high and wide enough to allow vehicles to drive under it. It would provide distribution protection to and from the building. The existing building is at an approximate 45 degree angle to Six Mile Road, and the canopy would be constructed on the southwest elevation. It would be approximately 200 feel in length and extend out from the building about 35 feel. The canopy would be structural in nature and would be constructed out of materials that would match that of the existing building. To be more precise, the Elevation Plan states that the canopy would be constructed out of "new steel fascia painted to match existing." The fascia of the canopy would taper down from 5 feel wide at the building connection to about 3 feel 7 inches. It would stand 11 feel off the ground and would be supported by steel and concrete columns. Underneath the canopy would be a stepped up or curbed 14 foot wide walk and fourteen 10' x 20' striped parking spaces. The perpendicular parking would accommodate the backing in of vehicles so they could be securely unloaded/loaded. Because the parking spaces are only painted on the asphalt, a vehicle could also drive straight under the canopy and be unloaded/loaded sideways. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated January 5, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to yourrequest, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. The water main and gas service in the vicinity of the canopy are private facilities and are not under the jurisdiction of the City." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated January 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the plans submitted in connection with a request to construct a canopy on the office building located at the above -referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by Randall D. Tromblay, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated January 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the proposed plans regarding the 20943 request to construct a canopy on the office building located at 39200 Six Mile Road. We have only one recommendation and that is that adequate lighting be provided under the canopy for safety considerations." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated January 8, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 26, 2003, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. This department has no objections 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? Leonard M. Murz, Trammel Crow Company, 3800 Hamlin, Suite 100, Auburn Hills, MI 48326. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about the canopy for the bank? Mr. Murz: The primary reason for the canopy, as most of the members know, that previous to July '03 the drop-off areas were housed within the facility. It was a pull -in garage where we look all our direction, paperwork, check clearing processing into the building. It was a secured drop-off area, but post 9/11, Comerica wanted to eliminate the possibility of a vehicle coming into the premise because of the possible terrorist situation. That was one of the primary reasons to vacate that space, as well as they thought it would be best to utilize that interior space the garage was using to expand the exterior space for the expansion that the bank has experienced in the last few years. The canopy is a requirement in order to protect the materials because of moving the delivery service to the exterior of he building. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Looking al the picture of the canopy, where is the water going to go when it rains? Mr. Murz: Its illustrated in the site plans to connect into the storm sewers for the runoff with underground conductors. Mr. Alanskas: So are you going to have any gutters on the canopy to collect the water? I don't see any there in the picture. 20944 Mr. Murz: No, that's just an artist's rendering. The details for all that is to be worked out after approval. Mr. Alanskas: So the water will be caught and go down into the sewer? Mr. Murz: Correct. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. LaPine: I guess I'm confused. I understand originally you drove the vehicles underneath the building; they were unloaded. Now you've eliminated the underground. So now the people when they come in with their deliveries, they come underneath the canopy and they carry the sluff in the facility. So there are vehicles pulling in there? Mr. Murz: Correct. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So then there's no vehicles going inside the building any more? Mr. Murz: That's correct. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So we understand the reason for this. The area that was utilized before, what do you now use that for? Is that part of the inner office part of the building? Mr. Murz: Yes. We've renovated that space into habitable office space, and, yes, we have rearranged and restacked the building and that's part of our production area now. Mr. LaPine: So once they pull under this canopy, I assume the canopy is open? Mr. Murz: Yes. Mr. LaPine: You won't have to worry about any theft or anybody holding up anybody under this canopy before they gel inside? Mr. Murz: No. Ninety-five percent of the materials that are brought into the building is paper. We have a small amount of cash that enters that facility and that is brought into the facility under armed guards and armored vehicles. Mr. LaPine: Okay. Now the only other question and this was asked at the study session by Mr. Piercecchi: In no way are we interfering 20945 with the driveway off of Six Mile or the row of parking in front of the proposed canopy? Is that correct? Mr. Murz: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: There were two things that were brought up in the correspondence. One from the Police Department and one from the Inspection Department. The Police wanted to suggest that there be adequate lighting under that canopy. Do you plan on having some lighting under there? Mr. Murz: Yes. There will be extensive lighting underneath the canopy; number one, for safely, and number two, for visibility for the security cameras that will be placed underneath the canopy. Mr. Piercecchi: When you say extensive, are you really going to brighten it up or just adequate? Mr. Murz: Well, its adequate lighting so that people can be seen with security cameras. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay, and the second thing from the Inspection Department. They made some reference to the parking lot and the drives on the east side of that building. They need to be repaired and some maintenance performed. Mr. Murz: Yes, there is a maintenance plan once the canopy is reconstructed to repair any cracks or anything. Right now there are no potholes in the facility parking area. There are some cracks and some upgrade maintenance that needs to be done, and we do that on a regular basis. Mr. Piercecchi: You have no objection then if we include these items in any resolutions that come through? Mr. Murz: No. No objections at all. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-01-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-01-08-01, submitted by Comedca, requesting approval of all plans 20946 required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a canopy to the office building located at 39200 Six Mile Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Layout and Paving Plan marked Sheet C2.0 dated December 15, 2003, as revised, prepared by Wilcox Professional Services, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 3. That the Elevation Plan prepared by Ford & Ead Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. That the building materials of the canopy shall match that of the existing building, including but not limited to texture and color; 5. That 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; 6. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to the building or around the windows; 7. That the parking lot shall be repaired, as needed, to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department; 8. That adequate lighting be provided under the canopy for safety considerations; and 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: I'll take Mr. Pieroecchi's suggestion, that there be adequate lighting under the canopy. The petitioner addressed that. 20947 Mr. Piercecchi: And the parking lot repairs. Mr. Walsh: We can certainly add the concerns expressed by our Inspection and Police Departments. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 200401 -SN -01 KINKOS Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004-01SN-01, submitted by Kinko's requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 37330 Six Mile Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 8. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northeast corner of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads. On July 1, 2002, this site received Site Plan Approval in connection with the construction of a commercial building. As part of the approval, it was conditioned: That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition, all such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The submitted conforming Sign Package shows that the petitioner is requesting approval for one wall sign and a ground sign. The proposed ground sign would be located within the landscape area out near the intersection of Six Mile Road and Newburgh Road. The base of the ground sign would be constructed out of brick that matches the building. The proposed conforming signage is summarized as follows: one wall sign on the south elevation, 47 square feet in sign area and one ground sign, 30 square feel in sign area. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated January 8, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 26, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) No signage would be allowed in the awning as depicted on Sheet 11. This Department has no further objections to this Petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. WILL,f: Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Patrick Slieber, Allied Signs, Inc., 33650 Giftos, Clinton Township, Michigan 48035. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us about the sign package? Mr. Stieber: There's not loo much more. As was staled, this is new construction, and this business is basically just trying to identify what they are and who they are to the public. The signs that have been proposed are within the code, so we hope that everything gets pushed through. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas? Mr. Alanskas: Sir, did Kinko's buy the property or did they lease the building? Mr. Slieber: I am not sure. I think it is a lease. It is a lease, absolutely. Mr. LaPine: Is this going to be a 24-hour operation? Mr. Stieber: No, its not. Mr. LaPine: The one at Plymouth Road is open 24 hours, isn't it? Mr. Stieber: I couldn't tell you. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or againstthis petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-02-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-01SN-01, submitted by Kinko's requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 37330 Six Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 8, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by ImagePoinl, as received by the Planning Commission on December 5, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 20949 2. That no signage shall be allowed on the awnings and said awnings shall not be backlit; 3. That all window signage shall be limited to what is permitted by Section 18.50D Permitted Signs, subheading (g) "Window Signage"; 4. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site, including but not limited to the building or around the windows; 5. That the signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 6. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; and 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. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. YI=1 kS E;.%= 9 =k 1 It 1[a] i! FIQrLSr➢Cc]=ID➢ -1.1:4 Cal i!fAIF.-I *Ye]C Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004 -01 -GB -01, submitted by Barton & Larson Law Office requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 32080 Schoolcratt Road in the Southeast % of Section 22. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Schoolcrett between Merriman and Hubbard Roads. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between office zoned property and land zoned residential. This property abuts residential along its east and north property lines. There is an existing stepped 5 to 6 fool high brick wall running along the entire east property line. The request for a permanent wall waiver is for the north property line. The Site Plan shows that there is a 15 foot setback area 20950 between the rear of the office building and the north property line. The petitioner is requesting that this entire 15 feel be considered as a permanent wall substitute. An on-site inspection shows that the rear area is mainly greenbelt. The driveway for the house to the north cuts right through the parking lot of the office building. The brick wall that runs along the east property line turns and extends about 20 feel along the north property line. An iron gale and brick gale column continues across to approximately the back of the office building. The abutting residential front lawn essentially blends in with the office's rear yard. It is very hard to tell where the office property ends and the residential property begins. There is a shaped landscape bed around the air conditioners and utility transformers immediately behind the office building. Screening the equipment are small trees and bushes. A line of four trees, two evergreens and two deciduous, seem to define and split the properties. A letter has been submitted from the abutting residenfial property owner, Mr. Mardiros. He states that he sees no reason for a wall. During the on-site inspection, Mr. Mardiros talked with staff. He was very adamant about not wanting a wall and likes the arrangement and layout as it is. He pointed out that at one lime he also owned the office property. He explained that when the office building was constructed, it was built with no windows along its rear wall. Itwas the intentto have the solid wall of the building lake the place of a screen wall and buffer the house from the office property and Schoolcratt Road. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated January 8, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 26, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot and drives, especially on the east side of the building, need repair and maintenance performed. This Department has no further objections 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? Pat Fitzpatrick 32080 Schoolcmtt, Suite 104, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. McCann: Is there anything additional you'd like us to be aware of? 20951 Ms. Fitzpatrick: No. The building was built I think 10 years ago. We've owned it for five. We've had absolutely no problems with the arrangement that we have. It was under a temporary approval for a variance, so we just wanted to continue that as a permanent approval. Mr. McCann: Thank you. I've visited there many times. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Shane: A question for the staff: Is this the only property along this area which does not have a prolecfive wall? Mr. Miller: Yes. This is the only properly that does not have a prolective wall. To the west, that office building has a protective wall behind it. Mr. Shane: And some others west of there as well? Mr. Miller: Yes. I believe so. I'm not sure how far west, but I'm sure the wall runs probably that whole office stretch. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Ms. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and adopted, it was #01-03-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request as submitted by Barton & Larson Law Office in Pefition 2004 -01 -GB -01 to subsfitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 32080 SchoolcraR Road in the Southeast % of Section 22, subject to the following conditions: 1. Thal the natural and landscaped greenbelt along the north property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on December 17, 2003, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That using a combination of tree species, along with other landscape materials, contributes to the site's aesthetic attractiveness, helps reduce visual monotony, and provides year-round appeal; and 3. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's 20952 effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, Alanskas, LaPine, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: Shane ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Due to the fact that this original site plan only required Planning Commission approval, you will not require City Council approval. YY=11i FE, l9=k I k I[a]C FIQrB19LIKrYZIP1 ,=1U[Z4]-]IC Mr. Piencecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-04-02-09 submitted by Red Robin of Michigan requesting approval of landscaping for the restaurant located at 16995 South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast % of Section 18. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Six Mile between 1-275 and Laurel Park. On June 23, 2003, Red Robin received Waiver Use Plan Approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with the redevelopment of a full service restaurant on the subject site. As part of the approval, it was conditioned: That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted for approval within 60 days following approval of this petition by the City Council. The submitted landscape plans show that, with the exception of a few trees being removed, the site's existing perimeter landscaping would basically remain as is. Two ash trees and three Colorado blue spruce trees would be removed along the east boundary and three Colorado blue spruce trees would be removed from the south perimeter. The main focus of the makeover is the landscaping of the immediate area around the new restaurant. Sculptured lawn areas and a variety of decorative plant materials would be installed between the building and its adjacent walkways. The plantings would include: Sewiceberry trees, yews, Burning Bushes, Junipers, Blue Holly shrubs, Barberry hedges, daylilies and clumps of 20953 Maiden Grasses. A note on the plan stales, "Contractor shall bid project so that entire perimeter is irrigated, as well as new irrigation of the immediate building landscape." Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site; provided landscaping equals 21% of the site. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated January 8, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of December 26, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections 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? Lew Ansara, Ansara Restaurant Group, 39303 Country Club Drive, Suite A22, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anything additional you'd like to tell us? Mr. Ansara: No. I think we have mel or exceeded the City requirement for landscaping because we lake pride in our buildings. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: I just have one. To separate the lawn from the planting bed areas, you're going to have a three inch 12 gauge metal going across? Mr. Ansara: I'm sorry. Across where? Mr. Alanskas: To separate the planting from the grass, you're going to have a three inch ... it's a metal slop. Al times from hot to cold during the winter months that will come up Who will maintain it and assure that it slays down? Mr. Ansara: We'll insure that it slays down. But what we've been trying to do, and I know whalyou're talking about, is substituting lhalwilh brick walls. Mr. Alanskas: Its a brick, and if that rises, that will be maintained? 20954 Mr. Ansara: Oh yeah. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or againstthis petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-04-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of landscaping, submitted by Red Robin of Michigan, in connection with Petition 2003-04-02-09, which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council on June 23, 2003 (CR 305-03) to utilize a Class C Liquor License for a full service restaurant located at 16995 South Laurel Park Drive in the Northeast'''/ of Section 18, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plans marked Page 1 and Page 2, both dated November 1, 2003, prepared by Verdure H2O, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. Thalthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from the lop of the root ball to the mid -point of the lop leader; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 4. 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; and 5. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 20955 ITEM #5 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FEE INCREASES Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolutions #666-03 and #672-03 to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.58, 18.62, 19.03, 19.08, 21.10, 20.03, and 23.03 of Ordinance #543, as amended, to increase fees for the review of Site Plans, Site Condominiums, Waiver Use, Appeals brought before the City Council, Appeals brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Cluster Housing and Planned Residential Housing, and Rezoning petitions. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-05-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolutions #666-03 and #672-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections 18.58, 18.62, 19.03, 19.08, 21.10, 20.03, and 23.03 of Ordinance #543, as amended, to increase fees for the review of Site Plans, Site Condominiums, Waiver Use, Appeals brought before the City Council, Appeals brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Cluster Housing and Planned Residential Housing, and Rezoning petitions. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #6 MOTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING PARKING Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, a motion to hold a public hearing pursuant to Council Resolution #594-03 to determine whether or not to amend Section 18.38 of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off-street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses. 20956 On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-06-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #594-03, and pursuant to Section 23.01(a) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not amend Section 18.38 of Ordinance #543, as amended, to change the off-street parking requirements for certain retail and office uses. FURTHER RESOLVED, that nofice of such hearing shall be given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 876TH Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. McCann, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 87V Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on December 16, 2003. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it was #01-07-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 876" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on December 16, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Piercecchi, Walsh, Alanskas, LaPine, Smiley, Shane, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20957 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 877" Regular Meeting held on January 13, 2004, was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman mr CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary