Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-04-2021163 MINUTES OF THE 883M REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, April 20, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 883d Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. John Walsh, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: William La Pine Dan Piemecchi R. Lee Morrow H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: Robert Alanskas Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman Walsh 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 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 200403-08-05 MULTISTATE TRANSMISSION Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-03- 08-05, submitted by George LaForest, on behalf of Multistate Transmission, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the commercial building located at 34957 Plymouth Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 33. 21164 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road just west of Wayne Road. The petitioner is proposing a one-story addition to the south elevation of the existing transmission facility to be used as warehouse space. The proposed addition would be 3,107 square feet in size. New asphalt pavement would be laid down in the areas behind the new addition and along the westside ofthe building, which is currently covered by gravel, for additional parking. Presently, the rear and side areas are fenced in and are being utilized as equipment storage space. There is also an existing large propane tank located in the southeast corner of the site. An enclosed trash dumpster area is shown next to the proposed landscape area at the southwest comer of the site. Required parking is 76 spaces. They are providing 48 parking spaces and are thus deficient by 28 spaces. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted the petitioner a variance (Appeal Case 2001-07-88) for deficient parking on July 17, 2001. As there was no time limit restriction placed on the variance, it can be applied to this petition. Additional landscaping is shown in front of the transmission shop and at the southwest corner of the site. A note on the plan explains that the design of the landscaping out near Plymouth Road would be 'tin conformance with requirement prescribed by the Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA)." This would include brick piers and an ornamental brick wall. Landscaping required is 15% of the total area of the site; landscaping provided is 12% of the site. The two sides and rear elevations of the existing transmission shop are constructed out of painted block. The front elevation of the existing building is dryvit. The elevation plan shows that the proposed warehouse addition would be constructed out of painted block. A large overhead door and an entrance door would be located on the east elevation. The south elevation would have a single entrance door. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 29, 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. Additional right-of-way of 27 feet should be dedicated to the Michigan Department of Transportation for Plymouth Road at this time. The proposed storm sewer, which is shown out letting to Plymouth Road, will require the approval of the Michigan Department of Transportation." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., 21165 City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 5, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a warehouse addition to the commercial building on property 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 March 23, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the building located at 34957 Plymouth Road. We have no objection to the plans as submitted, however, two handicap parking spaces are required. There is currently one handicap parking space on the property that is not property posted. Another parking space is needed and we recommend that it be placed next to the current parking space and that both spaces be property signed per city ordinance." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 19, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 18, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Attached please find a copy of the letter generated from January 9, 2001 concerning this project and many of the conditions still exist. (2) A current site visit revealed the following conditions: (a) Five junk and/orinopereble unlicensed vehicles were on site at the west end. (b) Rental equipment parked in the rear area. (c) Unenclosed dumpster located in west area. (d) The parking lot still needs repair, repaving, and resealing and double striping. (3) A Zoning Board of Appeals grant for deficient parking was issued. However, as of our site inspection last week, they were in violation of several of the conditions that attached to the variance. This department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Are there any questions for the staff from the commissioners? Hearing none, is the petitioner in the audience? Mr. George LaForest, 34451 Industrial, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the staffs presentation? Mr. LaForesl: No. The only thing I want to make a comment on is the front parking lot. We are waiting for the PRDA to ... they were 21166 supposed to make the changes in the last couple years, but it slowed down. As soon as that's done and they define the entrance to that parking lot, we will resurface the parking lot. We just don't know exactly where it's going to go yet. So as soon as that's done, we plan on resurfacing the lot. Mr. Walsh: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, you're aware that in August of 1995 and in March of 2001 you were granted approval to do this? Mr. LaForest: Right. Mr. Piercecchi: What was the problem? Mr. LaForest: In '95, Commercial Lawnmower was up there and we were trying to add on storage room for them, and they made the decision to move down the street. In 2001, that was just two months before 9-11, and at that time, the new tenant in there was RSI and they needed more space. After 9-11, they put that on hold because their business went south for awhile also. Now they need the storage space, so we're going to gel it built finally. Mr. Piercecchi: Is this a sure go-ahead? Mr. LaForest: Its a sure go-ahead thing as soon as we get the final ... Mr. Piercecchi: Its not going to be three strikes and you're out? Mr. LaForest: No. I don't want to go through this again either or waste your time. But yes, we're definitely going ahead as soon as we get the final approvals. Ms. Smiley: I had just a couple questions. I saw your addendum to the lease. For example, it says that no vehicle is to be parked or left in the front of the building. It also says that there are to be no vehicles stored on the properly. But then in here it says there's five junk or inoperable unlicensed vehicles that are on the site now. Is that your responsibility or is it his responsibility? Mr. LaForest: No. I check it out. There's occasionally a vehicle parked in front overnight and that's generally for a pickup. I try to police that going in every day. In the back of the building, as soon as he has something that people aren't picking up, he has got to wait a certain number of days before he can declare them abandoned and have them lowed out of there, and he's been 21167 1. That the addition shall be for storage or warehouse space only. No commercial use, including Multistate Transmission, shall be permitted to expand into any part of this addition; 2. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet SDA dated February 22, 2001, as revised, prepared by G.A.V. & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; staying pretty much on the ball on that compared to the previous fellow. I think you're aware of the problems we had with him, but he has been pretty much on the ball in the getting rid of these abandoned vehicles. The problem he has is, once he makes the repairs, people are supposed to pick them up and he tries to, as much as possible, get his money out of them before he has them towed out. But he does have them towed out regularly. Ms. Smiley: The letter from Alex Bishop says there's five junk and/or inoperable unlicensed vehicles, so those can't be .... Mr. LaForest: I'll check that out. But he's supposed to have those towed and disposed of. I'll check on that. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any other questions? 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 LaPine, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0443-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-03-08-05, submitted by George LaForest, on behalf of Multistate Transmission, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a warehouse addition to the commercial building located at 34957 Plymouth Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 33, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the addition shall be for storage or warehouse space only. No commercial use, including Multistate Transmission, shall be permitted to expand into any part of this addition; 2. That the Site and Landscape Plan marked Sheet SDA dated February 22, 2001, as revised, prepared by G.A.V. & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 4. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 21168 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-1 dated March 21, 2001, as revised, prepared by G.A.V. & Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 7. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 8. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same material 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 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 11. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated April 19, 2004: - That the junk and/or inoperable unlicensed vehicles parked on the site at the west end shall be removed; - That the rental equipment parked in the rear area shall be removed; - That the site's entire parking lot shall be repaired, repaved, resealed and double striped; 21169 That all conditions of variance appeal case 2001-07-88 shall be conformed to; 12. That the petitioner shall correct to the Police Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated March 23, 2004: - That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Barrier Free Code; 13. That no vehicles shall be left parked in front of the building after business hours, weekends or holidays; 14. That no outdoor storage, placement or display of merchandise, parts, tansmission, oil or any other type of fluids shall be permitted at anytime; 15. That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition; 16. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; and 17. 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. Piercecchi: Was everything covered adequately there? Ms. Smiley: I wanted to see if it was all right with Mr. LaPlne ... Mr. Piercecchi: I'll ask for a friendly amendment on that, Bill. Mr. LaPlne: Okay. I removed the wrong sheet. Mr. Piercecchi: That's okay. We need to include the Inspection Department's report dated April 19, 2004. Mr. Walsh: We have a friendly amendment on the floor. Is there support for the amendment? Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Morrow: I'd just like to make a comment to Mr. LaForest. It seems that transmission repairs have a way of accumulating either derelict cars or cars for a protracted period of time wailing to be picked up, possibly because of the expensive repair. So, we would 21170 certainly look forward to you helping us police that as far as keeping the turnover going and not having any unlicensed cars or... Mr. LaForesl: I definitely will. I think they've done a much better job and we'll slay on it. Mr. Morrow: I'm happy to hear that because like I say, it seems to go with transmission shops, so it just takes a little effort on those particular tenants. Mr. LaForest: Well, I agree. I look at the one on Eight Mile and Middlebell, for instance, they must have 50 cars out there, and that will not happen. Mr. Morrow: Well, those are mistakes we don't like to think about. Mr. LaForesl: I own the building. I don't want that to happen. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #2 PETITION 2004-03-08-06 NATIONAL CITY BANK Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 03-08-06, submitted by Jonna Companies, on behalf of National City Bank, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a bank on property located at 19450 Haggerty Road in the Southwest % of Section 6. Mr. Miller: The property involved in this request is a small OS zoned parcel located on the east side of Haggerty Road, approximately 660 feet north of Seven Mile Road. The subject properly is 0.69 acres in area with 200 feel of frontage on Haggerty Road by a depth of 150 feel. The property contains an existing building that has been used for the offices of a consulting engineer. The north, east, and south boundaries of the parcel adjoin a major development, zoned C-2, known as the Pentagon Entertainment Campus. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct a National City Bank with four drive -up window lanes. The proposed bank would be one-story in height and 3,529 square 21171 feet in size. It would be setback 44.9 feet from Haggerty Road, which complies with the 40 fool front yard setback requirement for a building in an OS district. The bank's drive-thm service would be located on the north side of the building and would have four lanes. Each drive-thru lane would allow stacking of at lead four vehicles. ATM banking would be available in the lane closest to the building. An enclosed trash dumpster area is not shown on the site plan. The majority of the parking for the bank would be available on the south side of the building. The plan, which integrates the parking for the bank with the parking at the entertainment complex, results in surplus parking. Nineteen parking spaces are required, and they are providing 44 spaces. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site, and they are providing 20% landscaping. The bank would be constructed out of brick on all four sides. A 1% fool band of precast concrete would run along the entire base of the building. The support columns of the drive-thm canopy would be constructed out of the same brick and precast concrete materials as the building. The archways framing the front entrance of the bank would be made out of limestone panels. The windows of the building would have limestone sills. Standing seam metal roofs would lop the building and drive-lhru canopy. A sign package has been submitted. The petitioner is requesting approval for two wall signs and a ground sign. All signage would be internally illuminated. According to the site plan, the proposed monument sign would be located approximately 35 feet north of the entrance drive off Haggerty Road in an area that is currently a part of the Pentagon Campus property. Because the proposed signage is in excess of what is allowed by the sign ordinance, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated March 23, 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. No additional right-of-way dedication is required at this time. There is approximately nine feet of grade difference between the existing pavement on the east side of the site and the sidewalk along Haggerty Road. This may require the construction of a short landscaping retaining wall along the Haggerty Road side of the project to permit easy maintenance of the landscaped area between the sidewalk and the site pavement." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, 21172 P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 5, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct a bank on property located on property 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 March 23, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the proposed plans in regards to the proposal to construct a bank on property located at 19450 Haggerty. We have no objections to the plan as submitted. We recommend the installation of a stop sign for vehicles exiting the property onto the access drive." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 14, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 18, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site will need a cross parking agreement for the off property parking to the south. (2) The proposed signage on this site will require the following variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals: (a) Excess number of wall signs - three proposed, one allowed. (b) This site would be allowed approximately 62 square feet of wall signage on one wall. Any other walls would be excess square footage. (c) The monument sign for excessive height and excessive square footage. 6 -foot height allowed, 7 -foot height proposed. 30 square foot signage allowed, 32.9 square feet signage proposed. This Department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. LaPine: The Inspection Department says the site would be allowed approximately 62 square feet of wall signage on one wall. Is that right, Mark? Mr. Taormina: I think they're actually referencing what would be required for a commercial facility. Mr. Miller's report indicated the proper signage, which is 16 square feel. Mr. LaPine: Okay. That's what I was going to ask because I think at the last meeting we talked about 16 feel. If that was correct, then they could have three wall signs, if the ZBA gave it to them, at 20 square feet each. That would give them 60 square feet, which 21173 Mr. Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, 26100 American Drive, Southfield, Michigan 48034. Thank you very much for having us here tonight. I have with me tonight representatives of the architectural firm and National City that can address some specifics about the building and their signage program. I did want to clarify the issue of cross easements. What we are proposing is that this site will become part of a condominium. Currently, the method of ownership in the Pentagon Entertainment Complex is a site condominium. This site would be integrated into that and be part of the condominium which would, in essence, give it access would be close to the 62 square feet, but I thought it was 16. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Taormina, when did three signs get inlolhe picture? Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure if the Inspection Department was including the one other sign that may have been shown on the elevation plans that we did not consider as signage. Maybe Mr. Miller knows the answer to that question. We're looking at the elevation plans right now. Mr. Miller: The only other sign that they have is the ATM sign. They might be counting that. We count that as a directional sign. Mr. Piercecchi: Because when we looked aphis, I remember in studylhere was a sign on the west wall, 20 square feet, and a sign on the south wall for 20 square feel. And there's a choice, of course, between that and the monument, and it appeared that, in lieu of other signage in that area, that the two wall signs appeared appropriate, but I was wondering when the third one came in. That was my original question. But as far as we're concerned, we're still functioning under the west and south when we referlo the documentation here? Mr. Miller: Yes. That's past practice when they have an ATM sign or an enter/exitsign. We don't count those as signs. Mr. Piercecchi: So we're still talking about the west and the south? Mr. Miller: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Any other questions for the staff? Mr. Jorma, do you care lojoin us? Mr. Frank Jonna, Jonna Companies, 26100 American Drive, Southfield, Michigan 48034. Thank you very much for having us here tonight. I have with me tonight representatives of the architectural firm and National City that can address some specifics about the building and their signage program. I did want to clarify the issue of cross easements. What we are proposing is that this site will become part of a condominium. Currently, the method of ownership in the Pentagon Entertainment Complex is a site condominium. This site would be integrated into that and be part of the condominium which would, in essence, give it access 21174 to utilities, site lighting, common landscaping, all the walks. This was an integral part of this proposal and that is something that we're currently working on - an amendment to bring this project into the condominium. Also with respect to the retaining wall, we've done some civil engineering and we do believe there will be a need for a retaining wall. We will provide that along Haggerty Road frontage. I think one of the keys also to this is the complete removal of the existing structure, removal of the existing driveway, and all the traffic patterns will flow through the entertainment complex and allow access to all the members of the condominium. There's cross parking. We feel this is a great ft for this site because of the opportunity to have the peak parking needs of the uses vary. Al night when the bank is closed, that parking space will be available to theater -goers, restaurateurs, whatever. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Jonna, one question. Now that you have established that the retaining wall has to go along Haggerty, what will that wall be? Will it be poured concrete? Will it be a brick wall? Will it be a block wall? Will it be boulders? How will it be done? Mr. Jonna: We currently have some boulders that are retaining this site from our Pentagon site on the north and east side of this site. Our hope is to salvage that material and create it out of the natural boulders. Mr. LaPine: Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Any other questions? Mr. Morrow: The question I have is primarily for the bank people. I asked at the study session to the architect what the disposition of their bank up at Six Mile and Haggerty would be. Would that be vacated in preference to this place? Lincoln Lewis, National City Bank. I'm a Senior Vice President based in Kalamazoo, Michigan. I'm here to answer your questions regarding any operational issues. I didn't hear the question. Mr. Morrow: Currently you have a bank at Six Mile and Haggerty. My question was, will you vacate that and move to this new location or will you have both locations going? Mr. Lewis: We actually have two facilities in Livonia right now, one at Eight Mile and Farmington and at Six Mile and Haggerty. Both are leased locations and our lease at Six Mile and Haggerty is up 21175 next year. We haven't really made a decision yet but I think, based on this prototype being built on the Jonna property, it delivers the new systems that we like, the look we want and it's a free-standing facility as opposed to one that's part of an office building. So we think it's a better facility for our customers and our employees, so it's likely that it would be closed, but that decision is notfinal. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thankyou. Mr. Lewis: Are there any questions about the bank? Mr. Walsh: Any questions? Okay, thank you, sir. Why don't we have the architect come up and address the building for a few minutes? Tony Burgoyne, GPD Associates, 520 South Main Street, Akron, Ohio 44311. Just a few additional comments. A slop sign on the south ingress/egress access drive will be added to the site plan pursuant to the Police Department's request. The only other question that I had about the signage requirements is, 64 square feel of wall signage is required for one wall. Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: The limitation would be 16 square feel on the front of the building, which would be that side facing Haggerty Road. Mr. Burgoyne: So additional signs for additional facades would require variances? Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Burgoyne: Our total square foot of package for wall signs is 60 square feel. That would include three signs, one on the west side, one on the south side and one on the east side. This is pursuant to the study meeting we had in lieu offoregoing a monumenlsign. We would request a variance for two wall signs and comply with the requirements of the City for one wall sign. Mr. LaPine: What would happen here, all we can approve tonight is the conforming sign, which is one sign, which is actually 16 square feel. You can go to the ZBA and request two additional signs. We'll give you three signs at 60 square feet, then you can make all three signs 20 square feel. But right tonight, you're only going to get approval for one sign. Mr. Burgoyne: For one sign? 21176 Mr. LaPine: Then you have to file your appeal to the ZBA. Mr. Shane: I was just reading the conditions of approval. Item 13 says that we would be approving only the wall sign and Item 14 says that the approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance form the Zoning Board of Appeals. That leaves me to believe that we're talking about more than one wall sign. That's the way I remember it. I don't know if it's two or three. Mr. Burgoyne: In our study meeting discussions, we increased it to three. It was originally two on our site plan package. Mr. Shane: I was under the impression, at least I voiced my opinion at the time, three wall signs is fine with me. You can't see them all at once anyways. Mr. LaPine: I don't have any problem with three signs, but I think he has to go to the ZBA to gel the variance. Mr. Shane: Oh, yeah. I agree. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane's question is to the language in Item 14 and Item 13. Mr. Morrow: If I'm following this correctly, you could be approved for two signs tonight - one on the ground and one on the building. Is that correct? Mr. Walsh: No, we're only able to approve one. Mr. Morrow: So what I'm saying, if you go in lieu of the ground sign, can you have two on the building even though they exceed the square footage? Mr. Walsh: We wouldn't be able to grant that. They would still have to go to the ZBA. Mr. Morrow: So just one sign is all we can approve? Mr. Piercecchi: I don't agree with this logic here. There's no reason why we can't approve two wall signs, which was the original package, and then it has to be concurred on by the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are just really recommending it. We've done this many times. Its only rare that we just pass conforming signage. We've done this many, many times in the past. 21177 Mr. Shane: Mr. Chairman, that was my point. If we only approve the sign that's permitted, then you don't need Item 14. If we do what I thought we were going to do, we need Item 14. Mr. Piercecchi: Whalshould be in Item 14, if I may, is that the subject approval of signage here, which is 20 square feel of signs located on the west and the south is hereby approved on the condition of a variance being granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Shane: You could combine Item 13 and Item 14 together somehow. Mr. Piercecchi: That's the way we've done it in the past. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, if that's the case, and they want three signs, I have no problem with the three signs. Let's go ahead and say we'll give them three signs and let them go to the ZBA. If the ZBA approves it, they approve it. Why slick with two? Mr. Piercecchi: Fine. Mr. LaPine: Just go ahead and give them the three signs with the understanding ... Mr. Walsh: We'd have to change Item 13. Mr.Shane: Right. Mr. LaPine: With the understanding that there will be no free standing sign. Mr. Piercecchi: Yes, that's fine. Mr. Walsh: How does that sound? Mr. Burgoyne: That's sounds exactly what we talked about the in the study meeting. Just to address the square footage of the sign, you said 16 square feel would be the maximum square fool for a wall sign? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. Mr. Burgoyne: We can shrink our lettering sign on the facades of our building to meetlhalsquare footage requirement. Mr. Walsh: I think that's meaningful as we work towards a conclusion. You're going to probably need to discuss that further with the ZBA. I think what we're going to lel you leave with tonight, and I 21178 expect the votes will follow the discussion, you're going to leave with a sign package for three wall signs tonight. And then our approving resolution will be subject to the ZBA's action and that's where you're going to gel into the nilly gritty of the exact square footage. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, I think what we can do, we can approve three wall signs not to exceed a total of 60 square feel, and the ZBA can allow the three at 20 or if they want to knock them down to 16 or whatever, they can do it, as long as they don't exceed a total of 60 square feel. Mr. Walsh: I think that's a good suggestion. Mr. Morrow: If they knock it down to 16 square feel, then we get three times that. What if we approve the 16 and if he wants 20, he takes it to the ZBA? Mr. Piercecchi: I think, Mr. Chairman, ilwould be prudent ifwe Ieftthe numbers of square footage off the approval and let them carry the ball. Mr. Walsh: We have a couple suggestions on square footage, but Mr. Piercecchi, I think, just to move this along, I think your suggestion might be the best only because we will leave that detail to the ZBA. They'll have access to our record and we'll certainly have an opportunity to speak with them, and we will convey to them your comments this evening. We'll lel you work with them on that. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Chairman, it's not acceptable to me because then we're giving power to the ZBA that I really think is our power to set the square footage that we want. The ZBA can say the number of signs they can have. They can tum us down. The ordinance says only one sign and they can put one sign at 60 square feel in reality. I would just as soon give them the 60 square feel or if you want to say 16 times 3, which is 48, 1 have no problem with that. But I think we should set the standard here. Mr. Walsh: Will you commit to 48 square feet in total for the three signs? Mr. Burgoyne: National City Bank would prefer to go with the 20 square fool, 60 square feel total in a signage package. We would be willing to concede to that, but again, I'd like it on record that we would prefer the 20 square foot size. 21179 Mr. Walsh: To move along, let's make sure we have any other questions answered, and let's see what resolutons percolate from our discussions this evening. Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Taormina: I wasn't clear as to the type of retaining wall that was proposed along the west side. Mr. Burgoyne: The design is in the process, right now, obviously, but from what we understand, they're trying to use the existing boulders on site to create this one to six fool retaining wall along the west side of the site. Mr. Jonna could probably answer the questions about that better than I could. Mr. Taormina: The reason I raise that, Mr. Chairman, is only to get a sense of what the height is going to be and what that grade separation is going to be adjacent to the sidewalk. This is just to alert the petitioner and its designers of the possible need for some kind of a protective barricade adjacent to the sidewalk, but it sounds like it may not be necessary if you retain a one on six slope adjacent to that area. Mr. Burgoyne: F�aclly. We do maintain a nice slope from the south side of the site where the retaining wall will be needed. There will be a drop but no more than six feel. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Jonna? Mr. Jorma: If I may add, Mark, the other thing when previous development put a new approach in, they swung the sidewalk toward the building. When we remove that approach, there was something the County asked them to do about that. We'll straightened that out so we can get the pedestrians further away. Our hope would be to have a minimum of three to four feel of flat area adjacent to the sidewalk, start the slope down, set the wall back a couple of feet off the back curb, which should provide a pretty safe situation, similar to the condition up near Bahama Breeze, but we would use the boulders as the method of retaining. Mr. Taormina: I think that would work, especially if the sidewalk is realigned in that area. It would provide greater separation so there wouldn't be a concern over safety as much as there would be if that boulder edge was immediately adjacentto the sidewalk. Mr. Piercecchi: In reference to the motion that was prepared, the sign package submitted on March 17 was for two wall signs and one 21180 monument. The motion scrubs the monument sign so there would be no free-standing idenlifcation. My question, Mr. Chairman, is should March 17 be changed to a new date which represents the three signs? Mr. Walsh: Clearly, whoever offers the motion is going to have to amend Item 13 to achieve what we discussed this evening. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. Is there a specific date? This is submitted by these people on March 17, so that would be changed to April 20? Mr. Walsh: Mark, do we have in our possession an updated site plan? Mr. Taormina: I'm not sure that we have a plan that shows the three wall signs, so we'll have to just eliminate any reference to a sign package. Instead, the Planning Commission would just approve the three wall signs not to exceed whatever square footage is agreed upon. That language could substitute the language in Item 13. Mr. Walsh: Are there any other questions from the petitioners? Hearing none, is there anybody in the audience wishing to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, is there anything the petitioner would like to add? Mr. Jorma: No, just thank you for having us here this evening. Mr. Walsh: A motion is in order. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Morrow, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-44-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-03-08-06, submitted by Jonna Companies, on behalf of National City Bank, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a bank on property located at 19450 Haggerty Road in the Southwest I/ of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet C2 dated March 11, 2004, prepared by GPD Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That appropriate recordable legal instrumentation, such as a cross parking agreement, that gives notice and outlines 21181 the terms of how the subject property(s) would share parking, be supplied to the City; 3. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet Ll dated March 11, 2004, prepared by GPD Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. Thalthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 5. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 6. 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; 7. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A200 dated March 1, 2004, as revised, prepared by GPD Associates, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 8. 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; 9. That all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from public view on all sides by screening that shall be of a compatible character, material and color to other exterior materials on the building; 10. 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 gales shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all limes; 11. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan; 12. That all light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feet in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light 21102 trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 13. That three wall signs, not to exceed a combined total of 60 square feet, is hereby approved; further, this site shall not be permitted a freestanding identification sign; 14. 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; 15. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 16. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; and 17. 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. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. LaPine: So we're saying in Item 13, we're going to allow the three signs. Is that correct? Mr. Walsh: Correct. Mr. LaPine: But we're not giving any square footage for the three signs? Mr. Walsh: It was not provided in the motion, so do you want to suggest that as an amendment? Mr. LaPine: I prefer to have it, but if the other members feel comfortable with it, I wouldn't fight it. But I would feel more comfortable if we said not to exceed 60 square feel for the three signs. Mr. Shane: I would concur with that. I would like to see the 60 square feel. Mr. Walsh: So I will accept that as a motion of amendment and support. Mr. Piercecchi: I accept the friendly amendment so you won't have to go through any motions. 21183 Mr. Walsh: Okay, we will add that in Item 13. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Piercecchi: I'd like to make a comment to the people here that are putting this bank up. I am very pleased that this is the structure that is going there. Originally, there were a couple of companies that were supposedly thinking about moving in there, and neither of them would have had an access off of Haggerty Road. And I know I speak for the majority of the members of the Planning Commission that this is a safety item that we were hoping could be avoided, and I personally am delighted that you people will not access onto Haggerty Road and will eliminate that safety problem. Mr. Jorma : I appreciate your comments. Mr. Walsh: I'd also like to thank the Jonna Company for slicking with us. This is about a seven or eight year project. Mr. Jorma : I didn't have any grandchildren when this started, now I do. Mr. Walsh: We're pleased that it is going to be part of complex and thank you for your patience. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2004-03-08-07 ADVANCED AUTO WASH Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 03-08-07, submitted by Gallagher Group, on behalf of Advanced Auto Wash, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the car wash located at 29100 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest % of Section 1. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the existing car wash located on the north side of Seven Mile Road between Middlebelt Road and Parkville Avenue. The existing car wash is a painted while brick building containing a flat roof. The only distinguishing feature is a brightly colored vinyl awning that runs around the front and east elevations of the building. A new multi -gabled roof would increase the height 21164 of the building from about 13 feet to approximately 34 feel. Some of the new architectural elements would include roof dormers, louver screening, glass blocks, aluminum trim on the fascia, and a shingled roof. A fully funclional clock would be integrated into the design on the front (south) elevation. EIFS panels would infill the peak areas of the roof. New glass overhead doors would be installed at the entrance of the car wash, which is on the north side (rear) of the building, and the three exit doors on the south side (front) of the building. The site plan shows that the existing small building (pay booth) just east of the car wash would be removed. Additional landscaping would be established on the site and some of the existing landscape areas would be replanted. Towards the rear of the building there is presently a striped asphalt area that outlines one side of the stacking lane and helps direct vehicles to the entrance of the car wash. The landscape plan shows a new landscape area developed in this unused space. New foundation landscaping would be planted along the east side of the building. The existing areas out in front of the car wash, between the two drives off Seven Mile Road and east of the easterly drive, would be reestablished with new plantings. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site, and they are providing 22% landscaping. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 2, 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. Additional right-of-way is not required. The legal descriptions provided with the application are correct except that the phrase Liber 60 in the description of parcel 1 should be Liber 66." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated April 5, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of the car wash located at 29100 Seven Mile Road on property 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 April 16, 2004, which reads as follows: "We have reviewed the plans in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the car wash located at 29100 Seven Mile Road. We recommend that a stop sign be installed at the sidewalk for 21185 vehicles exiting the business. Please remind the petitioners that the handicap parking space must be individually posted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 13, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 24, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The Flagpole is not correctly located on either the existing site plan orproposed site plan. It currently exists at a permitted location near the southeast corner of the main building. Azoning variance would be required to locate it any closer to the property line. (2) An unused dumpster enclosure is currently existing on the east end of the back building and is not noted on the site plan. (3) The concrete paving of the site needs clean up repair and maintenance. Several areas may need to be replaced or top coated. (4) The areas behind the north building and west of the main building need to be cleaned up. (5) No signage has been reviewed." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Richard Gallagher, Gallagher Group, 27476 Five Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Good evening. A lot of things have happened since we put this package together. Last year, Seven Mile was pretty well tore up and everybody knows about that. They lost a lot of business over this, and we're trying to get financing, and the financial statement does not look very promising for this project basically because of what happened last year. He might be selling this property, not because he wants to but because that's just the way it is. But the people that are interested in purchasing this properly are interested in what we are doing. Okay? I didn't go ahead with color renderings and the whole nine yards like you guys like to see, but I do have photographs of copies of the colors that we will use. We would like to gel your blessing on everything we're talking about doing right now, and there's a lot of things that have to be done on that site, which we're aware of that Mark has just brought up in his letter from different things, but it has not been a picnic over there. Nobody says, hey, we're sorry your business has been interrupted but your taxes still go on. There's a lot of things that happened to a lot of businesses on Seven Mile that are not very favorable to some of the people on that road. But in any event, we would like to proceed with this, get your blessing on what we're doing because if it does get sold to somebody else, 21186 they're probably going to want to do what we're proposing to do here because somebody has already brought that up. Now the way I look at this, two things can happen now. We can gel your blessing. I'd like to postpone our Council setup until a future dale, but I would like to gel this behind us either plus or minus or whatever which way we want to look at it, but I would like to drop off these photographs for your files of the colors we want to use on this, if that's okay with you people. Mr. Walsh: If you would pass that on to Mark, he will pass it around. Actually start with Mr. Morrow. Are there any comments or questions from the Commissioners? Ms. Smiley asked if we can proceed. We do have a valid petition before us submitted by the property owner. What Mr. Gallagher has done is simply informed us of a potential future event, so we have a valid petition before us for consideration. How that affects your vote, though, is up to you. Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: Mr. Gallagher, do you have any feel for timing on this thing? Mr. Gallagher: It would be nice if I could really hear well, you know. I can hear you perfectly on television. Mr. Shane: Assuming that we give you a blessing tonight, you said you would hold off going to the Council. Do you have any feel for how long that would be? Mr. Gallagher: Well, just hold them off for maybe a month or two, but I know this moves right on to Council as soon as we're through here, generally. We want to make sure everything is flying, so I don't want to waste anybody's time. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Gallagher, we don't control the Council's calendar. If we do approve this, you would have to confer with the Council secretary and Mr. Taylor to determine whether or not they are willing to hold up the consideration of the item. We don't have the ability to control their calendar, so if we pass it, it leaves our hands under the normal and ordinary course and it would be scheduled unless Mr. Taylor agrees otherwise. So that would be something you'd have to address with them. Now, I'm curious, if my colleagues will permit me to ask this question: What about tabling this item until you have a buyer in hand. Mr. Gallagher: I'm sorry? 21107 Mr. Walsh: If we table it until you have a buyer in hand, is that meaningful to you? Mr. Gallagher: We can table it if you want to. Mr. Walsh: Its up to you. Mr. Gallagher: I would rather it pass now with you guys if we can, and just postpone it with Council. I mean, why bother you people twice? Mr. Walsh: Because we have a role in the process, we would like the definitive information before us before we act. And I'm really speaking without conferring with my colleagues, but I think we're in a very speculative area here. I suspect that makes some of us a little nervous, I for one. Mr. Gallagher: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: That's kind of where I was leading when I was asking him how long it might be. If it's going to be a few weeks, that's one thing, but a lot of things can change when property changes hands. I'd feel more comfortable talking to the new owner if the property is going to be sold. There might be even a different package than you have here. So that's my feeling at this point. Mr. Gallagher: Okay. Mr. Morrow: Mr. Walsh, I concur with you. Il sounds like it's remote that the current property owner will move forward with this and they will probably move forward when a new property owner comes into the picture. Al that time, we can deal with the specifics and possibly approve plans that may change quite dramatically. So I would concur with the tabling resolution. Mr. LaPine: I agree with you 100 percent, Mr. Chairman. When we originally looked at these plans, we liked them. It was upgrading what's there now. The problem is, I think I'm approving what I see here. Once we approve these plans and they go on to Council, we basically lose control because the Council could revise the new plans and we would have no say in this. Unless there's a real dire need for us to go ahead and approve this, I don't see any reason why tabling would hurt you. It wouldn't hurt the sale of the property, and as Mr. Morrow brought up, the new owner may come in with a whole new project, a whole different design. 21188 We could approve one design and the Council could approve something else, and all of sudden there's a design we didn't approve. Mr. Gallagher: Okay, then, if we want to table this, we can table this. Mike Ivanovski, 25644 Tireman, Dearborn Heights, Michigan. The guy that's looking at this properly has already looked at these plans and he loves them. So if we wail now, in two months when he goes to buy the properly, it's going to be loo Tale to go through all the site plan approvals because it will be wintertime and nobody builds in the wintertime. But he's already looked at all these drawings. Otherwise I never would have told him to come here and go ahead and gel this approved. Mr. Walsh: I appreciate the circumstances that were described to us, but it's still speculative. The potential purchaser is only potential, and he's not here this evening to hear our comments or for him to convey what his vision is. Sir, I'm anticipating a tabling resolution, but what I can give you is a commitment between this body and our staff to find the quickest dale available when he's ready to be here and you have a signed purchase agreement. I think we would be more comfortable moving forward al that point. The best I think we can do is give you that commitment that we will schedule you as quickly as possible. The other problem here is, even if we went along with the suggestion and approved it tonight, I'm not so sure that the Council is going to buy our actions. Tonight we have no chance to confer with Mr. Taylor or his colleagues as to whether or not they're willing to put the brakes on their own process. So there are more questions here than answers. I'm not trying to belittle your concern. I understand it. The best I think we can do as a body is agree with you that we will schedule it as quickly as possible when you have the purchase agreement in hand and he's ready to move forward. Mr. Ivanovski: Well, Tel's say this deal closes in two months. How long is it going to lake to gel it approved from there? Mr. Walsh: Depending on what our schedule looks like, we can have you on within a week or two. If we're lucky, I think we can look ahead a little bit. Ask Mr. Gallagher to keep in touch with Mr. Taormina, and he could certainly keep him informed at what our schedule looks like. A month would probably be the worst case scenario. The pipeline isn't so clogged that we can't squeeze you in faster than that. 21189 Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, if time is a problem, we could always schedule a special meeting. Mr. Walsh: Correct. Mr. Piercecchi indicated a willingness, and we'd all have to be willing to do it, but we could schedule a special meeting if we had to. We will work with you to keep this moving. You're going to end up with a tabling resolution anyways. That's going to be my prediction. All we can agree to is we will schedule you as quickly as possible so that you can move forward when you have a purchaser. Mr. LaPine: We also shouldn't mislead the petitioner. We can rush this through as much as we want. We can give it a seven day waiver for that matter. But it's the Council that could hold it up; it could be six weeks before they gel on an agenda, so we don't want to mislead you. Mr. Walsh: That's a good point. Mr. LaPine: It could be anywhere from a month, two months to three months. We can do our part. If all the members agree, we can waive the wailing period Council can get you on the agenda ahead of time, that's fine. But they may be jammed up because we're gelling into that time of the year when there's going to be a lot of business and the Council's going to be busy and possibly it's going to be later. So I don't want to mislead you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: That's a good point. Mr. Ivanovski: You know what? This would have never happened but the way those guys were going last year on Seven Mile. It look them eight and half months for a one mile stretch of road. I walked past the guys that were doing the work. I had regular clothes on; I didn't have my shirt on. They're silting there arguing about their boss and how much money he's making off the job and what they're making. That was their only job lineup for the summer, so they said, kick back and take your time. They'd work for five minutes and take an hour break. Mr. Walsh: Well, sir, we're unable to address that. That wouldn't be our responsibility. We wouldn't have the ability to investigate that or acknowledge it. 21190 Mr. Ivanovski: But see, you know, what government workers are like. They don't look at the domino effect hal it lakes on other people, other businesses. The poorguy lost his Schwinn bicycle shop. The guy next to me, he lost his restaurant. There's a new guy in there now. He's been in there five months. Mr. Walsh: Sir, I've indicated that we've heard the concerns and we understand them. The best that we can do is agree with you that we will schedule the item as quickly as possible when you have a purchaser in hand. You've heard the comments from virtually all of us. There's not a willingness here to consider the item in the absence of the assurance that its going to move forward as brought forward. Are there any other questions or comments? Hearing none, a motion is in order. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0445-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2004-03-08-07, submitted by Gallagher Group, on behalf of Advanced Auto Wash, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the car wash located at 29100 Seven Mile Road in the Southwest''/. of Section 1, be tabled. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We will reschedule this upon notification from the petitioner through Mr. Taormina. ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-09-08-26 HUNTER'S PARK Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 09-08-26, submitted by Spalding Properties, on behalf of Hunters Park Estate Site Condominiums, requesting approval for an entrance marker for the condominium development located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 30. Mr. Miller: Hunters Park is a 29 unit site condominium development that was approved in November 19, 2003. This site is located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh and Eckles. As part of the approval of the Master Deed and Bylaws, it was conditioned: "That an entrance marker application shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council fortheir review and approval" In compliance with the above-mentioned 21191 condition, an application for a conforming entrance marker has been submitted. The sign would be located on the west side of the development's road off Plymouth Road. One entranceway sign is permitted under Section 18.50E, which is what they are proposing. As required, the sign would be constructed out of natural materials. The nameplate would be created out of limestone with metal letters. The base or platform would be natural stone with a limestone pier cap. The sign would not be internally illuminated but is permitted to be ground lighted. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated April 13, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 18, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The total sign area may not exceed 20 square feet. (2) The sign must be 10 feet away from all property lines including the east property line of 37865 Plymouth Road. 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. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Hearing none, would the petitioner please join us? Craig Corbell, 3941 Telegraph Road. I'm here on behalf of Hunter's Park Estates Condominium. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to Scott's presentation. Mr. Corbell: Not at this time. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Hearing none, 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 Shane, seconded by LaPine, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-46-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the request for approval for an entrance marker, submitted by Spalding Properties, on behalf of Hunters Park Estates Site Condominiums in connection with Petition 2003-09-08-26, which previously received site plan approval by the City Council on November 19, 2003 (Council Resolution #612-03) for the condominium development located on the 21192 south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Eckles Road in the Southeast'''/ of Section 30, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Entrance Marker illustrated on the plan marked Sheet 1 dated March 1, 2004, prepared by Spalding Properties, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the brick used in the construction shall be full face 4 inch brick, or in the case a precast concrete system or stone is used, it shall meet ASTM C216 standards; and 3. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the sign permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #5 PETITION 2003-04-02-09 RED ROBIN Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 04-02-09 00304-02-09 submitted by Ansara Restaurant Group, on behalf of Red Robin Restaurant, requesting to amend the signage, 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 37701 Six Mile Road in the Northeast'''/ of Section 18. Mr. Miller: On June 23, 2003, Red Robin Restaurant received waiver use approval to utilize a Class C Liquor License in connection with the redevelopment of a full service restaurant. As part of the approval it was conditioned: `That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council." The petitioner is requesting approval to amend the above condition. Red Robin is requesting to erect a nonconforming ground sign. This site is allowed one ground sign at 30 square feel, 6 feel in height and setback 10 feel from the right-of-way line. They are proposing one ground sign at 75 square feel, 9 feel 7.5 inches in height and setback 23 feel from Six Mile Road. They are in excess of 45 square feel in ground sign area and 3 feet 7.5 inches in 21193 ground sign height. The proposed ground sign would be located at the northeast corner of the site, just to the north of the northern most drive off Laurel Park Drive. A note on the site plan indicates that the sign would be mounted on an existing pole. The sign would be internally illuminated and the base would be black vinyl. Because the proposed ground sign is in excess of what is allowed by the Sign Ordinance, a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated April 7, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 19, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This ground sign, as proposed, will require a minimum of three variances form the Zoning Board of Appeals. (a) Excessive height. 6 feet allowed, 9 feet 7-1/2 inches high proposed. (b) Excessive area. 30 square feet allowed, 75 square feet proposed. (c) Excessive length. 10 feet allowed, 10-1/2 feet proposed. 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. Walsh: Are there any questions for staff? Hearing none, would the petitioner please join us? Chuck Veres, Planet Neon, 46593 Grand River, Novi, Michigan. I'm the sign vendor for Red Robin. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Is there anything you'd like to add? Mr. Veres: First off, I did not realize that we would have been looking for a variance for three items. I knew about the square footage and the height. I guess we'd like to volunteer, if it helps, to bring the sign with 10 foot of width so we'd only be attempting to secure two variances. We went with a little more setback than is required. We had the room to put it there. We feel pretty strongly about the sign for a couple reasons. One is it's a standard that Red Robin uses. It's their corporate identity. It's depicted on all their new restaurants, on the building and out at the road. What they will do is, they'll have the red letters that read Red Robin done in what's called a channel letter format and that's individually lit letters with neon inside the letter fortes that creates the letter that you read. That's been a standard that they've used and they would like to utilize it here, but 21194 they're pretty close to what they need in terms of size to be able to manufacture the letters in that process. Mr. Piercecchi: Mark, with a sign like that with neon in it, is that permitted in our ordinance? Mr. Taormina: Yes, as long as the neon is not exposed. The way it is constructed, I believe the neon will be encased in each letter channel. Mr. Shane: If you move this sign closer to the road right -0f --way as you're allowed to do, would that increase the exposure even though the sign was conforming? Mr. Veres: Yeah, the main reason we're asking for this type of sign though is not necessarily for visibility. I mean obviously you want to have your sign visible, but it's a matter of construction and how small we can make this sign and make it match their other locations. The other thing I have not mentioned yet is that we're proposing to remove the existing pylon sign that is quite a bit taller than this sign. Mr. Morrow: The one question I have is, you indicated this is kind of a corporate identity type of thing for ground signs. I went out to look at your facility in Novi, and for the life of me, I didn't see a ground sign there at all. So I guess I'm concerned from the standpoint of was that an option that you were given, your option not to put the sign there or did the City require that the ground sign not go in, or did I miss seeing the sign? Mr. Veres: That's why I said the item about the new identity for Red Robin. I have Lew Ansam with Red Robin here with me this evening. I believe that sign, I put it up for them probably 12 or so years ago before they had their current standard. If you are familiar with the Novi Red Robin, the letters are all on one plane. They are all straight across. Since then, they've gone to this sunburst type layout. Mr. Morrow: Are you talking about on the building? Mr. Veres: Yes. Its a totally different signage package, but all the ones I've done with them over the last several years, they've gone to this new layout. Mr. Morrow: Okay. Thankyou. 21195 Mr. Walsh: Any other questions? Mr. LaPine? Mr. LaPine: One thing that always amazes me when restaurants or any business comes in that has a national identifying sign, they say, well, we only make two or three different sizes and this is the way we want our sign. And numerous times since I've been on this Commission, they tell me that and then I can drive around Metropolitan Detroit and go to Birmingham or Bloomfield Hills, and they got a little smaller sign. They modify the sign according to the ordinance of whatever the community has. So I think the argument that this is the only sign that Red Robin has and this is the one we have to have, just doesn't hold a lot of water because I guarantee, you go to some communities, you probably won't get even the size of sign that we allow you to have. Mr. Veres: I should clarify the reason I'm saying that is because of manufacturing limitations. To manufacture the type of sign, its a physical impossibility. And that's why the first thing I said when I got up here was, we'd be more than happy to make a 10 foot sign, which would be a totally custom sign just for Livonia's Red Robin because that would have us seeking less of a variance. So it would be a totally custom sign made specifically for Livonia. Mr. LaPine: So what are you saying? The sign would go from what? From what size to what size? Instead of 10'6" it would be 10 feet? Six inches your knocking off? Mr. Veres: We could even bring itdown a little bit more. We could probably go down, I think this sign is roughly 75 square feet. Our calculations ...lo get the neon in there and conform to the national electric code, we could be closer to 50 square feet, which would probably bring the sign down fairly substantially. I don't have the exact dimensions, but it would be more like I'd say five by, well, not quite 5 by 10, but it would be somewhere in that ballpark for the sign face. Mr. Piercecchi: I agree with Bill on this so-called prototype signs or whatever you want to call them. I recall a pizza place here that came in Livonia and had to have this and that. I happened to be in Chicago staying at a hotel across the street, and they didn't have any signs. But they had to have it. This was corporate signage. What do you figure you'd lose if you abided by our 30 square feel? 21196 Mr. Veres: Well, we would not be able to make the sign match the other signs that we put up in the Metro Detroit area. I can say that by manufacturing method. It would be a different type of sign totally. Mr. Piercecchi: You're in a different community. Mr. Veres: I understand that. Mr. Piercecchi: Are you saying that you cannot make a sign that would fl our ordinance? Mr. Veres: Not with the same manufacturing methods as we've made the other ones. No. Mr. Piercecchi: Tell me what you mean by manufacturing methods, sir? Mr. Veres: The individual letters with the neon in the channels. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, can't you make a smaller letter? Mr. Veres: No. Physically you have certain limitations as far as ... Mr. Piercecchi: Can you put that sign up on the wall again, Mark? What is so unique that you can't make a smaller letter? Mr. Veres: Well, you have certain things you have to do to prevent arcing. I mean, I've been in the industry 20 years. I could get pretty technical here, but basically, .. . Mr. Piercecchi: That's all right. We can handle it. Mr. Veres: Okay. Basically, you have to have a certain clearance between neon, which is that outline you see inside the letter, and the metal sides. One for readability, two to prevent arcing and to have it light properly. We have successfully made a Red Robin sign at 50 square feet. We felt in-house to be able to make it a UL approved sign and be able to place a UL label, we do not feel we can go any smaller than that with that type of construction. Mr. Piercecchi: Part of the problem we have is the next guy that comes in and says, man, you gave Red Robin 75 square feel of a monument sign. Well, if you were here earlier, one company didn't even get a monument sign. Okay? Then we're stuck with those numbers. There's a reason for the 30 square feel. It's a nice 21197 comfortable sign. It's very viewable. If you can't use the neon, well then use something else. Mr. Veres: Okay. The only thing I would also mention is that we're going to a further setback than we need. Mr. Piercecchi: You're a sign man. I don't know if you're really speaking for the company. The bigger the sign you make, the better for you. I realize that. That's your business. Mr. Veres: Well, sir, I've been in the industry 20 years, and I've had several cities imply that and I think it's, you know, for somebody 20 years in the industry, I do take offense to that remark. Mr. Piercecchi: I know. I know. Mr. Veres: I think that's pretty low. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm aware of that. Mr. Veres: Okay. I don't attack you personally. I have the highest of integrity, and I'm not going to question your integrity if you don't question mine. Mr. Piercecchi: I'm not being adversarial at all. I'm just saying that I see no reason why you can't meet our codes. This is a separate community. It's a different community. Its a high class community, and part of the reason why its a fine community is because we don't have obnoxious signage all over the place. You go some places in the south, they don't even have signs and the restaurants are jammed. Now, I don't see why you can't live with it. Now you said you could go from 75 to 50. Mr. Veres: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: If you can do that, I don't see why you can't go from 50 to 30. Mr. Veres: I'd like to introduce Lew Ansara. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Ansara, if you could stale your name and address. Lew Ansara, Ansara Restaurant Group, 39303 Country Club Drive, Suite A22, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331. 1 am one of the owners of the Red Robin restaurant chain. I'm sure most of you know our family has done business in Livonia for over 30 some years, starting with the Big Boy restaurants. We currently own and 21198 operate 11 Red Robins, 10 of which are in the Stale of Michigan, one is in Toledo, Ohio. We have another one, obviously as you know, we're talking about here in Livonia and another one under conslmcton almost in Flint. It's true that yes, some of the cities don't allow signs at all. So there's nothing we can do about that. But any monument signs that we have put in have been with neon channel letters, plex-base covered, and physically, as Chuck was indicating, that anything less than 50 we cannot possibly do the neon. It has been our signature sign. It has been wherever possible to put in, we put in. Sure, we could put in a sign at 20 square feel if we had to, but it becomes at that point .... we can do a linear sign at 30 feel, but it won't be this sign. And that's what we put in. Our signs are attractive as our buildings are. I'm sure you know. And we're asking obviously for a variance. It doesn't need to be the 75 feel, so you wouldn't have to tell the next person up that we granted 75 feel to Red Robin. We are asking for a slight variance to 50 feet. We can make it happen at 50, but anything less than, we're going to be faced with a sign that we simply haven't put up. Mr. Morrow: This is just a point of information. The fact that the setback is 23 feet versus the 10 fool, does that allow any larger sign according to the ordinance? Mr. Walsh: No. Mr. Morrow: In other words, the setback doesn't dictate the size? Mr. Walsh: That's correct. Mr. Morrow: Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: I want to add, sir, that if this was your only signage, that's another ballgame too, but you know you do gel 80 square feel on the wall. Mr. Ansara: I think It's 75. Mr. Piercecchi: According to what I've got written here, you've got one wall sign not to exceed 85 square feet, and it said you've already got the permit on that one. Mr. Ansara: Well then I guess our variance, if we go to 50 feet, we're only asking for a 10 fool variance total in sign package, because we're only pulling 75 feel on the building. 21199 Mr. Piercecchi: Well, you're allowed 85. Mr. LaPine: Will you justjog my memory, Mr. Ansara? Mr. Ansara: Yes. Mr. LaPine: The front of the building, the way it's built, isn't there a big robin integrated in the front of the building? Mr. Ansara: No. Mr. LaPine: There's not? Mr. Ansara: What we have on the lop of the restaurant is what we call the bird's nest. Its more like a barrel now. We put our arched Red Robin sign right on that barrel. Mr. LaPine: So that's up pretty high, isn't it? Mr. Ansara: Its above the doorways, 10 -15 feet. Mr. LaPine: Let me tell you. On two occasions if I remember right, the restaurant to the east of you, I think it's been sold, the Ground Round, had a small sign. They came in to us and wanted a larger sign because they felt that the business wasn't going and we denied them on both occasions. Now, I understand thallhe restaurant has been sold, and they're going to be coming back to us for a new signage package and a new deal. If I give you 75 or even 50 square feel, I dont know what he's going to come in and ask for. He's probably going to ask for the same thing we give you. Mr. Ansara: I know the owner of that restaurant, by the way. I know who it is. Personally, he's a friend of mine. I can only ask for what our company would like to have. Mr. LaPine: And we're not trying to give you a hard time. Mr. Ansara: Oh, I understand. Mr. LaPine: We're just trying to protect our ordinance. I guess I'm open to some give and lake here, but I don't know if I can go with the 50. 21200 Mr. Shane: Is there any other way you can construct this sign with internal lighting as opposed to the method of lighting you're talking about now and still achieve the same effect or similar effect? Mr. Veres: Not the same effect, no. We could backlight a sign and make it two square feet, but it would not have the same effect. Mr. Shane: Yes, but could you make the sign so that the Red Robin appears in the same position that it does? Mr. Veres: No. Oh, the same position? Yes. We could have it just be a backlit face. Mr. Shane: And America's Gourmet Burgers and Spirits could also appear on the sign if it was smaller? Mr. Veres: Yes. Mr. Shane: And move the sign up to 10 feet, move it close to the road, and you've got the same basic effect as you have here except that you don't have the neon. That's something to think about. Mr. Veres: Its a unique look that has worked out real well, and it kind of helps idenlifylhe restaurant. Mr. Shane: I understand, but I think what you have to understand is our point of view is that we have an ordinance that we try to slick lo. It doesn't always happen, but this Commission sticks to the ordinance as you probably can see most of the time. Mr. Veres: It is my understanding that we can just reface the pylon sign and have a sign less in compliance than what we're proposing. Mr. Shane: I appreciate that. Mr. Veres: I mean that's probably what we'd look at if we can't do this. Mr. Shane: Well, I would like to have you do something like this, but I'd like to see if you couldn't come a little closer to where we are and no further where you are, I guess. Mr. Morrow: To go along with what H has said here, the Planning Commission writes the ordinance. That's our responsibility. People constantly come to us and say you know, we want you to waive the ordinance thalyou wrote, and that's kind of hard for us to do because if we felt it should be 50 square feel or 75 21201 square feet, we would have it in the ordinance. The dilemma we face is people asking us to move off of the ordinance that we write as if we don't know what we're doing. Mr. Ansara: We would never insinuate that. Mr. Morrow: I know that, and I'm not laking it personally either, Mr. Ansara. Mr. Ansara: We dont want to put the Zoning Board out of business. Mr. Morrow: That's what they get paid for, but no, I'm not talking specifically to you, I'm just talking in general. The dilemma we face day in and day out. Mr. Ansara: As I said, we respect what this committee does and what it stands for. Its just that we feel strongly that our sign has been the neon. Like I said, some cities and we mentioned the Town Center, I believe, obviously still has the existing 12 year old sign up there. Town Center is not going to allow those type of signs there. Frankly speaking, we're appealing for something else there anyway right now. And Novi has been far tougher than Livonia, as I'm sure most of you know. It is an attractive sign. That's all I can say. Its a first class sign done by a first class company, and we like to feel we're a first class organization. Mr. Morrow: We're certainly delighted that you've come to Livonia and certainly we're delighted with the building you're pulling up there. Our only point of contention right now is the size of the sign. Mr. Ansara: Well, what we came in for is very large, and we could obviously do the same type of sign down to 50 square feel, but as he said, its physically impossible to UL comply and have anything that's going to be safe to put up there. Mr. Walsh: Are there any further comments or questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, Mr. Ansara, would you like to have the last word before we go to a motion? Mr. Ansara: I would just hope and appeal to you that maybe this is one time where the committee would make an exception in the better interest of our restaurant chain, and hopefully, maybe one day you will re -write the rules. I don't know. But I hope today that you'll see it our way. 21202 Mr. Walsh: Thank you. A motion is in order. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Pieroecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-47-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request to amend the signage in connection with Petition 2003-04-02-09 submitted by Ansara Restaurant Group, on behalf of Red Robin Restaurant, requesting to amend the signage, which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council on June 23, 2003 (Council Resolution #305-03), to utilize a Class C Liquor License for a full service restaurant located at 37701 Su Mile Road in the Northeast % of Section 18, be denied for the following 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 or demonstrated any type of hardship for such a large sign for this location; 3. That approving this signage request would set an undesirable precedent for the area; 4. That approving this application would not be aesthetically in the City's best interest; and 5. That a conforming ground sign would adequately serve in identifying the site and directing customers to the restaurant. Mr. Walsh: Is there any discussion? Mr. Shane? Mr. Shane: I'd just like to say to Mr. Ansam that Novi used to be tougher than we are until Mr. Morrow came on board. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Ansara, we appreciate you coming this evening, and we're certainly familiar with your company's business in the City. My family and I frequent at lead two of your restaurants on a regular basis and we enjoy them both. And Planet Neon, I've seen you here both in my capacity as a Planning Commissioner and a Council member. I think you've always done a good job, 21203 but I think what you're hearing tonight is we don't see a need justification to move this forward, but we will always attempt to work with you and look forward to a good continuing relationship. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with a denying resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of ouragenda. ITEM #6 PETITION 2003-09-02-19 JON MASSA Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 09-02-19, 00309-02-19, submitted by Jon Massa requesting approval of a landscape plan as required by Council Resolution #620-03 for the automobile and light truck repair facility located at 30759 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest %of Section 2. Mr. Walsh: We have a tabled item. I would first look for a motion to remove this from the table. On a motion by Piercecchi, seconded by Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #04-48-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the request for approval of landscaping, submitted by Jon Massa, in connection with Petition 2003-09- 02-19, which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council on December 3, 2003 (CR 620-03) for the automobile and light truck repair facility located at 30759 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest %of Section 2, be removed from the table. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Miller: On December 3, 2003, the petitioner received waiver use approval (CR 620-03) to operate an automobile and light truck repair facility on properly located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Milburn Avenue. As part of that approval it was conditioned: "That a fully detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council within 60 days following approval of this petition by the 21204 City Council," and "that the site plan shall be revised so as to provide additional landscaping in the east side yard area between the building and the Milburn Avenue right-of-way." The original landscape plan only showed projected landscaping for the front yard of the site, between the building and Eight Mile Road. On March 31, 2004, the pefitioner submitted a revised landscape plan. The new plan shows an expanded landscaped area at the northeast corner of the site. The new area would be planted with dwarf burning bushes and other low laying shrubs and a crab apple tree. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No, there is none. I'd just like to point out that following the last meeting, Mr. Miller and I mel the owner of this property on-site to discuss the various opfions. The one thing that we keyed in on was the fact that this portion of the site is not presently well defined with any type of landscaping. As Scott showed on the previous plan, a number of improvements were scheduled along the front of the building as well as within the right-of-way and immediately south of the sidewalk adjacent to those parking stalls. What was not being considered at that time was any kind of enhancement to the northeast comer of the property. In looking at that area, we fell that there was some opportunity to increase the landscaping by removing one additional parking space since there is surplus parking available presently on the site, and then define that area better through shrubbery and a tree planting. There is one constraint. There is a utility pole that you can see if you look on the lett side of the drawing. The red dol shows the pole and guy wires that are in that location presently, but the area adjacent to that would be planted with shrubs as well as an ornamental tree, something that would not interfere with the overhead power lines. Thank you. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for staff? Hearing none, if the petitioner would please join us. Jon Massa, Jon's Advanced Auto Center, 8916 Danzig, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add? Mr. Massa: No. Just the sooner we can get approval, the better. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for Mr. Massa? Hearing none and seeing no one in the audience, a motion is in order. 21205 On a motion by Smiley, seconded by La Pine, and unanimously adopted, it was #0449-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of landscaping, submitted by Jon Massa, in connection with Pefilion 2003-09-02-19, which previously received waiver use approval by the City Council on December 3, 2003 (CR 620-03) for the automobile and light truck repair facility located at 30759 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest % of Section 2, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plan prepared by Green Valley Landscaping, as received by the Planning Commission on March 31, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. Thatthe height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top 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; 5. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolution #620-03, which granted wavier use approval for the operation of automobile and light truck repair facility, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions; and 6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 21206 ITEM #7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 881st Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 881" Regular Meeting held on March 9, 2004. On a motion by Shane, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #04-50-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the 881st Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Morrow ABSENT: Alanskas Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 883rd Regular Meeting held on April 20, 2004, was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary