Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1999-02-09 16668 MINUTES OF THE 779TH REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 9, 1999,the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 779th Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with approximately 45 interested persons in the audience. Members present: James C. McCann Elaine Koons Dan Piercecchi Robert Alanskas Michael Hale William LaPine Messrs. Al Nowak, Planner IV and Scott Miller were also present. Mr. McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request,this Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing, makes 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 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 filing. 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. Mr. McCann: We will begin with the Miscellaneous Site Plan. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda is Petition 99-1-8-6 by K& F Land Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6. Mr. Miller: This property is located on the east side of Victor Parkway between Pembroke and Eight Mile. The petitioner is requesting approval to construct an office building on property located across the street north of the Victor V office building. The new building would be 2-stories in height and a total of 86,750 sq. ft. in size. K&F Land Company went before the Zoning Board of Appeals, Case#9711-174,to seek a variance to erect a nonconforming office building on the subject site. That case was tabled to the ZBA and this applicant was directed to file for a change in zoning. Access to the site would be achieved by two drives off Victor Parkway and a single drive off Pembroke Avenue. They are required to have 347 parking spaces, they have 397 parking spaces provided. So they meet the parking requirement. For the landscaping they are required to have 15%of the total area of the site 16669 and they have provided 33% landscaping for the total site. The building elevation plans show that the new office building would be full face 4-inch brick on all four sides. Highlighting the entrances would be glass and a stone accent material. Mr. McCann: Al, is there any correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We have a letter dated February 8, 1999 which states: "In response to the captioned petition,the Police Department has no objection to the site plan as submitted. Please advise the petitioner that all handicapped spaces must be individually posted;no sharing of signs for adjacent handicapped spaces." The letter is signed by John B. Gibbs, Police Office, Traffic Bureau. We have a letter dated February 3, 1999 stating: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct an office building on property located at the above referenced address. Hydrant spacing should be consistent with City of Livonia Ordinances. We have no objections to this proposal." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. There is a letter dated February 2, 1999 stating: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. The Engineering Division has no objections to the proposal or the legal description provided at this time. We trust that this will provide you with the information requested. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions." The letter is signed by David Lear, P.E., Civil Engineer I. There is a letter dated February 1, 1999 which states: "Pursuant to your request of January 28, 1999,the site plan for the above subject Petition has been reviewed. The following issues are being brought to your attention. (1) The site is in the process of being rezoned from PO-I (high rise office) to OS (office services). The site plan was reviewed under the OS district regulations. (2) The plan does not reflect that the parking spaces are required to be double striped. (3) The building elevations do not provide a section depicting the building materials. I trust this has provided the requested information." The letter is signed by David M. Woodcox, Senior Building Inspector. That is the extent of our correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here tonight? Stuart Frankel, 3221 W. Big Beaver Road, Troy, MI. We are here to present a site plan for a proposed 86,000 sq. ft. facility in Victor Corporate Park. With me is Kevin Bidson of the architectural firm of PDA Associates. We would be happy to answer any specific questions you may have regarding the site plan or the elevations. Mr. McCann: Would you want to give us a presentation as to the concept? Mr. Frankel: It is a two story facility. Entrance off of Victor Parkway at two locations and one entrance off of Pembroke with significant amount of landscaping facing the boulevard. The building is well centered in the center of the property so that the parking is convenient to the entrances. The double striping for parking is not a problem That was an oversight by our architect and we apologize for that. These will all be double striped. We are looking for and hope to attract a 16670 corporate tenant that will have corporate identification on the building because we think that is what is warranted in this area. The building will be out of brick, a reddish color which matches the other buildings within Victor Park and complementary to our neighbors on the west side of Parkway. Mr. McCann: You did not bring a sample with you? Mr. Frankel: Yes, we do have that which we will be happy to show you in a minute. We have aluminum emollients and two highlighted entrance features that are out of a stone material which identify the entrance features and break the linear appearance of the building. Mr. McCann: The brick that is being passed around, will the brick be 4-inch face brick? Mr. Frankel: I have lived through that, it will be brick. That was an expensive education. Mr. Alanskas: That rendering is a very good looking, clean building. Will there be any air conditioners on top of the building? Mr. Frankel: Yes, but they will be screened as required. Mr. Alanskas: How are they going to be screened? ty Mr. Frankel: The subdivision restrictions require them to be screened out of the same material as the building, so it will be brick. Mrs. Koons: The footprint of the building is what size? Mr. Frankel: It is approximately 43,000 sq. ft.,two levels, so each floor will be about 43,000 sq. ft. for a total of about 86,000 sq. ft Mrs. Koons: And as a comparison, the one story building you originally were proposing? Mr. Frankel: It was under 70,000. It was in the mid-60's. Mr. LaPine: The brick you are going to use is the 4 inch brick because some of the brick being used out there are the larger bricks. Mr. Bidson: The intention now is a popular size brick because it is scaled to the building because of the height of the building. Mr. LaPine: So it will be the regular 4 inch brick. I have a couple of questions about the retention pond which happens to be right on Victor Parkway. I notice on your plan you have boulders in there. Is this going to be similar to what is being done right across from you? Mr. Frankel: We are required to retain on the property. So we are trying to create an architectural feature which will encompass landscaping and at the same time service the purpose of detention not retention. It will be structured with 16671 boulders, it will be structured with heavy landscaping. We are talking about a sign that is on the bank of the pond. We are trying to make it an attractive feature so that it does not look like a detention basin. Mr. LaPine: So this won't hold water all the time? It will only have water when we have heavy rains? Mr. Frankel: That is correct. Mr. LaPine: Because across from you they are putting in fountains. Mr. Frankel: We are not that far along but we have not ruled that out. Mr. LaPine: I would like to see that because I think it helps take away from the starkness of the pond. I would like to see you consider that. Mr. Frankel: We are considering that. Mr. LaPine: All these islands are going to have landscaping of trees and flowers. How are you handling the parking inside the parking lot? Mr. Frankel: There will be trees in all the islands. Mr. LaPine: Does each one of those islands have a light pole? Mr. Frankel: No. These two will not because of the spacing. The spacing of the poles which we do not have yet a complete design. Mr. LaPine: But you will have enough lighting throughout here that will be enough? Mr. Bidson, PDA Architects, 30500 Northwestern Highway. I believe if you look on the site plan,the poles are shown on there. Actually this is landscaping, if I might approach. Mr. LaPine: This SA is a light pole? Mr. Bidson: All of these are light poles, the SA along the back, all the way around the perimeter along Victor Parkway and then along the entrance here? Mr. LaPine: Are they 20'high or do you know at this point? Mr. Bidson: Approximately 20'. We may look at some lower ones. We are doing a lighting study on the spacing to see what goes best with the height of the existing trees. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Frankel, are we going to be able to save any of those trees or are we going to have to take everything down? Mr. Frankel: We have tagged every tree so we are going to try and work to save as many as 16672 possible. We have a tree service. Mr. LaPine: O.K. Thank you. Mr. Piercecchi: That white brick, is that going to be around the entrances? Mr. Bidson: Right, what this is, it is called a renaissance stone. It is a large scale unit. It is a 12 X 24 inch unit. Mr. Piercecchi: It's a nice contrast. And I understand there is no problem double striping the parking lot. That is our ordinance now by the way. The AC and external machinery up on the roof will be screened. Mr. Bidson: We are going by the restrictions in the code. Mr. Piercecchi: I just want to make sure it is there. You are going to put a fountain type deal in the retention pond? Mr. Frankel: No,I didn't quite say that. I said we are looking at a landscaping feature of the retention pond. Mr. Piercecchi: Would you object to doing that? That would add a lot. Mr. Frankel: I said we would explore that. I don't want to say anything until the architect takes a look at it. Mr. Piercecchi: But the light standards will be 20' or less? Mr. Frankel: They will comply with the ordinance. What is the ordinance, Al? Mr. Nowak: The policy has been not to exceed 20 feet in height. Mr. Frankel: Is that within that area? Mr. Nowak: In the Victor Corporate Parkway? I believe that is standard for that area. Mr. Frankel: We will comply with everything that is required. Mr. McCann: O.K. Are there anymore questions? Hearing none, we will go to the audience. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. Mr. Piercecchi: I feel strongly about this. I will offer an approving resolution. This is a far cry from the one story that was initially brought before this Commission. We are compromising. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved, it was #2-27-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to 16673 the City Council that Petition 99-1-8-6 by K& F Land Company requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct an office building on property located at 19301 Victor Parkway in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6 be approved subject to the petitioner being either granted a variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building height or the completion of the rezoning of the property to OS, and to the following conditions: 1) That the Site Plan marked Sheet SP-1 prepared by PDA Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on January 13, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2) That the Landscape Plans marked Sheets L-1, L-2 &L-3 prepared by E. J. Kleckner&Associates, as received by the Planning Commission on January 13, 1999, are hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 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 the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-4 prepared by PDA Architects, as received by the Planning Commission on January 13, 1999, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 6) That the brick used in the construction of the building shall be full face 4-inch brick, no exceptions; 7) That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use, closed at all times; 8) That the entire parking lot shall be double striped; 9) That no signs, either freestanding or wall mounted, are approved with this petition. All such signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance#543,the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia,this conditional use approval is valid for a period of ONE YEAR ONLY from the date of approval, and unless a building permit is obtained,this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. LaPine: Just a word to the architect. I would look very highly to your landscape 16674 architect about a fountain there. I think we would be very happy if you will do that. Mr. Bidson: We will take a look at what the grades will do for us. Mr. LaPine: We know you can do it. Mr. Frankel it may cost you a little bit more money but your job there at 6 Mile came out beautifully. Mr. Frankel: I don't have any money left. Mr. McCann: This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Items of our agenda. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Petition 98-12-1-23 by Charles P. Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita& Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF (One Family Residential- 1/2 acre min. lot)to R-1 (One Family Residential - 60'X 120' min. lot). On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was #2-28-99 RESOLVED that, Petition 98-12-1-23 by Charles P. Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita& Cavell Avenues in the N.E. 1/4 of Section 24 from RUF (One Family Residential- 1/2 acre min. lot)to R-1 (One Family Residential- 60'X 120' min. lot) be taken from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Mr. Nowak, is there any additional correspondence? Mr. Nowak: We don't have any new information regarding this petition. I would just like to mention that we have had filed a petition for land not directly involved with this petition but immediately adjacent to the west. We have had a separate petition filed by Leo Soave for the rezoning of that property. I mention that because I felt that it might have a bearing on your discussion of this item. Mr. McCann: The land immediately to the west? Mr. LaPine: Does that abut this property? Mr.Nowak: Yes. The 2.27 acre parcel immediately to the west of the land that was under petition in connection with this. Mr. McCann: Since we don't go to the audience on this, is the petitioner here tonight? Charles P. Elmasian, 27495 Five Mile Road, Livonia. Mr. McCann: Is there anything new you would like to tell us? 16675 Mr. Elmasian: Yes sir. In the interim since our last meeting I have changed who I was working with. We are now working with Leo Soave. I think we have also changed the zoning we were asking for to R-2 which I believe is what you wanted for that site. We also have cleared up the condition on Foch which was a problem with the left hand turn lanes. In a new design we have, Mr. Lessnau property's has been acquired by Mr. Soave. Mr. McCann: Have you submitted a new site plan? Mr. Elmasian: No. I have one with me here tonight. Mr. McCann: So we can't act on this one tonight because the staff hasn't reviewed it. Is there going to be a need for rezoning on the other parcel? Mr. Nowak: The public hearing has been held on the original piece. They would be going to R-2 which would be a more restrictive classification so that could be amended to our request for R-2. Mr. Piercecchi: Were you referring to the 2.27 acres Lot El? That is now going to be included in this package? Mr. Elmasian: Yes it will. Mr. Alanskas: We also had a question regarding the street lining up. So due to the fact that we have a new proposal I think we should table this so we can look at this in connection with the adjoining property. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #2-29-99 RESOLVED that,Petition 98-12-1-23 by Charles P. Elmasian and John K. Harris requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Five Mile Road between Santa Anita& Cavell Avenues in the N.E.1/4 of Section 24 from RUF (One Family Residential- 1/2 acre min. lot)to R-1 (One Family Residential- 60'X 120' min. lot)the Planning Commission determined to table Petition 98-12-1-23 for further study. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. LaPine: I would hope that you and Mr. Harris and Mr. Soave can get together so maybe we can look at these two parcels since they are right next to each other... Mr. Elmasian: I guess I wasn't clear. Mr. Harris is out of it now and Mr. Soave will be developing the whole entire piece. Mr. LaPine: Then we are going to have to have a whole new plan? Mr. Elmasian: That is really not the case. We were not going for a site plan in our last 16676 L meeting. We were just going for a rezoning for the most part and now we are simply amending our petition for R-2 which is what I think everybody wanted here anyway. Mr. McCann: But you are still going from RUF toR-2 and there may be an adjacent piece that is going to need rezoning too. So we will let it all catch up. Also for the record,I have a letter from Sher McKinzie dated 2/9/99, I am going to incorporate this into the file for any notification of any future hearings that are to be held on this. Make sure a copy is made for each commissioner to read before the next meeting. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is Preliminary Plat Approval for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision by Merriman Forest L.L.C. to be located on the east side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 11. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #2-30-99 RESOLVED that, Preliminary Plat Approval for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision by Merriman Forest L.L.C.to be located on the east side of Merriman Road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in the N.W. 1/4 of Section 11 be taken from the table. LMr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. McCann: Al, is there anything additional on this? Mr. Nowak: We don't have any additional correspondence but we did receive a revised plat today which maybe Scott can give us a description. Mr. Miller: Basically, what the petitioner has done is extend these lots to the east and that would shorten these and that would make it farther away from the adjoining subdivision. Mr. McCann: Approximately how much of a range is that? Mr.Nowak; Approximately 10' on each lot. Mr. McCann: So he has extended the depth of the rear lots facing Bainbridge Court approximately 10 feet? Mr. Miller: Yes. You now have 147', 130' and 128' in depth. Mr. McCann: What about the landscape berm along Merriman? to, Mr. Miller: It does show a 25' berm here that it called Forest Park South and Forest Park North. He has proposed that he could dedicate those as open space. Mr. McCann: Would that meet their open space requirement? 16677 Mr. Miller: That is about half of what is required. Mr. McCann: Any questions from the Commissioners? If there are none, I have a question for the staff. He has dedicated the extra 10' feet along the rear to the rear lots. Would those rear lots still comply if he dedicated the 10'to the open space requirement? Mr. Nowak: The depth requirement is based on the average depth of the lot and Lot 7 would be well over even if they took 10' off. Lot 8 also averages over 130'and Lot 9 also averages over 130' so it would be possible to dedicate 10' and still have compliance and for the depth of those lots on the east side of the street. Mr. McCann: Unfortunately, there would be no responsibility for caring for that 10 feet? Mr. Nowak: Correct. Mr. McCann: It would be a difficult access but we are creating sufficient space in other words? Mr. Nowak: It would be possible to do that. Mr. McCann: All right. Are there any other questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: What are you suggesting Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCann: I'm not suggesting anything. I am just stating that there is sufficient space available if open space is required by the Commissioners. Mr. Piercecchi: Who would take care of it and who would control it? Mr. McCann: That is the problem with it. Is the petitioner here? Is there anything new that hasn't been discussed by the staff? Mr. Donnan: No. We did move the southern court over to give approximately 10 more feet on the lots that abut the rear property line. One thing I did do today, because of the concern with the adjoining lot owners to the east is go out and locate the houses that were offsite and prepare a plan showing those existing houses and a plan showing houses that could be put on the proposed lots not that would necessarily be put on the lots because we don't have control over that. What we did was took a similar subdivision in this area, that is fairly new,the two of the larger houses out of that subdivision and placed them on these lots to give an indication of what it would look like if this was done. I have some plans if you would like to see them. Mr. McCann: I don't need one, does anyone else? Mr. LaPine: I would like one. 16678 Mr. McCann: We also, for the record, received a letter from Barbara Beauchamp, each of the Commissioners received a copy and have reviewed it before tonight. Are there any more questions from the Commissioners? Before I can open it up to the audience, I have to have unanimous consent from the Commissioners. Are there any objections to opening this up to the audience at this time? Mr. Alanskas: We have rehashed this, and rehashed this and I, as one Commissioner, I think that it is not necessary. Mr. McCann: O.K. Then a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mrs. Koons, and unanimously approved it was #2-2-31-99 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on January 26, 1999, by the City Planning Commission on Preliminary Plat approval for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision by Merriman Forest L.L.C. to be located on the east side of Merriman road between Seven Mile Road and Mayville Drive in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11,the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Preliminary Plat for Revised Merriman Forest Subdivision be approved according to the revised plat prepared by Arpee/Donnan, Inc., as received by the Planning Commission on February 9, 1999, subject to the waiving of a portion of the open space requirement of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and to the following additional conditions: 1) That a landscape plan be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to final plat approval which shall provide for landscaping for the proposed 25 foot wide landscape berms (Forest Park North and south) adjacent to Merriman Road, we well as for the cul-de-sac island areas; and 2) That a plan for the required entrance marker shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to approval of the final plat. For the following reasons: 1) That the preliminary plat is drawn in compliance with all applicable standards and requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance#543; and 2) That the preliminary plat represents a reasonable and well designed land use solution to development of the subject land. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above hearing was sent to the abutting property owners, proprietor, City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service, and copies of the plat together with the notices have been sent to the Building Department, superintendent of Schools, Fire Department, Police Department, and the Parks and Recreation Department. 16679 Section 6.07(2), Subdivision Rules and Regulations, states that "The tentative approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year only from the date of the approving resolution unless the subdivider applies for and obtains an extension of such period." Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We hold the only hearing on a request for a Preliminary Plat Approval. It is forwarded on to City Council. Anyone requiring information regarding this Preliminary Plat Approval should contact the City Council for any hearings that will be held on this. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a motion to hold a Public Hearing to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between the 1-275 Expressway and Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7 from 5-RC to OS. Mr. McCann: Is there a motion? On a motion by Mrs. Koons, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and unanimously approved it was #2-32-99 RESOLVED that,the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 23.01(b) of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to rezone property located on the north side of Six Mile Road between 1-275 Expressway and Fox Drive in the S.W. 1/4 of Section 7 from R-5C to OS. FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543,the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda is a Motion to hold a Public Hearing, pursuant to Council Resolution#405-98, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02 and 4.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to set forth zoning requirements for family(1 to 6 children) and group(7 to 12 children) day care homes in residential districts. On a motion by Mr. Hale, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved it was #2-33-99 RESOLVED that, a Motion to hold a Public Hearing, pursuant to Council Resolution#405-98, and pursuant to Section 23.01 (a)of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held to determine whether or not to amend Sections 2.08, 4.02 and 4.03 of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance to set forth zoning requirements for family (1 to 6 children) and group(7 to 12 children) day care homes in residential districts 16680 FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of such hearing be given as provided in Section 23.05 of Ordinance#543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended, and that thereafter there shall be a report and recommendation submitted to the City Council. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Piercecchi: I would like to have the public hearing held on the next public hearing. That will permit us in study of giving a look at all of the restrictions and licensing and policy requirements that have been put into this particular ordinance and hopefully get a look at adjoining communities ordinance regarding the same type of subject. Mr. McCann: Is there any objection to that- with the motion that this be held on the next public hearing? Hearing none, this will be heard on the next public hearing. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted,the 779th Regular Meeting held on February 9, 1999, was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION /14 .an-giefeeetilirg4Gwtace ATTEST: 'G s J: es C. McCann, Chairman /rw