Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2004-03-0921079 MINUTES OF THE 8W REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, March 9, 2004, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 881s' 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: Robert Alanskas William LaPine Dan Pieroecchi H. G. Shane Carol Smiley John Walsh Members absent: None 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 2004-02-08-03 SWS OIL, INC. Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2004-02- 08-03, submitted by the SWS Oil, Inc. requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas station building located at 27430 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 1. 21000 Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval to demolish the existing gas station building on the northwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Inkster Road and construct a new convenience store/gas station in its place. At this time, it is unknown if the station will remain a Clark affiliate or it it will convert to a different brand. To the west of this site is a mufti -tenant commercial building. The tenant immediately adjacent to the subject property includes a Hungry Howie's pizzeria. This property is zoned C-1, Local Business, but there are no provisions in a C-1 districtfor a gas station. However, this gas station is considered a lawful nonconforming use and is permissible under its current zoning due to the fact that the use has already been established over an extended period of time. The existing small gas station sits cockeyed facing the intersection and appears to be approximately 405 square feet in size. The new proposed convenience store/gas station would be positioned along the west property line and would be 1,175 square feet in size. The proposed building would require variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient side yard setbacks. There is an existing sewer easement running along this site's north property line. A protective screen wall is required along this property line because it abuts residential property. The petitioner is proposing to erect a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence in lieu of the wall in order to maintain access to the easement. Footings for a masonry wall would not be allowed in the easement. This site does not qualify for a permanent greenbelt because it lacks the required 10 feet of continuous landscaping between this commercial and the neighboring residential properties. A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals is required in order to waive the protective masonry screen wall. The Site Plan shows that the westerly driveway off Seven Mile Road would be modified in order to shift traffic around the new building and an adjacent handicap parking space. The trash dumpster enclosure would remain in its present location. The existing pump island canopy would not be changed but a note on the Site Plan indicates that all the existing support columns would be covered in brick that matches the building. The parking is deficient by four spaces and a variance for deficient parking would be required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. They do meet the 15% required landscaping of the total site. The new store/station would be constructed out of a combination brick and concrete block. The east (front, facing Inkster) and south (Seven Mile side) elevations would be brick with a three foot wide band of either dryvit or a metal panel material along the top. A peak design element, fabricated out of dryvit with prefnished metal trim, would be constructed over the front 21081 entrance. The north (facing the residential) elevation would be constructed out of concrete block. The west elevation of the building would be constructed out of concrete block because it backs up next to the adjacent building to the west. The roof would be prefnished metal. A color rendering has not been submitted at this time. No details pertaining to signage have been submitted and therefore signage has not been reviewed as part of this petition. On March 5, 2004 the petitioner submitted revised plans. The plans show that the length of the building would only be reduced 10 feel back from Seven Mile Road instead of the suggested 20 feel. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 18, 2004, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above -referenced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. Since the existing sidewalk on the east side of the property appears to be on private property and our records do not indicate a dedication at that location, an additional seven feet of right-of-way should be dedicated to Wayne County at this time. Alteration of the existing driveway to Seven Mile Road will require a permit from Wayne County and may require constructing detention facilities under their storm water management ordinance." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated February 19, 2004, which reads as follows: `This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to demolish and reconstruct the gas station 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 4, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal to construct a new gas station located at 27430 Seven Mile Road and submit the following information for your consideration: (1) The canopy height should be clearly posted, (2) Left turns from the eastern -most driveway on 7 Mile Road should be prohibited due to its close proximity to the intersection. This may require a traffic control order from Wayne County Roads. The proposed site requires 12 parking spaces with one being handicap. Only 7 spaces are proposed." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated February 27, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your 21082 request ofFebmary 12, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) This site is an existing non -permitted use in this district, therefore, the use is allowed. (2) This petition will require several variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals for the following. (a) Lack of the required pretective wall abutting residential properties. It cannot be a greenbelt due to lack of open space. (b) Deficient north side yard setback, 20 feet required, 10 feet provided. (c) Deficient south building setback, 75 feet required, approximately 17 feet provided. (d) Deficient parking, Ilspaces required, 7 spaces provided. The filling area at the pumps does not constitute parking spaces. (3) The landscaping is deficient of the required 15%. (4) The existing dumpster enclosure is made out of wood fencing and the gates are in disrepair. (5) Several concrete pavement sections are in disrepair, north and east of the pump island, directly west of the tank fills. (6) There are several protective pipe bollards that are bent and in disrepair at two locations. (7) There is at least one existing light pole directed outward toward the intersection. (8) No signage has been reviewed. However, there is an existing non -conforming pole sign on the southeast comer that is at deficient setbacks. 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. Gallagher, if you could come up and please state your name and address for the records. Richard Gallagher, Gallagher Group Construction Co., Inc., 29991 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. I brought a rendering that you can kind of pick out colors on. This is a red brick. This is the Clark gas station and their colors are red, gray and blue. I figured we could use that same red brick that we used on the buildings on Farmington Road. It's a nice red brick. It's a modular brick, shape is all the same size and it works real good. This dryvd panel would be a gray in here, and the standing seam up here is basically to screen the mechanical equipment on the roof. In our earlier meetings, we discussed laking 20 feel off the length of the building. Well, in talking to my owners and clients, if they don't have to, they don't want to have to lose that 10 feet. Right now we're at 67 feet, and this wall and our whole building covers up the wall from Hungry Howie's. That white fool brick and block wall on the west end of our property - we're trying to cover as much of that as we can, and possibly paint that wall to 21083 match our building, if they'll let us. It's their building. It's not ours. Anyway, we need the room inside the building for ice chests and things of that nature. They've got two coolers to put in there. They can use this space if they can get it, and that's what I'm helping them do. As far as the setback requirements, we know we've got to go to ZBA and all of that. That's just automatic with anything on Seven Mile Road, that depth of property, so we're willing to go see how they do with it loo. The fence in the back that I have showing on these plans as a wood fence, there is a series of plastic fences that we can gel. There's all different sizes and shapes to do the same thing. What I presume to do is just pick something that everybody likes, that you guys can approve of, and we'll stand that up back there. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Piercecchi: Good evening, Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Gallagher: Good evening. Mr. Piercecchi: Sir, when you attended our study session, unexpected by myself and I'm sure others, you relaxed some of the concerns regarding setbacks by offering a 20 fool cutting of that building along the north -south direction, thereby increasing its setback from 16 feet to 36 feet. Do you recall that? And we fully realize that since the dimensions of this site preclude meeting our 75 foot setback requirements, we were pleased since this modification would allow more landscaping and safer parking and routing within this site. I personally, sir, would prefer the reduction that you volunteered to give us during our study meeting instead of that on your latest plans, which is only 10 feet rather than the 20 feel. Mr. Gallagher: Okay. Well, when we originally put the proposal in, we were short landscaping by 100 and some odd feel. When I did move the building back, we came in line with the landscape requirements for that. So that should go away. I talked to my clients back there and they were hoping that we can gel his passed at the reduced 10 instead of 20. If for some reason we can't and we have to go to that 20 feel, it brings us back another 10 feel, it brings us down to about 1,800 square feet instead of 1,900. So we're just hoping it would fly the way it is, but that's up to you guys who are looking at all this. Mr. Piercecchi: Well, sir, we don't negotiate things in the City. We don't even make the final decisions. The Council, of course, is the final 21084 voice in this matter. But you did volunteer it, and it was a very big relief tome to think that we're going to get you further away from Seven Mile Road. When I got your latest plans, I looked at them and they were only 10 feel. So I was hoping that could be remedied and go back to 20 feel, or perhaps even some negotiated deal, which perhaps the Chairman could suggest if that's not the case. Mr. LaPine: I've got a number ofqueslions. The building to yourwestthat is while, which is a Howie's pizza place, you're going to try and paint that the same color of this building. Is that your plan? Mr. Gallagher: Well, this is what I would like to do. Mr. LaPine: We don't know if they will agree to that. Mr. Gallagher: Yeah, that's their building, but bear in mind this: that they're exiting air out and vents and their electrical service and all of this. These mechanical things are on their wall. That prevents us from moving right up against that wall. I would personally like to move right up against that wall and save that three feet for us. Either that or maybe pick up the three feet there that we lost in the length, but I fell the more building we had in front of that wall, the less we had to look at it. Mr. LaPine: I was just interested if that's what your plans were, which I doubt very much if they're going to let you do it. But the second question I have is, on the original plans before when you moved the building, it showed a handicap parking spot. The new plans dont show that on there. Mr. Gallagher: Its still there. Mr. LaPine: Itdoesn't show on the new plans. That's all I'm saying. Mr. Gallagher: Its 15 feet across there; it's a handicap parking spot. Mr. LaPine: Okay. I'm not saying it's not; it doesn't show on the plans. On the original plans it showed a handicap, but you still intend to put the handicap out there. Mr. Gallagher: Yes. Mr. LaPine: Okay. The other question I have is about the fence. If you go behind the new condos on Six Mile and Farmington, where 21085 Walgreen is back behind there, that's the type of fence I'm interested in. Go and look atthat. Mr. Gallagher. Okay. We'll be glad to go look at it. Mr. LaPine: That's the type that I was interested in looking at. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Thank you, Mr. LaPine. Mr. Alanskas? Mr. Alanskas: On the fencing, would you make the fence, if ft's a vinyl fence, the same color as the brick? Is that what your plans are? Mr. Gallagher: Do they come that color, unpainted? Mr. Alanskas: I dont know. I mean, they have while; they have gray. I don't know if they have red, a dark to match brick or not, but I think if you could gel it to possibly come close to the brick, it would be less intrusive. Mr. Gallagher. Well, we certainly don'lwanllo paint anything. Mr. Alanskas: Pardon me? Mr. Gallagher. We certainly don't want to paint anything. Mr. Alanskas: Oh, no, no, no. Mr. Gallagher: If we can gel a gray, a lightgray, or whatever in that, that's fine. Mr. Alanskas: If you gel vinyl, that's maintenance free. So if you could check on your colors and see what you can put up. Because while, within a couple years, I mean, it's speckled. With birds landing on the fence and going to the bathroom on the fence, it's not clean and it looks nasty. If you gel a nice vinyl that's a little darker to match that brick, I think it would look much nicer. And 1, as a commissioner, would like to see the 20 feel instead of the 10. Thank you. Mr. Shane: Mr. Gallagher, are you intending to construct that dumpster enclosure out of masonry? Mr. Gallagher: Its already there. The dumpsler is existing. We'll dress it up to match our building and put the gales in front of it, but it is an existing dumpsler. YSIR:i^ Mr. Shane: It's going to stay where it is? Mr. Gallagher: Right. Mr. Shane: Back to the 20 feet situation, you have a handicap space there which only needs to be what, Mark, 12 feel wide? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that is correct. Mr. Shane: Well, then if you added another 10 fool parking space to make up the one you're short, then your building could be another 8 feet shorter. Would that be a problem? Mr. Gallagher. Well, if that's what you suggest, I'll talk to my clients about it. I don't see another way to go, that's all. They want your blessing. If that looks like that's what we've got to do, that's what we'll do. Mr. LaPine: One more question. Is your client here this evening? Could he come up to the microphone? I just want to clarify what you will be selling at the convenience store? Wail Saab: I'm sorry, again? Mr. LaPine: What are you going to be selling at the convenience store? Pop, beer? Mr. Saab: No. As a convenience store, it's going to be pop, snacks, dairy. Mr. LaPine: Are you going to be selling sandwiches and hot meals? Mr. Saab: No, no. Mr. LaPine: Okay. So it's just potato chips, candy bars, things like that? Mr. Saab: Yes. Mr. LaPine: That's all I want to know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Alanskas: I have one question for the petitioner. You're going to be having pop there. Are you going to have all the empty cases inside the building and not outside of the station? Mr. Saab: Empty cases for the pop? Mr. Alanskas: Yes. Say, for example, you have Pepsi Cola. 21087 Mr. Saab: Yes, its going to be inside the station because there is a backroom. Mr. Alanskas: Inside the station? It will not be on the outside of the building? Mr. Saab: No, no. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. LaPine: Can I ask one more question? Mr. Walsh: Sure, Mr. LaPine. Mr. LaPine: Looking at the plans, your storage room is very small. Are you going to have room back there to also store additional merchandise, plus store your empty cans? Is that going to be large enough back there? Mr. Saab: Yeah. In the gas station, there's not that much empty cans or empty bottles. Mr. LaPine: So most people buy cans of pop and they go away with them? Mr. Saab: Yeah, exactly. Mr. LaPine: Thais all I want to know. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh: Sir, if I could ask you one favor. If you would please just state your name and address for the record. Mr. Saab: Okay. SWS Oil, Inc., 27480 Seven Mile, Livonia, Michigan 48152. Mr. Walsh: Could I have your name, please? Mr. Saab: My name is Wail Saab. You can call me Willy, too. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. I appreciate it. If there are no additional comments from the commissioners, and if there is no one in the audience wishing to address this items, a motion is in order. Mr. Gallagher? Mr. Gallagher: Well, we're just going to give up that extra 10 feet. That ought to eliminate a whole lot of headaches, right? Mr. Walsh: I think chats correct. Is there a motion? Mr. Piercecchi: Did I hear correctly? He's going to give up that 10 feet? Mr. Walsh: Yes. Mr. Piercecchi: In lieu of that, I'd be happy to make a motion. On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-29-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-02-08-03, submitted by the SWS Oil, Inc., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the gas station building located at 27430 Seven Mile Road in the Southeast % of Section 1, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet A-1 dated January 21, 2004, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, except as modified below; 2. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated January 26, 2004, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the length of the building shall be reduced by an additional 10 feet so as to establish a minimum setback of 36 feet from the north line of Seven Mile Road; 4. That the height ofthe planted trees shall be measured from the lop 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 A3 dated January 21, 2004, prepared by Gallagher Group 21089 Construction Company, 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 gas pump island canopy support columns shall be covered with the same brick used in the construction of the building; 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 be shielded from the adjacent properties and any light poles shall not exceed 20 feel in height; 13. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 14. That in lieu of the protective wall, a six (6) foot high vinyl clad privacy fence shall be erected along the north property; 15. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 27, 2004: - That the concrete pavement sections in disrepair, north and east of the pump island and directly west of the tank fills, shall be repaired or replaced; - That the protective pipe bollards that are bent and in disrepair shall be repaired or replaced; 21090 16. No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; however the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only of oil based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; 17. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 18. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the exception of signage, shall be illuminated; 19. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island canopy, building or around the windows; 20. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for deficient building setbacks, deficient parking and the substitution of the prolective wall along the north property line and any conditions related thereto; and 21. 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: Mr. Chairman, would it be prudent to state that minimum setbacks from Seven Mile Road shall be 36 feet? Mr. Walsh: Yes, I think we can stale that to make sure we have it correct. Mr. Piercecchi: That gel's back to 20 feet. Mr. Gallagher: There you go, thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Is there support? Mr. Alanskas: Through the chair to Mr. Taormina, Mark, on number 11, 1 want to make sure that when they put the lights in there, with our standards as far as wattage, they're not loo bright, because we have a few stations in the City where the lights are so bright that I think it does not go with our ordinance. I want to make sure it's not loo bright. 21091 Mr. Taormina: We have no restrictions on illumination, at least not in terms of wattage, but we'll take a look at that. I'll make a note of that. Mr. Alanskas: Okay. 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 2004-02-08-04 AMOCO GAS STATION Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 02-08-04, submitted by Eight and Farmington Service requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and renovate the exterior of the service station located at 20595 Farmington Road in the Northeast I/ of Section 4. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Farmington Road between Norfolk and Eight Mile Road. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate and expand an existing gasoline service station located on the southwest corner of Eight Mile Road and Farmington Road. Three small additions are proposed which will "square -off' three corners of the building, providing additional floor space as well as extending the length of an existing car wash. This site is located just north of a western wear store and east of the Livonia Glass Company. The owner of this service station recently enclosed the area under the overhang on the northwest corner of the building without first securing the necessary approvals from the City. The exterior wood siding used in the construction does not match the exterior materials on the existing station. The Inspection Department instructed the owner to cease what he was doing and obtain the proper City approvals, which in this case is Planning Commission and City Council approval. The existing service station sits approximately in the middle of the site and is oriented at an approximate 45 -degree angle facing the intersection. This station also operates as an auto repair facility with two working bays and a car wash. The existing building is 2,626 sq. R. in size. With all three new additions, the expanded building would become a total of 3,005 sq. ft. in size. One addition to the northwest corner of the building would be 208 sq. R. This addition would enclose the overhang that already exists at this comer and allow the expansion and 21092 remodeling of the interior sales area. The second addition would be constructed to the back of the building on the southwest corner. This small addition would only be 55 sq. ft. in size and would allow the slight bumping out of one of the work bays. The third addition would be 116 sq. ft. in size and would be added to the back of the car wash. This addition would permit the car wash facility to be extended 8 feel. Because of the deficient setbacks, the existing service station is regarded as a nonconforming structure. The zoning ordinance does not allow the expansion of a nonconforming building. So in order to expand the service station, variances are required from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The parking requirement is mel by providing 17 spaces where only 11 spaces are needed. An enclosed dumpsler area is shown along the west properly line, near the southwest corner of the site. The plan does not reference any improvements or modifications towards the existing parking lot or pump island canopies. A note on the Site Plan indicates that a new concrete curbed landscape area would be created at the northeast comer of the site. No other details, including information as to what type and size plant materials are to be planted in this area, have been supplied. A Landscape Plan was not submitted as part of this petition and the following calculation is an estimate from the Site Plan. Required landscaping is not less than 15% of the total site and the are providing landscaping on only 7% of the site. The Building Elevation Plan notes that the three additions would be constructed out of materials that would match the existing building. The existing building is of a brick and block type construction, with a siding material infilling the area under the peak of the roof. Once completed, the new additions should blend with the existing structure. The Site Plan also shows the removal of the two existing ground signs, one at the northwest corner of the property and the other at the southeast corner. One new ground sign would be installed within a new landscape area that will be provided at the intersection comer. No other details pertaining to signage have been submitted, and therefore signage has not been reviewed as part of this petition. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated February 25, 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." The letter is signed by 21093 Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 2, 2004, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to add additions to and renovate the exterior of the gas station 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 4, 2004, which reads as follows: We have reviewed the plans in regards to the proposal by Eight and Farmington Services to renovate and add additions to the gas station located at 20595 Farmington Road. We have no objections or recommendations regarding this request" The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated March 3, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 24, 2004, the above -referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) At a site visit, it appears the rear parking area is being used as a storage yard for Michigan Barricading. (2) The dumpster gates were open and the fence structure is in disrepair. (3) There is no parking striping in the parking lot The barrier free parking must be property marked, striped and located. (4) The wood siding, already installed without approval, is in violation of building code. Wood siding must be a minimum of 6 inches above grade. This siding installed at grade is already stained and water soaked. (5) No signage has been reviewed. However, the proposed ground sign is not at required setbacks. (6) This plan references the B.O.C.A. basic building code and the A.D.A. as governing codes. There is no current B.O.C.A. code. The Michigan Building Code 2003 and the Michigan Barrier Free Code will be enforced by this Department. Adherence to the Federal A.D.A. is recommended. (7) It appears that this further expansion will require the restroom and entry, along with all new areas and sales counter to be fully barrier free compliant. This Department has no further objections to the petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspecton. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Mr. Piercecchi: Mr. Taormina, is the setback for that sign 10 feel? Is that what the standard setback is for that type of monument sign? Mr. Taormina: For gas stations, we allow a minimum setback of 5 feel, and I believe the revised plans that you have in your possession this 21094 evening do show an increased setback. Originally, it showed zero setback, but I believe that's been adjusted to show a minimum 5 fool setback. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay, so 5 feel is okay. Mr. Taormina: Correct. Mr. Walsh: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mahmoud Elzein, 20595 Farmington Road, Livonia, Michigan. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you would like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Elzein: No. Thanks, a lot. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for the petitioner? Mr. LaPine: Do you own the parcel of land that is directly to the north where you've got trucks parked - the signage trucks that had arrows? Mr. Elzein: Do I own the properly? Mr. LaPine: Yeah. Mr. Elzein: Yes, I do. Mr. LaPine: What do you do? Do you lease that space to somebody? Mr. Elzein: No. The two trucks, right now, today, I put a starter in one and yesterday did tires in the other trucks. The other auloboard, I did replace the bearings; they needed replacing. I do charge them loo. Mr. LaPine: Yes, but they're parked there all the time. Mr. Elzein: Well, they are a big company. They have about like 200 auloboards and I do the maintenance on them. So, they are like back and forth. Not all the time. When they are busy, they bring it for me. Mr. LaPine: The second question I have, seeing that you own that property, and you've got so many deficiencies in setback from Eight Mile and Farmington, wouldn't it make more sense to utilize that 21095 property and rebuild that building in such a way that you could eliminate some of the se clef ciencies we have? Mr. Elzein: Well, lel me know if I understand your questions. I have plenty just to remove the building to the back. Mr. LaPine: The whole building could be reconfigured on that property to cul down on some of these deficiencies. Mr. Elzein: Well, it's a good idea. I talked to the Amoco, the BP, which is after we merged. I said, if anything you can help me with to do it in the future, to do the building in the back and put like maybe another pump; and they said, if we can help you a little bit. So I asked for such money, and they said, we cannot offer you that much. Because I need assistance from them because I honor their gas. Up to now, no, but it's my goal for the future, yes. Mr. LaPine: At this time, is the station going to change from Amoco to BP? Are they going to come in and change it and put all new ... Mr. Elzein: Image? Mr. LaPine: Image in there and everything? Mr. Elzein: Yes. We're going to have a new image very soon, BP image. Mr. LaPine: Why don't you wail before you do this project so you can do it all at one time, and maybe we can look at it and come up with some solutions? Mr. Elzein: I've done this before, then last week, they invite us to the meeting and they said, we can re-image again to the BP. It's up to me to sign with them or not, so we're still working on R. And what they're going to do, nothing is going to be touched to the building, just the canopy and the pumps and the sign. The building is going to be the same, which is what I'm doing. I'm not going to affect their project. And as a matter, I did submit a few pictures to Mr. Scott to tell him about this, what we are doing Tale. Mr. LaPine: If BP comes in and changes the canopy and new pumps, are you going to add some pumps? Mr. Elzein: No. Mr. LaPine: You're not? 21096 Mr. Elzein: No. Mr. LaPine: The same number of pumps you have there today? Mr. Elzein: The same pumps. Mr. LaPine: The other question I have, what is the addition to the rear? What does that do for the auto wash? Mr. Elzein: For the car wash? Mr. LaPine: Yes. Mr. Elzein: Well, some cars are like loo big. We just want to extend the car wash a little bit as an equipment, like let's say the trucks. Sometimes I cannot wash long trucks. If I extend it a little bit longer than the other trucks, I can make a good wash. Mr. Alanskas: How long have you owned this car wash? How many years? Mr. Elzein: I bought the business November, 2000, and I bought the real estate, it's almost like 13 months. Mr. Alanskas: Is this the only station that you have? Mr. Elzein: Right now, yes. Mr. Alanskas: Did you know that when you bought it, that you have to go through certain functions to gel approvals to do certain things? Mr. Elzein: Yes, I do. Mr. Alanskas: Why did you not get these? Mr. Elzein: I'm submitting right now. Mr. Alanskas: I know, but you already put the wood up. Mr. Elzein: Well, I put the wood because there's a ceiling, there's a floor, and I said, I'm not like extending out of my properly. That's the way I figure out in my way, because I'm not adding an extension to R. Mr. Alanskas: But you heard in our notes, it has to be at least six inches off the ground. You went down and already it's wet and soaked and everything. 21097 Mr. Elzein: But I just put the wood, and one gentleman slopped by. He said, do you know what I'm doing? I said, yes, I'm doing. He said, do you have a permit? He said you've got to go submit a peril. So I came the second day and I submit for permits. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou Mr. Shane: You show a dumpsler on your plan. Is that an existing dumpsler or one you're going to built? Mr. Elzein: Existing dumpsler. Mr. Shane: Mr. Taormina, is that property constructed at the moment? Mr. Taormina : Its screened on all four sides, but I believe it's surrounded by a chain link fence. Typically, we like to see masonry enclosures when the container is in the open like that. Mr. Shane: Thank you Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? If not, a motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Plercecchi, and adopted, it was #03-30-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-02-08-04, submitted by Eight and Farmington Service requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the zoning ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct additions to and renovate the exterior of the service station located at 20595 Farmington Road in the Northeast''/. of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan marked Sheet 1 dated March 4, 2004, as revised, prepared by S & S Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. 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 City Council; 21098 3. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet 2 dated February 20, 2004, prepared by S & S Architects, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 4. 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; 5. 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; 6. That the petitioner shall secure the necessary storm water management permits from Wayne County, the City of Livonia, and/or the Stale of Michigan; 7. That the light poles shall be examined by the Inspection Department and shall be repaired, repainted or replaced as necessary; 8. That any new light fixtures shall not exceed 20 feel in height and shall be aimed and shielded so as to minimize stray light trespassing across property lines and glaring into adjacent roadway; 9. That the three walls of the trash dumpster area shall be constructed out of the same brick used in the construction of the building or in the event a poured wall is substituted, the wall's design, texture and color shall match that of the building, and the enclosure gates shall be maintained and when not in use closed at all times; 10. That no outside storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on his site; however, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; 11. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council; 12. That no part of the pump island canopy fascia, with the exception of signage, shall be illuminated; 21099 13. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the pump island canopy, building or around the windows; 14. That this approval is subject to the petitioner being granted a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for adding to a nonconforming building and any conditions related thereto; and 15. 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. Piercecchi: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina, are you working on this particular petition to obtain more landscaping? The seven percent is pretty low on that site. That's a big site. There should be other places where some landscaping can be placed. Mr. Taormina: We've had discussions with the petitioner regarding that. As Mr. Miller indicated, some additional landscaping will be provided on the site right at the intersection of Eight Mile and Farmington Roads. We noted during our site inspections that there is some additional opportunities for landscaping, particularly along the northwest comer of the site and possibly the southern portion of the site since there are more parking spaces than are needed. Since this issue is going to come back to the Planning Commission for review, at that time we will have a chance to re- examine that and see if we can't increase the amount of landscaping on the site. Mr. Piercecchi: So the landscape plan will come back to us? Mr. Taormina: Yes, I believe that is a requirement on condition number two. Mr. Piercecchi: What numberwas that? Mr. Taormina: Two. Mr. Piercecchi: Okay. That's good. Mr. LaPine: I will be voting against the proposal, basically because there's additional land available to build a station there that would more 21100 conform to the ordinance, instead of us going on with all these nonconforming setbacks, etc. So that's the reason I'm going to be voting against this proposal. Mr. Walsh: Thank you. Any additional comments? Hearing none, will the secretary please call the roll. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Piercecchi, Shane, Smiley, Walsh NAYES: La Pine ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2004 -02 -SN -02 ROCK BANK Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2004- 02 -SN -02, submitted by Rock Bank requesting approval for additional signage for the high-rise office building located at 20555 Vidor Parkway in the Northwest''/. of Section 6. Mr. Miller: The petitioner is requesting approval for an additional wall sign for one of the high-rise office buildings located on the west side of Victor Parkway between Seven Mile Road and Eight Mile Road. There are two high-rise office buildings on the subject site that make up the development known as Victor Corporate Center. The additional wall sign is proposed for the westerly most building. This building, because of its existing wall sign, is more commonly referred to as the Quicken Loans building. The Elevation Plan shows the new sign would be installed between the fourth floor windows and the roof on the west elevation, facing the expressway. The City approved the existing conforming wall sign on September 23, 1998 (Council Resolution #722-98). Because the proposed additional wall 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: Mr. Taormina, is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated February 26, 2004, which reads as follows: 21101 "Pursuant to your request of February 24, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. This petition will require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for excessive number of signage square footage and excessive number of signs. 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: Is the petitioner here this evening? Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners for staff? Hearing none, is the petitioner in the audience this evening? Dean J. Downing, Commercial Advertising, Inc., 34225 Groesbeck, Clinton Township, Michigan 48034. Mr. Walsh: Do you have anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? Mr. Downing: I think the Planning Department has done a wonderful job getting this in here for me. I'll answer any questions I might be able to. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: I just have one. Is there a reason why you put this sign at the very end of the building instead of the middle of the building? Mr. Downing: Actually, I can't answer that for you. I had initially proposed to be al the southern end of that wall favoring the comer a little bit, and a specific request came down from the Marketing Department at Rock Bank to move it to the other end with no explanation why. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. On a motion by Ms. Smiley, seconded by Mr. LaPine, and adopted, it was #03-31-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2004-02SN-02, submitted by Rock Bank, requesting approval for additional signage for the high-rise office building located at 20555 Victor 21102 Parkway in the Northwest''/. of Section 6, be approved subject to the following conditions 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Commercial Advertising, as received by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2004, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That this wall sign shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business closes; 3. That no LED lighlband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including, but not limited to, the building or around the windows; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council forlheir review and approval; 5. 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; and 6. 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. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, La Pine, Shane, Piercecchi, Walsh NAYES: Alanskas ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 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 #4 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. Miller: On December 3, 2003, the petitioner received waiver use approval (Council Resolution #620-03) to operate an automobile and light truck repair facility on property located on the 21103 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 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 submitted landscape plan only shows projected landscaping for the front yard of the site, between the building and Eight Mile Road. No other site landscaping improvements, most notability the aforementioned east side yard, are proposed with this request. The plan shows a four fool wide landscape buffer between the Eight Mile Road sidewalk and this site's parking lot. This greenbelt would be edged with 6" x 6" wood beams, creating a planter box. Planted in this area would be dwarf burning bushes, dwarf fountain grass and dense yews. Another planter box, similar in nature to the one along the sidewalk, would be formed next to the building. This box would be planted with daylilies and the dwarf fountain grass. The plan also shows proposed landscaping in the right-of-way of Eight Mile Road. Right-of-way landscaping does not count towards overall landscaping of the site. Three circular spots would be created in the right-of-way. These landscaped circles would be planted with the dwarf fountain grass, daylilies and select pear trees. Landscaping is summarized as follows: required landscaping is at least 50% of the established front yard; provided landscaping is 13% of the front yard. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated February 23, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 12, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the staff? Hearing none, is the petitioner here this evening? Jon Massa, Jon's Advanced Auto Center, 8916 Danzig, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Mr. Walsh: Is there anything you'd like to add to the presentation thus far? 21104 Mr. Massa: No, other than the plans there. I know they had mentioned that the east side landscaping was not in the plan. When we were here with you and then with City Council, we advised that the landlord would come in and speak about what he could or couldn't do on the east side of the parking lot. I believe he came in last week and spoke at the study meeting? Mr. Walsh: Yes, he did. Mr. Massa: Okay. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for the petitioner? Mr. LaPine: Mark, it is my understanding at the study session that the gentleman thatwas there owned the building, and he was going to come back tonight with some plans showing us what he could do. Did that ever materialize? Mr. Taormina: As I recall, he agreed to work with the Planning Department to develop an alternative landscape plan, and I have not had contact with the owner since our study meeting. Mr. LaPine: Well, then, I don't think we should act on this until we at least hear back from him and what he intends to do. We're trying to give the guy the best break we can give him. If he's not going to cooperate with us, then that's another story. But at this point, I would think that we should table it and get in touch with him and see what he's going to do. Mr. Walsh: Sir, your landlord did come and he made a very compelling argument to us last week in the study session, and we believe we can work with him and with you, but we don't have anything to respond to tonight because he didn't submit new plans. Mr. Massa: Okay. I understand. I mean he told me he had talked to you, you know, and I wasn't under that understanding that he had to come tonight with something. Mr. Walsh: What I'm going to suggest is you might speak with him again, and ask him to contact Mr. Taormina and we can go from there. Mr. Massa: Okay. Mr. Walsh: But as I say, it was very positive last week, and if he can return back with something that we can take a look at, we'll respond to it. Mr. LaPine, would you like to make a motion? 21105 Mr. LaPine: As long as we're having a public hearing on this, is there anybody else in the audience that could be here on this? Mr. Walsh: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? They will come back again. This item is headed to be tabled. Mr. LaPine: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to table to our next regular study session. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-32-2004 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 tabled until the study session of March 16, 2004. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. We will add this to our agenda for next week's study session, and the earliest it could be voted on would be two weeks from tonight. Mr. Massa: Okay. So I'll have the landlord get in touch with Mark, then. Mr. Walsh: That would be great. ITEM #5 PETITION 2002-08-08-18 GALLGHER GROUP Ms. Smiley, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002- 08-08-18, submitted by the Gallagher Group requesting approval to revise the elevation plans, which were approved by Council Resolution #347-03, for the office complex located at 19337 Farmington Road in the Southeast''/. of Section 4. Mr. Miller: On October 9, 2002, this site received Site Plan Approval (Council Resolution #536-02) in connection with a proposal to construct a three -building office development to be known as the Farmington Road Office Complex. Part of this development consisted of renovating and transforming the former City's Fire 21106 Station #3 into one of the office buildings. On July 7, 2003, Tri - West Development received approval (Council Resolution #347- 03) to revise the approved plans. The revisions consisted of enlarging one of the office buildings and downsizing another in order to meet certain criteria of clients interested in leasing out the buildings. The fire station was not part of the revisions. The Gallagher Group is now requesting approval to slightly modify the exterior appearance of Building "B" of the office complex, which sits directly south of the former fire station. The approved Elevation Plan forlhis building showed a corrugated metal panel over some of the windows of the building. The petitioner is asking permission to eliminate this corrugated material and enclose it with the surrounding material, which would be scored brick. The other two buildings of the complex would still incorporate the corrugated material into their design, linking them architecturally. The petitioner is also requesting to modify Building "B" by raising the base sashes of the windows to a height of 18 inches. By lifting the windows and their framework off the ground, common wear -and -tear would be minimized. The new sashes would be brick and would blend in with the rest of the building. These are the extent of the changes and no other revisions to the plans are proposed. Mr. Walsh: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated February 23, 2004, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 12, 2004, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions for staff? Is the petitioner here this evening? Is there anything you would like to add? Richard Gallagher, Gallagher Group, 29991 Munger, Livonia, Michigan. Basically, the building is all the same size, same color bricks, same color block, same color clear anodized aluminum throughout. There were reasons we brought the masonry up. When you lake an inch and a half section, four and half inches, and set it on the ground or on the sidewalk, it's the same elevation as your floor inside the building. You're just looking for problems. Sall and aluminum do not mix. So that's going to be a problem. Anything raining down on that glass is going to be splashing up on the glass so we talked about this. Actually, 21107 we talked about this with Planning and Mr. Woodcox, but that part we didn't think would be a problem. Anyway, we raised it two brick horses, put the cap on the inside. That way we could get wall flashing through the wall with weep holes behind it and give it a nice solid look. So basically, it hasn't changed anything. When I saw what those panels looked like on Leo's building, I said, oh, wail a minute. The owners and I discussed this, and there was just no way we fell it would be appropriate to try and make two wrongs out of, you know. We changed it. We just eliminated it. We went over it, and it looks very, very nice just the way it is. Normally, I would generally stay with whatever was presented in the past, but I think this had to have a decision made at the time this was going on, and that's what we did. Mr. Walsh: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Seeing no one, a motion is in order. Mr. LaPine: Mr. Gallagher, I agree with you 100 percent. That building looks a lot better than it did before you changed it. Now, we can get Mr. Baki to change his building, the fire station will be a great help and will enhance your building loo. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-33-2004 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request to revise the elevations plans in connection with Petition 2002-08-08-18, submitted by the Gallagher Group, which previously received site plan approval by the City Council on October 9, 2002 (CR 536-02), and which plans were subsequently revised and approved by the City Council on July 7, 2003 (CR 347-03), for the office complex located at 19337 Farmington Road in the Southeast % of Section 4, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan marked Sheet A-2 dated September 16, 2003, prepared by Gallagher Group Construction Company, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. 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; and 21108 3. That all other conditions imposed by Council Resolutions #347-03 and #536-02, which granted approval for the construction of an office complex, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions. Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This concludes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. ITEM #3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 879TH Regular Meeting Mr. Walsh, Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 879" Regular Meeting held on February 10, 2004. On a motion by Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Shane, and unanimously adopted, it was #03-34-2004 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 879"' Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2004, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: LaPine, Shane, Piercecchi, Alanskas, Smiley, Walsh NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Mr. Walsh, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 881 st Regular Meeting held on March 9, 2004, was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ATTEST: John Walsh, Chairman CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Carol A. Smiley, Secretary