Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-02-2520134 MINUTES OF THE 8W REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its f0°i Pudic Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. James McCann, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: James C. McCann Dan Piercecchi H. G. Shane Robert Alanskas William La Pine John Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: None Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; At Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Chairman McCann informed the audience that if a petition on tonight's agenda involves a rezoning request, this Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council who, in turn, will hold its own public hearing and make the final determination as to whether a petition is approved or denied. The Planning Commission holds the only public hearing on a request for preliminary plat 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 2003 -02 -GB -01 MANNS-FERGUSON Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2003- 02 -GB -01, submitted by Manns -Ferguson Funeral Home requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 17000 Middlebelt Road in the Northwest''/. of Section 13. 20135 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the east side of Middlebell Road between Grove and Six Mile Road. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between this office/parking zoned property and the abutting residential zoned properly. The subject property is made up of two parcels, both fronting on Middlebelt Road and is split zoned. The funeral home and part of its parking lot is located on the northern piece, which is zoned OS. No prolective walls are required for this properly because it does not abut any residential; it only abuts commercial or parking zoned property. The southern parcel is mainly developed as an extension of the facilities' parking lot and is appropriately zoned P. This parcel extends further to the east, then the OS parcel, and abuts Rural Urban Farm zoning along its east or rear property line. It is along this rear property line where the petitioner is requesting approval to retain an existing greenbelt. The Sacred Heart Church is located on the abutting RUF properly. The City recently approved a greenbelt (Petition 02- 11 -GB -04) for the office building located adjacent and to the south of this property. From the edge of the funeral home's parking lot to the east property line of the P parcel is approximately 200 feel. This entire area is undeveloped and consists mainly of lawn. The petitioner has stated that even though they do not have any immediate plans to develop this extension, they do not want to commit the whole area as greenbelt. The funeral home is requesting that only the easterly 30 feet be accepted as a substitute. It is within this specific area, immediately adjacent to the RUF, that existing evergreen trees are planted. There is also an existing greenbelt along the back edge of the parking lot. This greenbelt is approximately 10 to 20 feet wide, is slightly bermed and landscaped with evergreen trees. Because of the distance from the church and the trees of the greenbelts, the parking lot is pretty well screened. The Sacred Heart Church itself sets back approximately 125 feet from the subject site. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated February 7, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of February 6, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot needs maintenance, resealing and double striping. The accessible parking needs to be sized property with access aisles and marked properly. (2) The plan detail shows five pine trees along the east property line when there are only four It appears one was removed. This should be replaced to fill the void now existing. In addition, there are four blue spruce 20136 trees, not three. The southern most spruce is intertwined in the pine tree and may need to be relocated to survive and be effective. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? Dick Manns, Manns -Ferguson Funeral Home, 17000 Middlebelt, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. McCann: This is your petition tonight? Mr. Manns: Yes. Mr. McCann: Is there anything else that wasn't said that you'd like to tell us? Mr. Manns: No, other than the parking lot gets striped almost every year and seal coated just about every year. If you've seen it in the last weeks or so, as the frost heaves, it does look bad. It tends to level out in the summertime as far as the parking lot. The trees, I didn't hear exactly ... there was a difference on trees that were noted. Mr. McCann: By the Inpseclion Department. Yes. Mr. Manns: If we need to add trees, we can do that. Mr. McCann: All right. Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Have you talked to the neighbor to the rear, which is the church? Mr. Manns: Yes. Mr. McCann: Have you provided them with a copy of the plans? Mr. Manns: No, I did not. I've talked to them a number of times, both Father Ivan and some of the other church members who are around quite often, and they have no objections. They would like to see things just the way they are. Mr. McCann: All right. Thankyou. Mr. McCann: If there are no other questions, a motion is in order. 20137 On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously approved, it was #02-27-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -02 -GB -01, submitted by Manns -Ferguson Funeral Home requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for properly located at 17000 Middlebell Road in the Northwest %of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the 30 fool wide landscaped greenbelt along the east property line, as shown on the plan received by the Planning Commission on January 29, 2003, shall be substituted for the prolective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelt's effectiveness as a protective banner, the owner of the property shall be required to submit such changes to the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval or immediately construct the protective wall pursuant to Section 18.45; 3. That the petitioner shall correct to the Inspection Department's satisfaction the following as outlined in the correspondence dated February 7, 2003: That the funeral home's entire parking lot shall be repaired, resealed and doubled striped; That all handicap spaces shall be identified and comply with the Michigan Banner Free Code; That the fifth pine tree, as shown on the approved plan, shall be replanted and reestablished; and That the southern most spruce shall be examined, and if need be, relocated to survive and be effective. Mr. McCann, Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. 20138 YI=I,4EiYM9=k ik Ole]: W1I*f1Y2&1III 71=INV''J Mr. Piercecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-02SN-02, submitted by The Hertz Corporation requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 33910 Plymouth Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 28. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark. Hertz is requesting approval for a conforming Sign Package. The Sign Package consists of one wall sign for the front of the building and a monument type ground sign. The petitioner has explained that right now they propose to just erect the sign ten feet back from the right-of-way line. Curbing would be installed around the sign base to help prated and define the sign. Hertz has met with the Plymouth Road Development Authority (PRDA) and pretty much understands what the authority would like to see developed in front of their site. But because of a severe illness of the owner of the property, Hertz, at this time, is unable to obtain any type of permission to renovate the site. Once the appropriate permissions have been granted, Hertz fully intends to work with the PRDA and upgrade the Plymouth Road frontage. Signage is summarized as follows: Signage Permitted for this site under Section 18.50H is one wall sign not to exceed 34 square feet in sign area, and one ground sign not to exceed 30 square feet in sign area and not to exceed 6 feet in height. Proposed Signage is one wall sign 34 square feet in area, and one ground sign 30 square feet in sign area and 6 feet in height. Mr. McCann: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are two items of correspondence. The first item is from the Inspection Department, dated February 14, 2003, which reads as follows: 'Pursuant to your request of February 12, 2003, the above -referenced Petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) The parking lot needs resealing and double striping, including restnping the barrier free parking. (2) Parking of vehicles is not allowed within 20 feet of the front property lot line. This Department has no further objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bshop, Assistant Director of Inspection. The second item is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated February 25, 2003, which reads as follows: "At the 14P Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on February 20, 2003, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. #2003-02 Resolved, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby approve and support the signage plans submitted by the Hertz Corporation for their 20139 location at 33910 Plymouth Road, with the condition that the brick proposed to be used for the sign base shall match the brick the P.R.D.A. has selected for streetscape improvements and that it complies with all other applicable rules, regulations and ordinances of the City of Livonia." The letter is signed by John J. Nagy, Plymouth Road Development Authority Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. McCann: Is the petitioner here this evening? John W. Palmer, representing the Hertz Corporafion, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Building 289C, Detroit, MI48242. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Is there anything additional you would like to tell us about your petition this evening? Mr. Palmer: No, sir. I've met with you before and also Mr. Nagy's group. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Mr. McCann: Thank you. Mr. Alanskas? Mr. Alanskas: I just have two questions. What hours are you open for business? Mr. Palmer: 7 a.m. until 6 p.m., and on Saturday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Mr. Alanskas: So the sign in the evening would not be on all night long? Mr. Palmer: That is correct. We can tum it off. We can put it on a timer. Mr. La Pine: I might have misunderstood you, but the sign that is going up is a permanent sign and the Plymouth Road Development Authority will put the wall right around this? The sign is not going to be removed. It will be there. This is the right location. You know that's right as far as where they are going to put the wrought iron and the setbacks? Mr. Palmer: Yes, sir. We are in agreement, as we stated in the meeting, that it is to our benefit to have wrought iron and the brick facade that is going to be presented. We worked out a configuration with Mr. Nagy. We have our sign permit. We put it in where it's going now permanently, and then theyre going to go around on both sides. Mr. La Pine: You're going to be able to get the brick that they've been using all along? 20140 Mr. Palmer: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, we brought the sign company and they can answer any specific questions thatyou may have. Mr. La Pine: The second question I have, you indicated to us at our study meeting that you wanted a small sign there by the driveway. We asked you to put it on the plan. Its not on the plan. Mr. Palmer: That is correct. That is my error. I will petition again at a later date because during Mr. Nagys meeting, I failed at that time to present it. It would be unfair for me to put that up. In talking to the Building Department, it is something we can present at a later time. Mr. La Pine: Okay. It's too bad you didn't get the whole thing. Mr. Palmer: I apologize for that, but it was an error at the last minute. Mr. McCann: On that point, if you file a new petition, you have to amend the whole plan basically. Mark, if he tells us what's on the sign and the dimensions tonight, is that something we can add to this site plan, subject to approval from the Plymouth Road Development Authority and the Council? Mr. Taormina: Well, you could certainly consider that if you understand clearly what the sign is going to look like and determine that it complies with the sign regulations. If not, it may have to be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. But I believe directional signage is limited to two square feet and can only be in the forth of an entrance or an exit sign. Scott, cored me if I'm wrong. I don't believe it can induce the name of the business on the sign. So he is entitled to a directional sign. In this particular case, it's actually off-site because it's going to be at the entrance to CAT, which is a shared driveway. Because an easement agreement exists between the two properties, maybe that's not an issue. Mr. McCann: Weren't you going to go with the lettering of rental cars in the form of an arrow and keep it within two feet? Mr. Palmer: Yes, sir. Mr. McCann: Is that what you want to do? Mr. Palmer: Yes, sir. Mr. McCann: As we discussed at the study meeting, I don't think that would conflict with our directional signs. Would it, Mr. Taormina? 20141 Mr. Taormina: You know, I wasn't part of that discussion. It may not. We will double check with the Building Department. Otherwise, they'd have to get a variance. Mr. McCann: All right. That sounds fair. 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 Mr. LaPine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #02-28-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-02Sh402, submitted by The Hertz Corporation requesting approval for signage for the commercial building located at 33910 Plymouth Road in the Southeast''/.of Section 28, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Sign Package submitted by Sign -A -Rama, on behalf of Hertz, as received by the Planning Commission on February 12, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site Plan submitted by Hertz, as received by the Planning Commission on February 21, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the signage shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour after this business doses; 4. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; and 5. That the brick on the sign shall match the brick that has been approved by the Plymouth Road Development Authority. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? Mr. Miller: I know he's agreed to it, but I dont know about the letter from the PRDA. Do you want to include that the brick shall match the brick approved by the PRDA? Mr. LaPine: I guess thafs a good point. We can make that as the next point: That the brick on the sign shall match the brick that has been approved by the Plymouth Road Development Authority. 20142 Mr. McCann: Is that all rightwith you, Mr. Alanskas? Mr. Alanskas: Sure. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This condudes the Miscellaneous Site Plan section of our agenda. We will now proceed with the Pending Item section of our agenda. These items have been discussed at length in prior meetings; therefore, there will only be limited discussion tonight. Audience participation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item? ITEM #3 PETITION 20024 2-01 4 8 ALYMINA PROPERTIES Mr. Pieroecohi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2002-12-01-18 submitted by Michael Margherio, on behalf of Alymina Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the north side of SchoolcreR Road between Berwick Avenue and Merman Road in the Southeast %of Section 22 from RIF to R-1. Mr. McCann: On February 19, 2003, the Planning Commission received a letter from Michael Margherio stating: "Please table my petition for rezoning of the property at 31850 Schodcraft. Thank you" Is there a motion to remove this from the table or should we leave it on the table? Mr. Alanskas: Leave it on the table. Mr. McCann: There is unanimous consent from the Planning Commission. This will remain on the table until such time as ifs re -noticed. ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-01-08-03 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-01-08-03 submitted by Tiseo Architects, on behalf of Blockbuster Video, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 3760937685 Five Mile Road in the Northeast''/.of Section 19. 20143 On a motion by Mr. Piercecchi, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and approved, it was #02-29-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend Petition 2003-01-08-03 submitted by Tiseo Architects, on behalf of Blockbuster Video, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on properly located at 37609-37685 Five Mile Road in the Northeast 'W Section 19, be removed from the table. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Is there anything new with regard to this petition, Mr. Taormina? Mr. Taormina: No new information has been presented to us. I would note, however, that each one of you should have in your packets a letter from a resident. Mr. McCann: Yes, we did receive an email from Annette Austin basically stating that she is a Blockbuster customer, that she lives in the area, and she would like to see them stay in the area. Is the petitioner here this evening? Ben Tiseo, Tiseo Architects, Inc., 19815 Farmington Road, Livonia. I'd like to just add a couple of points from our Iasi meeting if there are no objections. Mr. McCann: Please. Mr. Tiseo: There are some comments that I've heard from the last meeting and since then that I'd like to address. There have been some comments that the site may not be suited for an outlot building since it wasn't originally constructed that way. That has some valid points; however, I still believe that sites not originally designed for oullots can accommodate new ou0ol structures. There was a comment made bst time about the building being too dose to the shopping center building itself. I made reference to the Big Boy there at Newburgh and Five Mile at that plaza. The proposed video store would be 30' closer to that Big Boys at Five Mile Road; however, the bank itself that's currently there is 30 feet closer to the building than this building would be. In other words, the Blockbuster Video building would be 30 feel in front of the bank building so there's more distance there. Mr. McCann: Mr. Tiseo, pu've got me confused. What Big Boy at Five Mile and Newburgh? 20144 Mr. Tiseo: I'm sorry. Six Mile and Newburgh, the Newburgh Plaza. I stand corrected. Mr. McCann: Thankyou. Mr. Tiseo: There were some comments about will the Blockbuster Video assist in the retails at the center, and absolutely it will. Blockbuster itself generates about 1,200 trips a week per each site, so that other businesses have been in great favor of having a Blockbuster Video store on their site because of the large number of visits that it will generate. They generally try and come either in an outlot or an endcap. That's where they find they've been most successful in centers. So I believe, again, that it would be a plus to all the businesses in there in support of that. As the rep from Blockbuster said last time, if they cant find another location right at that comer, they probably will not find another location in Livonia. They currently have four and if they go more than a mile, it's going to be outside of their service area and, frankly, I was told that they would just not pursue it. So they would lose, and we would lose a fourth Blockbuster Video in Livonia. There has also been some discussion that I had regarding the concern about vacant space and more recently regarding Fanner Jack and all the bad press its gotten in the newspapers regarding their economic future. First of all, I guess you can't believe everything you read in the paper. Fanner Jack, as far as I know, is still a strong company. The idea that the Farmer Jack store is not doing well is incorrect. I spoke to Mr. John Nagy today regarding the fact that they approached John a few years ago to see how they could expand their store because their store is doing well, and they would like to expand it It is a smaller store. The owners have been trying to find some mechanism, some way to expand that store. So Fanner Jack's is going strong. If there are any closures, nobody knows about that whether they'll be in Detroit or outside of Detroit. I'm not aware of any of that. If there are any other questions, I'll gladly address them. Thank you. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Is there any objection from the Planning Commission? Mr. La Pine: No objection. Jerry Pfeifer, 14515 Ronnie Lane. I'm a resident in the area and a frequent user of the shopping center. 1, for one, would like to voice my objection to this type of outlot planning for this shopping center. Personally, I do not like the appearance of having another building put up in front there. I think it would detract from the 20145 overall appearance of this shopping center. In addition, although it's not exactly the same, there is some poor planning that's already existing across the street from that on the northern side of Five Mile where you've got one strip mall behind another strip mall and you have problems of getting in and out of the shopping center there, especially off of Newburgh. This outlot type of thing would just help detract and degrade, I think, the overall planning of the area. So I'm kind of opposed to that. If, by some chance, it does get approved, then I think you would have to take a serious look at how that building is going to change the ingress and egress from the existing shopping center because it would detract and degrade the existing traffic patterns going into and using especially Fanner Jack for people who come into the shopping center and then go across the front along Five Mile and then into the shopping center area. So you would have to take a serious look, in my mind, in how you may restructure and organize the traffic flow in that and maybe another entrance. And then also, Blockbuster does have a drive -up drop box. I don't know if they have one planned for this site, but if they do, then how that fits into the traffic flow would have to be taken into consideration. Just one comment: hopefully Blockbuster can stay in the area. There is an existing store that is vacant not less than a half mile away. It's located next to CVS where the old Naked Furniture store used to be located. Actually, it would probably be just a little bit larger than what they currently got. But that certainly would be another opportunity for Blockbuster. It would be my recommendation to take a dose look at that. I think it would well serve them, although it is a little bit doser to the other video store, right there on the comer, but it still would be well within theirservicearea. Thank you for your time. Mr. McCann: Thank you. A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. La Pine, seconded by Mr. Alanskas, and unanimously approved, it was #0230-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Pefifion 2003-01-08-03 submitted by Tiseo Architects, on behalf of Blockbuster Video, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to construct a commercial building on property located at 37609-37685 Five Mile Road in the Northeast %of Section 19, be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the pefifioner has failed to comply with all general standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 18.58 and 19.06 ofthe Zoning Ordinance; 20146 2. That additional commercial space is not necessary for this center or the surrounding area; 3. That the layout of the building within an existing parking lot would unduly tax and conflict with the established and normal traffic flow of the area; 4. Based on the severe number of deficient parking spaces, this site is unable to accommodate this type of expansion; 5. Allowing this type of development would be detrimental to the aesthetic quality and appeal of the overall site and would atter the character of the shopping center; 6. That approving this satellite building would not only set a undesirable precedent in the area but for the City as a whole; and 7. That the petitioner has failed to comply with all the concerns deemed necessary for the safety and welfare of the City and its residents. Mr. McCann: Is there any discussion? John Walsh: First I'd like to thank my colleagues for tabling this. I was out of town in Washington last week, or two weeks ago, and was unable to be here 8r the meeting. I have struggled with this decision because we have basically a good business that is being dislocated because of the success of another business. Blockbuster has been a good neighbor, represented by Ben Tiseo, who has been a very good community citizen and has done good work in the City. I have spent some time at the site and some time with Mr. Tiseo. And despite the good things about having Blockbuster in the City, and I hope they don't leave, but I'm just not comfortable with adding more commercial space. I just could not get my arms around that. But I intend to vote in favor of the denying resolution. I do hope that Blockbuster can find an alternative place in town. Naked Furniture is one alternative. Mr. Tiseo, I would direct you and/or Blockbuster Video to Jeff Bryant, the Economic Development Manager for the City. He may be able to identify other locations with his data base and perhaps the Livonia Chambers data base. We might be able to find a suitable location. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. McCann: Any other discussion? I appreciate you thanlang us for tabling this, but it was because we had a tie. I do have a comment. 20147 Mr. Tseo, you know I voted in favor of it last week, and I was going to up until you spoke this evening. I'm afraid you convinced me that maybe we need to wait. My concern lies in Fanner Jack. As you said, it's an outdated building. It's just not large enough for a center. If it needs to be expanded, the only way they can expand it is to come out maybe another 30 or 50 feet, and there wouldn't be any room left to do that in the parking if we put an outbuilding there. In order to make that mall as a whole and to have an anchor of a grocery store, I think we need to save the room. So I'm going to vote it against it. Will the secretary please call the roll. Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. The petitioner has len days to appeal the decision to the City Council in writing. ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 85r Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 857" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on January 14, 2003. On a motion by Mr. Shane, seconded by Ms. Smiley, and unanimously approved, it was #0231-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 857" Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 14, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Alanskas, LaPine, Smiley, Shane, Walsh, Pieroecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20148 ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 85C Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 858" Regular Meeting held on January 28, 2003. On a motion by Ms. Smiley, seconded by Mr. La Pine, and unanimously approved, it was #0232-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 858" Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on January 28, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, La Pine, Smiley, Shane, Walsh, Piercecchi, McCann NAYS: None ABSENT: None Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 860th Regular Meeting held on February 25, 2003, was adjourned at 8:01 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Dan Piercecchi, Secretary ATTEST: James C. McCann, Chairman