Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2003-05-0620336 MINUTES OF THE 860 REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 6, 2003, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 864" Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Dan Pieroecchi, Acting Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Members present: Dan Pieroecchi Robert Alanskas John Walsh Carol Smiley Members absent: James C. McCann H. G. Shane William La Pine Messrs. Mark Taormina, Planning Director; AI Nowak, Planner IV; and Scott Miller, Planner III, were also present. Acting Chairman Pieroecchi informed the audience that if a petition on tonighfs 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 pe88on requesting a waiver of use or ste plan approval is denied tonight, the pe8tioner has ten days in which to appeal the decision, in writing, to the City Council. Resolu8ons 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 200240-08-22 IMAD BAZZY Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2002-10-08-22, submitted by Imad Ba=y reques8ng approval of landscape plans for the gas sta8on located on the northwest comer of Five Mile and Inkster Roads at 27430 Five Mile Road in the Southeast%of Section 13. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest corner of Five Mile and Inkster. On February 26, 2003, this site received Site Plan Approval to add an addition to and renovate the exterior of the 20337 existing gas station. As part of the approval, it was conditioned: "That a fully detailed Landscape Plan shall be submitted for approval within 60 days following approval of this petition by the Planning Commission and City Council." The proposed Landscape Plan shows that a greenbelt between 6 feel and 12 feel wide would be installed along the entire west property line. This property line already has an existing 6 fool high prolective wall that separates this site from the residential to the west. The front half of the greenbelt between the parking spaces and the wall would be planted with materials such as Burning Bush, Hick Yews and Goldflame Spimea. The remaining green space between the building and the wall would be planted with just grass. A 15 foot wide greenbelt directly behind the station would be landscaped with Bradford Pear trees and Burning Bush. The dumpster enclosure, located within this greenbelt and kitty corner from the northeast comer of the building, would be screened with Hick Yews. A new landscape island would be established at the northeast corner of the site next to the driveway off Inkster Road. The existing landscape area in front of the station, out near the intersection of Inkster Road and Five Mile Road, would, according to the Site Plan, remain and be 're- worked." They meet the 15% landscaped requirement for the site. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated April 1, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 24, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is the petitioner here this evening? Michael Beydoun, National Specialities, 12747 Stout Street, Detroit, Michigan 48223. I'm just here to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Pieroecchi: Are there any questionsfromthe Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: Regarding the area at Five Mile and Inkster, what do you mean that the area will be re -worked? Mr. Beydoun: If we have any disturbed sod or anything like that, we will re- work all that. We will work it all out. 20338 Mr. Alanskas: How about the existing landscaping that is there at the present time. What are you going to do with that? Mr. Beydoun: On Inkster? Mr. Alanskas: Yes, on the comer of Inkster and Five Mile. Mr. Beydoun: We're going to redo all that. It's going to be all new. Mr. Alanskas: It will be completely sodded and irrigated? Mr. Beydoun: Yes, sir. Mr. Alanskas: All right. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? I do not see anyone. Mr. Walsh? Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to cul off discussion, but I think he's met all the conditions that we discussed at our last meeting, and I'm prepared to offer an approving resolution. It will allow for further discussion if there is any. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #0539-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that the request for approval of the landscape plan, submitted by Imad Ba=y in connection with Petition 2002-10-08-22, which previously received site plan approval by the City Council on February 26, 2003 (Council Resolution #77-03), for the gas station located on the northwest comer of Five Mile and Inkster Roads at 27430 Five Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 13, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Landscape Plan marked Sheet L-1 dated April 30, 2003, as revised, prepared by National Specialties Installation, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the height of the planted trees shall be measured from the top of the root ball to the mid -point of the top leader; 3. That all disturbed lawn areas shall be sodded in lieu of hydroseeding; 20339 4. That underground sprinklers are to be provided for all landscaped and sodded areas, and all planted materials shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Inspection Department and thereafter permanently maintained in a healthy condition; 5. That all conditions imposed by Council Resolution #77-03 in connection with Petition 2002-10-08-22, which permitted the renovation of the existing gas station on the subject property, shall remain in effect to the extent that they are not in conflict with the above-mentioned conditions, with an added emphasis on condition number 11 which stales: No outside storage, placement or display of merchandise shall be permitted at any time on this site; however the foregoing prohibition shall rot apply to the display, on the pump islands only, of oil-based products as permitted in Section 11.03(a) of the Zoning Ordinance; 6. That the specific plan referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for. Mr. Piercecchi: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: Just a comment. I'd like to thank the petitioner for hearing what our concerns were, particularly in back of the building. It looks like a nice plan and I wish you well. Mr. Piercecohi, Acting 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 2003-03-08-09 VON MAUR Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-03-08-09 submitted by David J. Burke, on behalf of Von Maur, Inc., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the units of the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located at 37500 Six Mile Road in the Southeast %of Section 7. 20340 Mr. Miller: This site is located on the northwest comer of Six Mile and Newburgh Roads. The petitioner is requesting approval to renovate the exterior of the former Jacobson's Store that was located in the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center. Von Maur, who is taking over the unit, is planning on renovafing the south and east elevafions. The main changes would include removing the exisfing awnings over the windows and replacing the file band that runs along the base of the outside wall with a new limestone/marble stone material. The arched windows, located next to the entrances, would have their glass removed and the openings in -filled with brick arranged in a herringbone pattern. New planter boxes, each with a single dwarf Alberta Spruce tree, would be constructed in front of each bricked -in window. The planters would be constructed out of materials that would match that of the building's base block. The walkways directly in front of the entrances would be replaced with brick pavers laid out in the same heringbone pattern as the in -filled windows. The exisfing trees and their planter rings, which are incorporated in the walkway in font of the unit, would remain. Along with this renovafion the pefifioner is proposing to replace the exisfing "Jacobson's" wall signs with new "Von Maur' wall signs as follows: two wall signs totaling 254 square feel in sign area, a 127 square foot sign on the south elevation and a 127 square fool sign one on the east elevation. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There are four items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 9, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above-refemnced petition. We have no objections to the proposal at this time. No further right-of-way dedication is required." The letter is signed by Robert J. Schron, P.E., City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated March 28, 2003, which reads as follows: 'This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to renovate the exterior of one of the units of the Laurel Park Place shopping center located on property at the above - referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Access to any Fire Department connection (FDC) in affected area remain easily accessible by Fire Department vehicles and personnel. (2) Provide horn/strobe over any FDC." The letter is signed by James E. Corcoran, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 21, 2003, which reads as follows: 20341 We have reviewed the plans as submitted by Von Maur, Inc. in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of the old Jacobson's store. We have no objections to the plans as submitted." The letter is signed by Wesley McKee, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated April 1, 2003, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request of March 24, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. The following is noted. (1) Signage has not been reviewed. (2) The crystal cup lighting has been reviewed as a permitted holiday/seasonal decoration. Their proposed time frame is in compliance with the ordinance. It is assumed this lighting is not exposed neon. 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. Pieroecchi: Is the petitioner here this evening? Karen Quinlan, Architect, Shive-Hattery, Inc., 2103 Eastland Drive, Bloomington, Illinois 51704. Mr. Pieroecchi: I want to be the first to welcome you to our City. We're very pleased that you chose to locale in Livonia. We've heard great things about your business. Ms. Quinlan: Thankyou. Mr. Pieroecchi: Would you care to tell us anything? Ms. Quinlan: I do know that Von Maur is very happy to be in this town. They are anxious to get this store open as soon as possible, and we're really looking forward to being in Livonia. Mr. Pieroecchi: Arethere anyquestions from the Commissioners? Mr. Alanskas: After we approve this and it receives City Council approval, in what month do you think the store will open? Ms. Quinlan: We are anticipating October. Mr. Alanskas: October. My wife is very anxious for that store to open. Thank you. Mr. Pieroecchi: Are there any other 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. 20342 On a mofion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-60-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003-03-08-09 submitted by David J. Burke, on behalf of Von Maur, Inc., requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.47 of the Zoning Ordinance in connection with a proposal to renovate the exterior of one of the units of the Laurel Park Place Shopping Center located 37500 Six Mile Road in the Southeast ''/ of Section 7, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Exterior Building Elevation Plan dated March 14, 2003, prepared by Shive-Hattery, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 2. That the Site and Landscape Plans dated March 14, 2003, prepared by Shive-Hattery, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 3. That the brick and/or pavers used in the construction shall be full -face four (4") inch brick; 4. That the Sign Package submitted by Nasper Sign Advertising, as received by the Planning Commission on April 7, 2003, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to; 5. That these wall signs shall not be illuminated beyond one (1) hour atterthis store doses; 6. That any additional signage shall come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for their review and approval; 7. In the event the signage is not considered replacement signs by the Inspection Department, 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 8. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department allhe fime the building permits are applied for. 20343 Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carded and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2003 -03 -GB -04 BOTSFORD HOSPITAL Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003 -03 -GB -04, submitted by Botsford General Hospital requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the protective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 28425 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest''/.of Section 1. Mr. Miller: This site is located on the south side of Eight Mile between Middlebell and Angling. The applicant is requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt in lieu of the protective wall that is required between office zoned property and land zoned residential. This site is virtually surrounded ky dense woods. The City of Livonia's Hearthstone Park, which is for the most part undeveloped, borders along the south and west property lines. This facility abuts residential only along the southern 320 feet of its east property line. The petitioner is requesting that a 10 foot. wide greenbelt along this section be accepted as a permanent substitution for the protective wall. It is the petitioner's intent to have the existing natural plant materials of the region provide the necessary screening of the site. An on- site inspection shows that the abutting houses to the east sit up on a hill, approximately 300 feet from the edge of the Botsford property. The entire area between Botsford and the houses is comprised of mature woods. Because of the extreme grade difference, even a 7 foot wall would not screen this facility from the residential homes. In a letter that accompanied the Site Plan, the petitioner explains that the reasons for the request is that the substantial grade change and wetland area between Botsford and the adjacent residential properties would make it almost impossible to construct a wall. It goes on to rationalize that the construction of a wall would destroy vegetation and large trees. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there any correspondence? Mr. Taormina: There is one item of correspondence from the Inspection Department, dated March 11, 2003, which reads as follows: 20344 "Pursuant to your request of March 5, 2003, the above - referenced petition has been reviewed. This Department has no objections to this petition." The letter is signed by Alex Bishop, Assistant Director of Inspection. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Piercecchi: Is the petitioner here this evening? Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? A motion is in order. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, R was #05-61-2003 RESOLVED, that the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2003 -03 -GB -04, submitted by Botsford General Hospital, requesting approval to substitute a greenbelt for the prolective wall as outlined in Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance for property located at 28425 Eight Mile Road in the Northwest '/. of Section 1, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the natural landscaped greenbelt along the southern 320 feet of the east property line, as shown on the Site Plan dated February 12, 2003, submitted by Botsford General Hospital, is hereby accepted and shall be substituted for the protective wall required by Section 18.45 of the Zoning Ordinance; and 2. That any change of circumstances in the area containing the greenbelt resulting in a diminution of the greenbelts effectiveness as a protective barrier, the owner of the properly shall be required to submitted 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. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Chairman, dedared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. This conduces 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 parlidpation will require unanimous consent from the Commission. Will the Secretary please read the next item?: 20345 ITEM #4 PETITION 2003-02-01-10 SPALDING PROPERTIES Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2003-02-01-10, submitted by Larry DeFiore, on behalf of Spalding Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Roselinda Road in the Southeast %of Section 30 from RIF to RA and R-1. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mr. Walsh, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-62-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on Petition 2003-02-01-10, submitted by Larry DeFiore, on behalf of Spalding Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Roselinda Road in the Southeast % of Section 30 from RUF to R-8 and R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that Petition 2003-02-01-10 be removed from the table. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina, do we have any correspondence in reference to this petition? Mr. Taormina: No. There is no additional correspondence from any of the City Departments. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is the petitioner here this evening? Larry DeFiore, Spalding Properties, LLC, 39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 312, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304. Good evening. After a tremendous amount of effort and cost on our part, as well as that of our land planner who you mel previously, Joel from Calvin Hall and Associates, I didn't feel that a transitional design with this site, even similar to the one such as the Ardmore layout, could be accomplished on this size lot. Therefore, we are requesting that the front portion be rezoned from RUF to R- 1 Single Family, as well as the back portion be rezoned from RUF to R-1 Single Family. My reasons are as follows: Number one, from my understanding, the Master Plan calls for medium density housing of which R-1 is the least intense usage. Secondly, although I'm not necessarily speaking for other people, I believe the Parkview neighbors to the west want R1 20346 Single Family to match their neighborhood as well as the all the homes to both the west and north are built in the R-1 zoning standards. With this in mind, we would certainly pursue the construction of single family homes within the R-1 designation. We feel that the R-1 designation will apply to more appropriate zoning for the existing homes. Mr. McCann: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Mr. Walsh: Mark, if I'm not mistaken, 1-1 would result in 32 homes on the property? Is that correct? Mr. Taormina: Well, that's based on an average density that we've determined through empirical studies of other R1 subdivisions throughout the City. The final count could be plus or minus a few homes depending on circumstances. It's something we really can't determine at this juncture, unless we actually get into the design. Mr. Walsh: To the petitioner, do you have a proposed number of homes that would go in there? Mr. DeFiore: No, we dont at this point. We're looking for zoning rather than site plan approval. Mr. Walsh: If I may ask, and I know we're looking a little bit ahead, but let me tell you why I ask this. Maybe three years ago, we approved a rezoning that went from RUF to R-1 further up Plymouth Road. Leo Soave is a Livonia builder. The problem that he ren into with R-1 is he was building homes to accommodate market demand and overshot the building envelope, so he had to come back for a number of variances. I want to avoid that problem. So, I know we're looking a little bit ahead, but it ties into zoning. Are the homes going to be of a size that would possibly mise that problem? Are they going to be an R-1 size home to fit the lot or are they going to be larger homes that seem to be in demand in our city? Mr. DeFiore: Well, again, we certainly plan on being flexible. We certainly don't expect to have those types of challenges or issues that you mentioned. Mr. Walsh: All right. That's it for now, Mr. Chair. 20347 Mr. Alanskas: I don't have a question, but we are short three commissioners this evening. I would like to have this tabled until they are presenlso all seven commissioners can vote on this rezoning. Mr. Walsh: Do you have a proposed dale? Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Taromina possibly would have. I know we have a very heavy agenda coming up. Mr. Taormina: That is the case for our next public hearing and regular meeting, which would be on May 20. The next study meeting after that would be on May 27 and the regular meeting would be on June 3. If it is the desire of the Commission to have additional members present to examine this petition, we could either postpone it until that voting meeting in June or put it on the May 20"' public hearing and regular meeting. Just bear in mind that its a very heavy agenda. The only other option would be to set a special meeting during one of our study meetings. Mr. Alanskas: What would you recommend? Mr. Taormina: I'd like to ask the petitioner whether or not the June 3 dale poses a problem relative to their timing. Otherwise, we could consider ilfor a special voting meeting at a study session. Mr. Pieroecchi: June 3 is what you're recommending? Mr. Taormina: Well, I'd like to ask the applicant. Mr. DeFiore: Again, we're here for participation and to move the process along. As you can understand, as any investor we do have an ambitious time line. We would ask for any discretion in your schedule to try and accommodate this as fast as possible. I did summarize my points. If you need more copies to circulate and a notarized one, we could certainly do that. If you want to have this as part of a special meeting at one of your study sessions, that would be great. Mr. Taormina: It would not be customary to do that. We do have a heavy agenda set for the next public hearing and regular meeting, but we could certainly examine this amended petition very closely at the study session on the 13" and hopefully be prepared to take action on the 20r" without causing a problem with that agenda. Again, I'll leave that up to the Commissioners to decide. 20348 Mr. Alanskas: I don't have a problem tabling it to whatever lime we can work it in. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chair, ve do have citizens in the audience. I'd like to hear from them before we take action. Once there is a formal motion and it's seconded, the discussion ends under parliamentary procedure. Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this petition? Edwin Kozial, 11790 Jarvis. I've been a resident of Jarvis Street for 35 years. We are here tonight. I understand this is the second time I'm here for this property. It would go from R8 to 121 and that's what we're here for. Basically I think that's what the people on Roselinda are here for. So there's a group of us all here for single family homes, okay? That's basically what we want. Its not my fault that all the Commissioners did not show up tonight. So let's vote to give this man the single family zoning go ahead, and let him take it to the next step. I think that will save us all from coming back, and you won't have to have a clogged up agenda for the next time. Give the man what he wants tonight. That's what we all want. I dont think anyone else in the audience wants multiple dwellings, so let's look at this and see about giving it to him. Patricia Baker, 11783 Roselinda. I live in the Parkview development, and I'm representing our group here this evening. I'd just like to say that is what we were talking with the developer about. We would support the R1 zoning. That's really all we have to say. Part of our concem was that we were opposing the multi -family density issue. So R-1 would be acceptable to us. Mr. Piercecchi: Thankyou. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to act tonight with all due to respect to Mr. Alanskas. I certainly understand his concern. But we do have citizens present. We're a little out of parliamentary order. We have half a motion on the floor and if he wishes to make it and seek support.. . Mr. Alanskas: I'll remove my motion. Mr. Walsh: What I'm going to do then is offer an approving resolution for R-1, and I'll speak to that if it's supported. Mark, would I delete 20349 Conditions 5 and 6 under the approved resolution and substitute the wording for R-1 atthe opening sentence on page 4? Mr. Pieroecchi: That's correct. Five and six get modified from R-3 to R-1. Mr. Taormina: Actually, I would delete Condition 6 altogether. Mr. Walsh: And delete Condition 5 as well? Mr. Taormina: Yes, that's correct. Use Conditions 1 through 4 as prepared. On a motion by Mr. Walsh, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-63-2003 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on April 15, 2003, on Petition 2003-02-01-10, submitted by Larry DeFiore, on behalf of Spalding Properties, LLC, requesting to rezone property located on the south side of Plymouth Road between Newburgh Road and Roselinda Road in the Southeast % of Section 30 from RUF to Rb and R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 200302-01- 10, as amended, be approved so as to rezone this property to R-1 only, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding zoning and land uses in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning will provide for the development of the subject property for single family residential purposes in a compatible manner with other developed properties in the area; 3. That the use of the subject property for single family residential purposes as allowed under the proposed change of zoning will be enhanced by its proximity to the large open space area provided by the Middle Rouge Parkway; and 4. That the proposed change of zoning will promote a comprehensive development plan for the subject property; FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice ofthe above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. 20350 Mr. Pieroecchi: Is there any discussion? Mr. Walsh: The reason I asked the questions of the developer, I'm ABSENT: concerned that since this is such a nice piece of property, you may have a demand for homes that are larger than the R-1 envelope. I heard your comment that you're gang to respect the building envelope, and we'll take a look at that more closely when you come back with a site plan. Having heard the neighbors endorse the R-1 zoning, I was then comfortable in offering the Rl as opposed to my intention earlier today to do R3. Mrs. Smiley: I would like to thank you for coming back this evening and re - expressing your opinions on that. Mr. Piercecchi, Acting Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM#5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 861 st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 861st Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on March 11, 2003. On a motion by Mr. Alanskas, seconded by Mrs. Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-64-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 861s' Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 11, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following AYES: Walsh, Smiley, Alanskas, Pieroecchi NAYS: None ABSENT: LaPine, Shane, McCann Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20351 ITEM#6 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 388th Special Meeting Mr. Pieroecchi, Acting Chairman, announced the next item on the agenda, On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-65-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 862n° Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Approval of the Minutes of the 388" Special Meeting held on NAYS: March 11, 2003. Mr. Alanskas: Mr. Chairman, through the chair, Mark, can just two of us approve the minutes? Mr. Taormina: No. Mr. Alanskas: I didn't think so. Mrs. Smiley: We weren't here. Mr. Walsh: We cant vole. Mr. Alanskas: So we should carry those minutes over to our next meeting to be voted on. Mr. Pieroecchi: Okay. ITEM#7 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 862nd Regular Meeting Mr. Alanskas, Acting Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of tie Minutes of the 862"4 Regular Meeting held on March 25, 2003. On a motion by Mrs. Smiley, seconded by Mr. Piercecchi, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-65-2003 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 862n° Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2003, are hereby approved. A roll call vole on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Alanskas, Smiley, Walsh, Pieroecchi NAYS: None ABSENT: LaPine, Shane, McCann Mr. McCann, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. 20352 On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 864th Regular Meeting held on May 6, 2003, was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. CIN PLANNING COMMISSION Robert Alanskas, Acting Secretary ATTEST: Dan Piercecchi, Acting Chairman nr