Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 1973-09-11 5391 MINUTES OF THE 263rd REGULAR MEETING AND A PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF t LIVONIA On September 11, 1973, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 263rd Regular Meeting and a Public Hearing at the Livonia City Hall, 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman called the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. with approximately 35 interested persons in the audience. Members present: Daniel R. Andrew Joseph J. Talbot Charles Pinto (8:15) Francis M. Hand (8:15) Suzanne Taylor Joseph J. Falk Herman H. Kluver Esther Friedrichs David F. Merrion Johnr-J. .Nagy, Planning Director; Ralph H. Bakewell, Planner IV; H. G. Shane,Planner IV; and Robert M. Feinberg, Assistant City Attorney were also present. Mr. Andrew informed the audience that if a petition on the evening's agenda involved a question of rezoning or vacating then the Planning Commission would only recommend to the City Council that certain action be taken whereupon the Council would ultimately decide whether or not to approve or deny the petition. Further, if a petition involved a waiver of use approval that is denied, the petitioner had tendays in which to appeal the decision to the Council. Mr. Andrew advised people in the audience that petition of Mr. Ken Morris was deferred to the Meeting of October 2, since Mr. Morris had not been able to meet with the residents of the subdivision as yet. Mr. Kluver, Secretary announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 73-5-1-21 (re-hearing) by Mr. and Mrs. Enrico Canini requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt between Grandon and Dover in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, from P.S. to C-1. Mr. Nagy: Engineering Division advised there is no storm sewer immediately available to service site. Mr. Canini: We have owned property for six years and we want to build an Italian bakery. A P.S. zoning is just not enough. Mr. Andrew: The Commission feels that this is an improper zoning for this area. With the limitations of commercial zoning, you would only be able to put up a building of 10 ft. in depth. Mr. Canini: I just do not see the rationale. Take Plymouth Road, for example the buildings come right up to the street. Mr. Andrew: That's a good example. One of the purposes of an ordinance is to eliminate non-conforming uses and you are right, there are buildings that come right up to the street but that happened before and we do not want anymore of this. Our present ordinances are to improve upon these conditions. • 5392 Mr. Canini: I just do not understand how we can own land for so long and then not be able to use it for a business we want. Mr. Andrew: Have you had it listed with a broker? Mr. Canini: Yes, about 2 years ago for 9 months. Nothing happened. Mr. Canini, Sr. : I wanted to build an office for my business and it was turned down. Now we can't even put up a bakery. Mr. Merrion: The setback for C-1 zoning is 75 ft. and depth of your property is 100 ft. There is also a rear yard requirement of 15 feet. That means that the building will only be 10 ft. in order to comply with the ordinance. If this property were to be rezoned to C-1 we would authorize a building that is against the ordinance. Mr. Canini: I understand that, I am sure the ordinances made are proper. Why not poll people and see if they want to do this because the land does not have a use as it is now. Mr. Merrion: This is not so, because a P.S. would only require a 40 ft. setback. M. J. Evans: We were of the understanding that there was a forty ft. road 29457 Grandon: behind us and a 30 ft. driveway. We would like a part of that vacated street. Mr. Andrew: According to our records it shows the alley to be vacated therefore, you should already have a part of that vacated property. Mrs. Shefler: I have been down here several years and this thing just keeps 9646 Riverdale getting tossed around. I am in favor of the zoning as it stands. Redford Leave the land zoned P.S. There was no one present wishing to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing on this item. On a motion duly made by Mr. Merrion, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted it was, #9-223-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing (re-hearing) having been held on September 11, 1973 on Petition 73-5-1-21 as submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Enrico Canini requesting to rezone property located on the west side of Middlebelt between Grandon and Dover in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 35, from P.S. to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 73-5-1-21 be denied for the following reasons: (1) The depth of the parcel is only 100', thus the standards of the C-1 District Regulations with respect to the front and rear yard setbacks would render this parcel virtually unusable for commercial purposes. • • 5393 (2) The proposed zoning change to commercial is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's land use recommendations as set forth in Petition 70-10-1-36 wherein the professional - service district was initially established in this block 11; area. (3) The proposed zoning change is inconsistent with the Planning Commission's policy of preferring professional service uses as opposed to commercial uses as a buffer and insulator to protect residential neighborhoods from the adverse effects of commercial uses and the intense traffic use of mile road corridors. (4) The rezoning of this land to commercial purposes would encourage additional strip commercial zoning along this mile road which would be contrary to good planning principles and, further, commercial development would create additional problems with traffic conflict along Middlebelt Road. ' FURTHER RESOLVED that, notice of the above public hearing was published in the official newspaper, the Livonia Observer, under date of August 18, 1973 and a notice of such hearing was sent to the Detroit Edison Company, Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Consumers Power Company and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver announced the text item on the agenda, Petition 73-8-2-18 by IL; Jack Bingham requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to erect an automotive diagnostic building on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20. Mr. Nagy: The Engineering Department indicated that storm sewers must be outletted to a storm drainage outlet located to the south of the proposed site. Mr. Ponder: We are here to obtain site plan approval. The center will set back in line with the gas station. We have ample room for parking in the rear. Fred Armour: I have been working with Mr. Nagy in order to give everyone Architect a building to be proud of. I have been using spectra-glaze which is available in many colors. Mr. Andrew: Is that a veneer? Mr. Armour: In a way it is but, it will not peel off. Mr. Andrew: John, what do you think of this? Mr. Nagy: I inspected several buildings with this form of brick and it L appeared to be very acceptable. Mrs. Taylor: What material will be used for the protective wall? Mr. Armour: It will be Poured concrete simulated brick. • • 5394 Mr. Merrion: Do you have a color selected? Mr. Armour: We were thinking of a light tan. There was no one present wishing to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mrs. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Falk and adopted it was, #9-224-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 11, 1973 on Petition 73-8-2-18 as submitted by Jack Bingham requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to erect an automotive diagnostic building on property located on the south side of Five Mile Road, east of Levan Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 20, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 73-8-2-18 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed use complies with Zoning Ordinance #543 and the special waiver standards related to auto services. with the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan dated August 6, 1973, prepared by Affiliated Engineers, Inc. , which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevation, Plan No. 73-D-454, dated 7/27/73, prepared by Affiliated Engineers Inc. which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That all landscaping as shown on the approved Site Plan shall be installed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (4) That all landscaping installed shall be permanently maintained and kept in a healthy condition. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Andrew, Hand, Kluver, Talbot, Taylor, Friedrichs, Pinto, Falk NAYS: Merrion ABSENT: None The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver announced the next item on the agenda, Petiton 73-7-1-29 by Joseph and Mary Ann Maiorana requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the South- west 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3 to C-1. Mr. Nagy: Engineering Department indicates there appears to be no engineering problems. If additional parking is required, 5 395 additional widening may be required by the Wayne County Road Commission. Mr. Charest: My client would like to expand his business. We are squaring out the parcel. One objection of the neighbor's was that the back was used for storage and other refuse. We have eliminated this by adding a compactor. We would like to rent this space to a meat market, etc., that would compliment the business there now. It would not be in competition with 7 Mile-Farmington Shopping Center. Mr. Andrew: Three years ago Mr. Maiorana did not own this property to the east. Mr. Charest: You are right but Maiorana bought land from Mr. Rosen 100 ft. first and then subsequently purchased another 100 ft. and a 300 ft. depth. This year we completed the purchase of the balance of the property except the furthest 60 ft. to the east. Mr. Korash advised me that they are desirous of rezoning the piece of property to C-1. Mr. Pinto: Do Mr. Rosen or Korash own anything further east? Mr. Charest: To my knowledge that goes into the Schroeder property. Mr. Hand: It is my understanding that you want rezoning for erection of additional buildings. Mr. Charest: That is right. Mr. Hand: Will these buildings be separate structures? Mr. Charest: They would be a separate building up to the existing building. Mr. Hand: Then this is not for expansion of the produce market. Mr. Charest: We would not need any more than 30 to 40 ft. and there are a large number of people that have been seeking to rent space from our store. ];ix. Hand: Has the property been purchased or is it under option? Mr. Charest: You can check and you will see the land was purchased 2 1/2 years ago and then the last piece was purchased 8 months ago. Mr. Hand: This is one of the areas we are most concerned about. You know our stand about commercial expansion on Mile Roads. Mr. Charest: What do you want to do with this parcel? Do you want to put or, up a building 13 ft. deep? It is commercial to the east already and there's commercial across the street. 5396 We were encouraged by Mr. Kerby to eliminate the fire trap and build this beautiful modern structure which is a great deal of expense. We are not expanding commercial. Commercial has always been on this block and has been for years. Mr. Hand: You want to put in a shopping center and to that is commercial expansion. Mr. Merrion: What is the setback of the present building? Mr. Charest: We are back from the center line of the road 160 ft. If we are granted this rezoning we will build a proper wall etc. It is better to do it now before residents go in behind there and tell us that we are destroying their lovely homes. Mr. Friedrichs: I would like to study this further and wait for the land use study. Mr. Pinto: You are asking for depth to be increased 137 ft. Since the C-1 is there, the petitioner can go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and increase his building 50 ft. It looks like the question is do you want the 87 feet in front of the building or in the back with all that vancat land. Mr. Falk: We have had trouble with residents in that area before. It is a very fine business. lit Mr. Charest: We will put parking on that C-1 if that is what you want. Mr. Pinto: What we are talking about here is how far back the structures are going to be back from 7 Mile Road. Mr. Andrew: Would your client be receptive to allocating property east of the existing building to parking where parking is most critically needed? Mr. Charest: No we would not be interested. Mr. Andrew: What will you do for parking? You lack parking space now. Mr. Charest: I said we would put in adequate parking. Whatever he puts in there, he will not kill the goose that laid the egg and not allow enough parking. Mr. Andrew: If he owns the property to the east, why isn't he parking there now? Mr. Charest: Because we do not know what you are going to do to us. We will not build or do anything until we know we have tenants. When we come for a site plan you can tell us about the parking. te, Mr. Pinto: Why not use the front of the land for parking. Mr. Andrew: It may not be enough. I want to make sure sufficient land is available around the existing building to provide adequate parking first. 5 39 7 Mr. Taylor: How far do you go into the presently zoned C-1? Mr. CharesC; Just under 100 ft. Mr. Pinto: How much of the area will you build on? Mr. Maiorana: About 40 ft. There was no one else present wishing to be heard on this item and the Chairman closed the public hearing on this petition. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted it was, ##9-225-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 11, 1973 on Petition 73-7-1-29 as submitted by Joseph and Mary Maiorana requesting to rezone property located on the north side of Seven Mile Road, east of Shadyside in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 3, from R-3 to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine to table this item to the study meeting of SEptember 18, 1973. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 73-8-2-19 by Alexander and Rose Spiro requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing convalescent nursing center located on the north side of Morlock, east of Middlebelt in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 1. i Michael Katulski: It is my understanding that Mr. Bakewell advised Mr. Spiro that there were ten points that needed clarification and to my understanding they have been met. Mr. Andrew: Is the house going to be torn down? Mr. Spiro: No. Mr. Andrew: What do you use the house for? Mr. Spiro: For a full time maintenance man. Mr. Andrew: Mr. Nagy, have you looked at this house? Mr. Nagy: Yes. Mr. Andrew: What does it look like? Mr. Nagy: Substantial, well maintained house. Mr. Talbot: Does the staff have any objections to anything on the site plan? There was no one present wishing to be heard on this item and the Chairman closed the public hearing on this petition. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Pinto and unanimously adopted it was, 5398 #9-226-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 11, 1973 on Petition 73-8-2-19 as submitted by Alexander and Rose Spiro requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to construct an addition to an existing convalescent nursing center located on the north side of Morlock, east of Middlebelt in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 1, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 73-8-2-19 be approved for the following reasons: (1) The proposed request is an expansion to an existing convalescent home already established on the site. (2) Planned as part of the proposed addition is an upgrading in the architectural and site improvements for the overall site area. with the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan dated 5/16/73, prepared by Roy J. Strickfaden, Architect, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That building elevation Plan #120172, dated 5/16/73, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That Landscape Plan, revised dated 9/11/ 73, prepared by Harold Thomas Nurseries, and agreed to by the petitioner which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. 1[0 (4) That all landscaping shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and kept in a healthy condition. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluwer announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 73-7-1-30 by the City Planning Commission to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from C-2 and RUF to C-1. Mr. Charest: I would like to hear from the proponent as to why you want the rezoning. Mr. Andrew: We have a parcel of record split in two non compatible zoning classifications, i.e. RUF and C-2. I think land should be zoned for one particular use. We are creating a transitional area from the heavy commercial to the north and residential located to the south. Mr. Hand: Property is used in part for some commercial use and in part for residential use. I think we should have a C-1 zoning to step down the zoning from C-2 to C-1 to PS and RUF from there on. Mr. Charest: Back in 1971 the same Planning Commission under Petition 71-6-1-33 5399 wanted this same property rezoned from C-2 to RUF and I asked the same question then as to why. I believe that • was finally tabled. ILMr. Andrew: It was withdrawn. Mr. Charest: I never heard anything further on it. If you check the files Lee Landscaping owns the property. They have been using this for business for many years. If you do not want to split it then make it all C-2. If you are waiting for the Master Study Plan then why are we here? • This is a little premature. I simply do not understand. I think you are trying to drive Mr. Lee out. Under C-2 he can store sand, etc. , under C-1 he cannot do this. We are defending this use. It is C-2 now and we want it to stay that way. Why not wait until the study comes back and then take action and then we will fight that battle. - We object to your present action. That property should be C-2 and that is what it should remain. The piece across the street is C-2. Mr. Nagy: It isn't that we are trying to make a major land use change here. We are doing a housecleaning chore. If you were to look at the map and see P.S. and Residential zoning you would see that we had to examine the land to the north that was zoned C-2 in part and in part RUF. It's an adjustment /11 of zoning to bring zoning district lines in coincidence with property lines. Mr. Charest: And that is to their profit and to our detriment. That will devalue our property. That's spot zoning. You should make ours C-2 and them P.S. next to it. What gives you the right that you can say that property can be C-1 and C-2. Any large use will go through waiver anyway. Mr. Hand: We think, we are_ making a sound recommendation. The landscape company's use of the property can remain exactly the same. He can use the property as he uses it now. Mr. Nagy: Landscaping contractor's uses are non-conforming uses in a C-2 as they would be in C-1. Mr. Charest: I did not know that. When did that happen? Mr. Andrew: Since the zoning ordinance was amended to provide that constractors are waiver uses in the M-i zoning district. There was no one present wishing to be heard and the chairman closed the public hearing on this item. On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mrs. Friedrichs and adopted it was, 110 #9-227-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a public hearing having been held on September 11, 1973 on Petition 73-7-1-30 as submitted by the City Planning Commission on its own motion to rezone property located on the west side of Farmington Road, south of Eight Mile Road in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 4, from 5400 C-2 and RUF to C-1, the City Planning Commission does hereby determine/table this item to the September 18, study meeting. A roll call vote resulted in the following: AYES: Falk, Friedrichs, Merrion, Pinto, Talbot, . Taylor, Andrew NAYS: Hand, Kluver v The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 73-7-7-5 by the City Planning Commission to amend Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master-Fire Station Plan, so as to delete a portion of Parcel 17L1L2a located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17. There was no one present wishing to be heard on this item and the Chairman closed the public hearing. On a motion duly made by Mr. Taylor and seconded by Mr. Kluver and unanimously adopted it was, #9-228-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan, 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia having duly held a public hearing on September 11, 1973 for the purpose of amending Part VI of the Master Plan of the City of Livonia, the Master Fire te Station Plan, the same is hereby amended so as to delete a portion of Parcel 17L1L2a located in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 17, being legally described as follows: Parcel 17L1L2a (partial) That part of the S. W. 1/4 of Section 17, T. 1 S. , R. 9 E. , City of Livonia, Wayne County, Michigan, described as beginning at a point on the west line of said section distant due north 657.69 ft. from the southwest corner of said Section 17 and pro- ceeding thence due north along the west line 175.00 ft. , thence due east 300.00 feet; thence due south 175.00 ft. , thence due west 300.0 ft. to the west line of said Section 17 which is the point of beginning. for the following reason: (1) The subject fire station site is no longer needed in that the City has acquired an alternate site to serve the needs for a branch fire station in this area. AND, having given proper notice of such hearing as required by Act 285 of Public Acts of Michigan 1931, as amended, the City Planning Commission does hereby adopt said amendment as part 11-40 of the Master Fire Station Plan of the City of Livonia, which is incorporated herein by reference, the same having been adopted by resolution of the City Planning Commission, with all amendments thereto, and further that this amendment shall be filed with the City Council, City Clerk and the City Planning Commission and a certified copy shall also be forwarded to the Register of Deeds for the County of Wayne for recording. • 5401 The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mr. Kluver announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 73-7-2-14 by Mobil 4111, Oil Corporation requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to rebuild an existing service station located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21. On a motion duly made by Mr. Kluver, seconded by Mrs. Taylor and unanimously adopted it was, #9-229-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held on August 14, 1973 on Petition 73-7-2-14 as submitted by Mobil Oil Corporation requesting to be granted a waiver use approval to rebuild an existing service station located on the northwest corner of Schoolcraft and Farmington Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 21, the City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 73-7-2-14 be approved for the following reasons: (1) This petition represents a proposal to replace the existing service station with a new structure conforming to modern day standards of architecture and site development related to gasoline service station operations. (2) This waiver use proposal represents an overall site improvement with respect to the existing site as well as making the overall area more compatible to the adjacent residential area by way of landscaping, paving and increased yard setbacks. with the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan #03-376, revised 9/5/73, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to in all respects. (2) That Building Elevation Plan #20-214, revised 7/7/73, which is hereby approved shall be adhered to. (3) That Landscape Plan #03-376, Sheet 1 of 1, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to and that all landscaping as shown on the approved plan shall be installed before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (4) That this approval is subject to the obtaining of a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the special waiver use standards of the Zoning Board of Appeals as they relate to gasoline service stations. The technical conflicts are: a. Setback from Farmington Road; 68' proposed, 75' required. b. Setback from Schoolcraft Road; 57 1/2' proposed, 75' required. 5402 c. Vehicular entrances or exits no less than a minimum Ileof 25' from the intersection of corner property lines; 461 20' proposed. d. Distance between driveways; 27' proposed, 30' required. e. Side Yard proposed 17' , 20' required. f. Proposed location of the sign; minimum setback permitted l0',6' proposed. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above public hearing was sent to property owners within 500 feet, petitioner and City Departments as listed in the Proof of Service. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver announced the next item on the agenda, motion by the City Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to determine whether or not to amend Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, by deleting from Section 17.03(b) the exception providing that certain uses may be permitted uses upon approval by the City Planning Commission. On a motion duly made by Mr. Hand, seconded by Mr. Pinto and unanimously adopted it was, 111( 119-230-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 23.01 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, the City Planning Commission does hereby establish and order that a public hearing be held in the City Hall to determine whether or not to amend Section 17.03(b) of Ordinance #543 by deleting the exception providing that certain uses may be permitted uses upon approval by the City Planning Commission. FURTHER RESOLVED, notice of time and place of said public hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Livonia and a notice by registered United States mail shall be sent to each public utility or railroad company owning or operating any public utility or railroad comapny within the City of Livonia in accordance with the provisions of Act 285 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1931, as amended. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Kluver announced the next ,tem on the agenda, Petition 73-7-8-33P by Dubuque- Radin, Architects, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, submitted in connection with a proposal to erect a medical office building on property located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Brentwood in Section 1. E': On a motion duly made by Mr. Pinto, seconded by Mr. Hand and unanimously adopted it was, . 5403 #9-231-73 RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 18.58 of Ordinance #543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, as amended by Ordinance #988, the City Planning Commission does hereby approve Petition Ile 73-7-8-33P by Dubuque-Radin Architects, requesting approval of all plans required by Section 18.58 submitted in connection 4110 with a proposal to erect a medical-office building on property located on the southeast corner of Eight Mile Road and Brentwood in Section 1, subject to the following conditions: (1) That Site Plan Phase I #L"dated August 22, 1973 prepared by Dubuque-Radin, Architects, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (2) That Building Elevations for Phase I as shown on Plan #3846, dated August 22, 1973, prepared by Dubuque-Radin, Architects, which are hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (3) That the Landscape Plan #L'submitted as part of the Site Plan which outlines thereon that portion of the site to be landscaped in connection with Phase I, which is hereby approved, shall be adhered to. (4) That all landscaping as shown on the approved Landscape Plan shall be installed before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and shall be permanently maintained and kept in a healthy condition. The Chairman declared the motion carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 263rd Regular Meeting of the City Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 4444-* Herman H. Kluver, Secretary ATTEST: .141,1a0140gf Daniel R. Andrew, Chairman •