Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLANNING MINUTES 2018-05-22 MINUTES OF THE 1,123rd PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING HELD BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA On Tuesday, May 22, 2018, the City Planning Commission of the City of Livonia held its 1,123rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting in the Livonia City Hall, 33000 Civic Center Drive, Livonia, Michigan. Mr. Ian Wilshaw, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Sam Caramagno Glen Long Betsy McCue Carol Smiley Kevin Priddy Peter Ventura Ian Wilshaw Members absent: None Mr. Mark Taormina, Planning Director, and Ms. Margie Watson, Program Supervisor, were also present. Chairman Wilshaw 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 filing. The staff has furnished the Commission with both approving and denying resolutions, which the Commission may, or may not, use depending on the outcome of the proceedings tonight. ITEM #1 PETITION 2018-02-01-03 CROSS WINDS COURT Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the first item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 02-01-03 submitted by Cross Winds Court pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 34405, 34401 and 34407 Ann Arbor Trail, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from R-U-F (Rural Urban Farm) to R-1 (One Family Residential). May 22, 2018 28553 Mr. Wilshaw: This item was tabled at a previous meeting. Do we have a motion to remove this from the table? On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-29-2018 RESOLVED, that in connection with Petition 2018-02-01-03 submitted by Cross Winds Court pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 34405, 34401 and 34407 Ann Arbor Trail, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from R-U-F to R-1, the Planning Commission does hereby remove this item from the table. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Wilshaw: The background information on this item was already read out at a previous meeting, but because we didn't have an opportunity to discuss it fully, I'm going to go to Mr. Taormina and he can give us a brief overview of this item again. Mr. Taormina: The property that is the subject of this rezoning petition is located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road. The property measures roughly 2.72 acres in size. It has 148 feet of frontage along Ann Arbor Trail and a depth of roughly 800 feet. The site presently contains three non- conforming single-family homes that are located on the northerly half of the property. The remaining rear section of the property is currently vacant. To the west, there is a similar size property that contains a single-family dwelling that is also zoned RUF, Rural Urban Farm. To the east are homes that are under the R-1, One Family Residential classification, the same classification proposed for this site. There was a conceptual plan submitted with the application. The main objective of the rezoning is to subdivide the property so that each of the three existing homes can be located on separate conforming lots and to allow for the construction of one new home. Dover Street dead ends in the southeast corner, which would allow for the possible future extension of the road to potentially serve one or more new home sites on the subject parcel. The plot plan shows four parcels. Parcels A, B and C each contain one of the existing homes. Parcels A and B are the two proposed parcels that are located closest to Ann Arbor Trail, whereas Parcel C includes the majority of the parcel. It's the largest of the four parcels and would contain the residence that is located directly behind those two homes. Parcels A and B each measure 74 feet by 175 feet. Parcel C, as May 22, 2018 �. 28554 I indicated, is larger containing the other existing home. Parcel D would constitute the new building site and that would take access from Dover Street. The home on Parcel C would also take its access off Dover Street. So currently, there is a driveway that serves Parcels A, B and C. Parcel C is served by the shared driveway that extends to Ann Arbor Trail. That would change under the proposed plan. Parcel C would now take its access from an extended driveway off Dover Street. Parcel D would be the new building site. On the latest plan, Parcel D measures roughly 60 feet by 140 feet in compliance with the R-1 district regulations The other new information we have regarding this property is in a letter dated May 21, 2018, the petitioner lists the following four improvements that would be completed as a condition of zoning approval. 1) He will remove the house and garage on Parcel A within 60 days of final approval; 2) He will install a new two-car garage and redo the front porch on Parcel B within 60 days of final approval; 3) He will remove all fencing and completely clean the exterior of Parcel C within 60 days of final approval; and 4) remove the house and garage on Parcel C, a commitment that he would make before November 30, 2019. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to answer any questions. The petitioner is here this evening. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, we already read out correspondence on this item. Was there any new correspondence that came in since that last meeting? Mr. Taormina: No. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. Is there any questions for our Planning staff? Seeing none, is the petitioner here? Mr. Baki, please start with your name and address for our records. Sam Baki, 38901 Plymouth Road, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Good evening. As Mr. Taormina mentioned, this property is zoned RUF, has three residences on it under one sidwell number, even though they have several addresses, but it's one sidwell number. It cannot be B sold or divided unless we do what we're doing. The reasoning behind what we're doing for the zoning is, one, so we can separate the units and have them sellable so instead of being rented out will be sold. Two, as you see on the east side of the property and west to the adjacent property to us, the majority of the zoning in that area is R-1 and that's minimum 60 by 120. If you look at the lots, every lot we have at this time, they all supersede 60 by 120. The front ones on Ann Arbor Trail are 74 by 170 and the one on the south side is 60 by 140. That's the southern side, and the reason we did that is because that lines fi May 22, 2018 28555 up with the two lots, which is lot 19 and 20, from the subdivision next door so the fencing can line up. That's the reason we did that, modified it from last time. Other than that, as he read, we had a meeting last week on site and went over everything and we are willing to, within 60 days from approval, remove the house on Parcel A and the garage completely, and start construction on a new house. Parcel B has already been remodeled on the exterior. We're willing to add a two-garage in the back and we're willing to modify a little bit in the front entrance to make it look a little better. And just to say, too, on Parcel B, it sits back far enough from the road, which is right-of-way of Ann Arbor Trail, so we're sitting fine with whatever we're going to do, modification for that parcel. Then Parcel D will be a new construction. Everything we're doing on these sites will have to invest in running sewer lines because there's no sewer. I mean it's next door, but it's not on our property. We're going to bring sewer lines so they'll all be off of septic. Each one will have their own water line and sewer line to meet city standard and state standard. The house on Parcel C will be removed by November 30, 2019 and then after that, we're going to end up building a house next to Parcel D closer. We have tenants on the property and we don't want to just kick them out at this time. That's why we're giving her a year. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Is there anything else that you wanted to add, Mr. Baki? Mr. Baki: No. Mr. Wilshaw: All right. Thank you. Is there any questions for the petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Just for my clarity, there's going to be a new property on A, C and D, and then you're going to re-do B. Is that correct? Mr. Baki: Yeah. We're going to finish re-doing B. We've already started on B. We're going to finish it and add to it. Ms. Smiley: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner'? Mr. Caramagno: Sam, Parcel C, is that going to come off of the septic and get its own water or is that going to stay on it until you knock it down? It says November 30. Mr. Baki: If you notice, there's a sewer line coming here. We are going to connect to it. May 22, 2018 28556 Mr. Caramagno: So you're going to connect right now although you're going to knock it down in a year and a half? Mr. Baki: Yes. No, we're going to connect it at this time. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Mr. Baki: Once the equipment is there, they're going to connect all these F houses at the same time. So it's not a lot of added cost to do it at this time. F Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Baki, I don't understand your answer. What I understand you to say, is you are not going to connect the existing house on Parcel C to sewer ever. Mr. Baki: No, no. I said we are going to connect it at this time even though we're going to tear it down in a year. Mr. Ventura: You are? Mr. Baki: Yes. That's why we showed it on the print. Because the cost is not that much when we're already doing the work next door. So we're going to do it all at the same time. Fr Mr. Ventura: All right. When will you build Parcel D? Mr. Baki: Parcel D? Mr. Ventura: When will you build the house on Parcel D? Mr. Baki: It will be done this year. We'll start this year. As soon as we get 1 approval, we're going to proceed with getting engineering approvals for the sewer lines to extend and the expansion of the road at the same time. We're going to break down houses once we get lot split approvals. All this construction will be done this k year except Parcel C. The removal of that house won't be done F for another year and half. Mr. Ventura: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Priddy: Hi Sam. I understand you have tenants in Parcel C. Mr. Baki: Yes. F Mr. Priddy: Do you currently have tenants in A and B as well? 1 1 May 22, 2018 28557 Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Priddy: Are you doing the remodel while they're in there? Mr. Baki: We already remodeled Parcel B the outside. Adding the garage won't affect them and adding the porch won't affect them while they live there. Parcel A, we're going to be asking them to move out. And Parcel C, they've got a year to move out. Mr. Priddy: And then you mentioned you're trying to get it rezoned so you can split those off to sell them. Is that the intent? Mr. Baki: Yeah, to build and sell. Not sell them as is. Mr. Priddy: Will you keep them rentals, though? Mr. Baki: No. Mr. Priddy: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Baki. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak for or against this item? If so, please come forward to either podium. We will need your name and address for our record. Sandra McKolay, 8892 Hanlon Avenue, Livonia, Michigan 48150. If they're allowed do this, first of all, the property is very narrow. This is going to affect our quiet enjoyment. We bought these properties on the border, on the sub behind us and in my sub. We paid extra money for those lots, quite a bit of extra money. And we bought them there because it was zoned rural. This is going to affect our quiet enjoyment. This is going to affect property values. I'm a realtor. This will affect property values. If you have a woods behind you or open land, it's much more advantageous for the seller to get a higher amount of money. I've been doing this 25 years. I know what I'm talking about. I feel like we're all good taxpayers that live on these borders and I feel like, for one person, and no offense. I know Leo. I know him personally. Nice enough man. But for him to make a buck, I don't think it's right to affect our enjoyment of our homes, our property values. And it's going to constant traffic. It's a small area, and once they open up that little area off of Dover, there's no telling what will happen, especially if Michelle sells her property, which is adjacent to that property. I'm very much against it and I don't want it done. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Ms. McKolay. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Please come forward. May 22, 2018 28558 Mike Furgerson, 8880 Hamlin, Livonia, Michigan 48150. I'm also concerned about this in several ways, including traffic issues that we already see along Ann Arbor Trail. You'll see that area is right at the end of a curve in the road. It narrows there. Several accidents we've seen come around that bend and a lot of backup westbound coming up to Wayne Road. You'll see traffic backups nearing that bend. I'm also concerned about or curious about whether water studies, as far as flooding, you know. I mean we're displacing soil whenever you build. And also like Sandy said, there's woods there. There is nature that extends out. I believe that's a tributary of the Rouge so that is kind of an outlet or an outcrop of the nature that's available along the Rouge. It impacts on our property values. So it seems like when Parcel D is built, if we could look at that other map maybe. It seems like that will tear up that space enough that there's enough room for that house but not many others. It seems like there's going to be a lot of dead land when that house is built on Parcel D. Mr. Wilshaw: Mark, do you want to switch over to the conceptual site plan? Thank you. Mr. Furgerson: I was curious. There's the line along the back of the current houses along the southeast there. And then Parcel D will be put F up against the back of those. We said that would be a full 60 by 120. That seems like it's very narrow. Then on the other side of that street, there's not going to be enough room for more houses. Is that just gonna . . . seems like it will just be dead space or maybe it will be woods, but it's not going to be able to be F developed on so it seems like it's ill conceived to put one parcel there and not have the ability to put anything on the other side of that street, maybe something along the same side of that street, but it seems like a bit short sighted unless we're not hearing the F entire vision. Mr. Wilshaw: Are you referring to the extension of Dover that goes west or the driveway that you're seeing going north and south'? Mr. Furgerson: Yes. Both of those. Mr. Wilshaw: Because the road that you see going north and south is just a gravel driveway. It's not a fully developed road. Mr. Furgerson: And that's acceptable by the city? Mr. Wilshaw: It's a driveway to service Parcel C. May 22, 2018 I 28559 Mr. Furgerson: So the street is only the part that extends west. Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. That would be a proper, fully developed road with curbs and whatnot. I I Mr. Furgerson: Oh. So the driveway would belong to Parcel C? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. It would be so that they can access their home. E Mr. Furgerson: So would Parcel C own that entire property south of C all the way to the street? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes. That would be one entire parcel. I` Mr. Furgerson: Thank you for listening to my concerns. Mr. Wilshaw: Certainly, Mr. Furgerson. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Donald Munson, 8835 Norwich, Livonia, Michigan 48150. Residents there of over 61 years. Appreciated the properties behind us. Disappointed in the presentation you got that we couldn't see. We did not know what A, B or C was. It doesn't mean a thing to us when we can't see it. All we could do was hear so we don't know. We're concerned about the traffic that continues around Ann Arbor Trail r at that curve. We were in here in meetings before a few years ago when St. Jude wanted to do something, and the traffic considerations were one of the issues, and it is still is. East and west of that curve, there's a sign that shows you the curve, and in small letters is says 25. Most people don't see 25 and the a majority don't know what 25 means. They don't know that it's supposed to mean 25 miles per hour. It's a very unsafe place. A lot of accidents happen right there at Ann Arbor Trail and Wayne Road also. There's been rollovers. There's been cars flipped over in the ditch just on the east side of Norwich on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail. We've had cars go through the curve on the house that's at Stark Road and Ann Arbor Trail. That's why they put a bigger barrier. If you look at some of the trees at St. Jude, you can see that they've been hit by cars. Being a resident there for all these years, we have appreciated, as was mentioned, the nice facility. We were there long before the subdivision was built I west of us, past these two parcels. The one that's an issue now and then the other property that is owned by the lady that's in the white house at the curve. Back then, when we moved here, it 1 was a cabbage patch and you could smell it. When the builder t got permission to build houses in that other subdivision, it was a property that was loaded with beautiful black walnut trees. And € Y I i r I 1 i May 22, 2018 28560 they assured everybody they would not take them down, but if they did, they would be assessed a penalty. So they took them all down. Man, did they get socked. It cost them a whole $150.00. One piece of wood out of one of those trees would have taken that. We appreciate the land that's behind us. It accommodates a lot of different types of wildlife, beautiful birds, animals. We appreciate that. One of my other concerns when you talk about sewers and water coming down that property, I have some friends that live in Redford Township. The property to the west of them across their street was empty. And then they came in and they built homes and lo and behold, all of those existing houses begin to have problems. Their walls shifted. They couldn't open and close their doors because of underground things that happened. Right now, our property sets lower than that property. We appreciate being in that area and we appreciate Edward Hines Drive being the flood plain so we don't get flooded basements. But there is an interesting part. There is one house, at least one on Dover on the south side, even though it's a long drop behind them, that gets flooded basements. I don't know what causes that. But anyhow, that would be part of our presentation or our concern. My concerns and I express that for some others but they've got to mention that. Thank you for your time. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Munson. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against this item? Mr. Taormina, just for the audience members' benefit, I know that the visibility on the screens aren't necessarily the best at times, but could you bring up the conceptual site plan and just do a little zooming and show us where Parcels A, B, C and D are? Mr. Taormina: Yes. I think it's easy for everyone in the audience who knows this property to understand where the existing homes are located. So when we refer to Parcel A, that would be the lot that would be created for the first home to the east on this property that has an address of 34401. That's the smaller of the three homes. That's the one that would come down. It's the older home, and that would be replaced with a new home. Parcel B is right next to that and that would encompass the house that was recently remodeled on this property. It would be of identical size. Then Parcel C refers to the largest of the four parcels that would encompass the red house at the back of the property. I refer to it as the red house because that's probably the easiest way. It's the one that sits behind the other two in the front half of the property. And then Parcel D refers to the only new property that would be created under this concept plan, and that would have frontage on Dover Avenue, extended for a short distance. I'll point out that this project introduces no additional roads or traffic per se to Ann May 22, 2018 28561 Arbor Trail from this site. The only additional lot that would be created, Parcel D, would have to take its access through the subdivision to the east via the public roads that are available from Norwich and Dover Avenue. Under this plan currently would not introduce any additional traffic. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Taormina. Is there any other questions for staff? Mr. Munson: Is it possible for us to get a copy of that also? We don't really see from sitting back here. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Munson, I think you can contact the Planning Department or Mr. Baki can give you an extra copy. Mr. Munson: Can you make that and we'll share it with everybody? Mr. Baki: Yes, you can have it. Mr. Priddy: I have a question for Mark. Looking at the parcels and the way they're arranged, how long have those buildings been there? Mr. Taormina: That's difficult to say. My guess would be they've been there since the '30's or '40's. Under today's standards, we wouldn't allow this type of arrangement on a single parcel like this. Mr. Priddy: Would the lines as they're drawn look reasonable for what you'd expect today if the houses were laid out that way? Mr. Taormina: I think with respect to Parcel A and B, the answer is yes. Parcel C, he's working with what they have. That's somewhat unique. And Parcel D really would be the logical placement of a property with the extension of Dover. Mr. Priddy: So Parcel D tends to match the neighborhood then? Mr. Taormina: It's not too dissimilar. It's an arrangement that we see in other subdivisions where lots adjoin other lots. Mr. Priddy: And the only way to get those parcels would be to change the zoning. Correct? Mr. Taormina: That is correct. Yes. The only way this could happen would be with a change of zoning. He attempted to split the lots previously and that was rejected by the City because of some issues with the frontage and lot sizes. Mr. Priddy: Thank you. May 22, 2018 28562 Mr. Wilshaw: I just want to ask the folks in the audience please keep your voices down. We do have a meeting taking place. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Taormina? Mr. Ventura: Mr. Chair, I have another question for Mr. Baki. Mr. Wilshaw: Certainly. Mr. Ventura: Mr. Soave's letter of the 21St says that you're going to take the home on Parcel C down in November of next year. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Ventura: And I'm assuming then that there will be no home replacement there. Another home will not be built there. Is that correct? Mr. Baki: No, we are going to be building another home next to the home. Mr. Ventura: That's on Parcel D. I'm talking about Parcel C. Mr. Baki: Parcel C. That's what I'm talking about. We're building Parcel D now. When we get approvals, we're going to start construction on that parcel. Parcel D, we will build a home closer to the Dover side after we tear the house down. Mr. Wilshaw: Parcel C. Mr. Baki: Yes, Parcel C. Which is the existing red house, the oldest house on the site. Mr. Ventura: Where do you imagine that will be, Mr. Baki? Mr. Baki: It will be right next to the other house, just adjacent to it. The opening next to the 60-foot lot by 140, which is Parcel D. Right next to it. The house will be sitting right in the front because that will have the street front off of Dover. The same way instead of having the whole driveway to the back of the property, it will be in the front. It will be new construction. We're not adding more homes; we're just replacing that house. 1 Mr. Ventura: So the Parcel C home would be north of Parcel D? Mr. Baki: No. Parcel C will be next to Parcel D once we tear the old house down, west of it. Mr. Ventura: West of it. May 22, 2018 28563 Mr. Baki: Yes, once we tear the house down. Mr. Ventura: Thank you, Mr. Baki. Mr. Wilshaw: Do we have any other questions for Mr. Baki? Ms. McCue: Maybe you said this, I'm sorry. I may have missed it, but so then Parcel C, the game plan will be, they'll have access off of Dover? Mr. Baki: Yes. Either/or, they're going to have access off of Dover. Either now or next year, it will be the same access. Ms. McCue: Okay. Mr. Baki: Because right now, if you drove through the property, there's the west side of Parcel B. There's a 12-foot drive to get to the back and that's not proper. Dover has been designed for an expansion. That's why they left that extension of Dover when it was designed. It almost like master planned by the City to connect. The person who owns the back house can drive through Dover and get to his house. All they have to do is move the bushes out and that house is accessible because the road is right there as a frontage. Ms. McCue: And again, I'm probably just not seeing this. So then if you were to build additional homes back here, how would they access? Mr. Baki: More than the four lots? Ms. McCue: Yes. Mr. Baki: If you do that, if the land on the west got acquired, and the owner decided to sell, we can still run the street straight through. That's why the other house would be next to it and then turn around and have a cul-de-sac. And that's the reason we're not tearing the front two houses . . . both houses in the front off Ann Arbor Trail. As you've heard from the residents, Wayne County won't allow it and for safety reasons. So that's why we left the front lots 170 feet deep instead of 120 normal for R-1 to keep it away and save the entrance off of Dover, and that's why it was designed originally when that subdivision was designed. Mr. Caramagno: Sam, I have another question for you. Anytime you see development in the City or anywhere for that matter, the question always comes around. I like this forest land or vacant land behind me. I can appreciate that, but how long was this property for sale? May 22, 2018 28564 Mr. Baki: Almost two years. Mr. Caramagno: Almost how many? Two or three? Mr. Baki: Two years. Mr. Caramagno: Did anybody from the neighborhood approach you about buying it? Mr. Baki: None. And it was only being sold for $225,000. Mr. Caramagno: $225,000? Mr. Baki: Three houses for sale for $225,000 and nobody approached us for anything because investors don't like this kind of homes because it didn't have each property cannot be sold separate. Mr. Caramagno: I thought you said last time it was for sale. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: Any everybody likes vacant land but nobody wants to buy this vacant land. Mr. Baki: No. Mr. Caramagno: And you want to develop it. Mr. Baki: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our petitioner? Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing at this time. Mr. Furgerson: I have questions for the Council if that's okay. Mr. Wilshaw: Sir, we had our opportunity for questions. Are these new questions? Please go to the podium. Go ahead and ask your questions. Mr. Furgerson: The gentleman spoke of moving or building a new home to replace Parcel C and that it would be directly west of Parcel D? Mr. Wilshaw: Correct. May 22, 2018 28565 Mr. Furgerson: Is there enough room there to accommodate the City's requirement of the 60 x 120? It doesn't seem to. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, there is. Mr. Furgerson: And then would all the land between the new C and D and then north of there to A and B, would that land all be locked in and no access for any new houses? And we've already heard from the resident in the property that's west of this, that she has no interest or intent to sell. Mr. Wilshaw: You need to ask your questions to us. Mr. Furgerson: Okay. Is that landlocked land in the interest of the City? Mr. Taormina: Mr. Chairman, if I may? Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina. Mr. Taormina: I know what he's referring to. It technically is not landlocked. It would just be part of Parcel C, and until such time that either a new development proposal comes to us that may or may not include the adjoining parcel to the west, that would have to remain as part of Parcel C and it would be left undeveloped. Under this proposal, with the removal of the house on Parcel C, the relocation of the house, let's just say the new house will be built further to the south adjacent to the home on Parcel D, then yes. Under this scheme, that land would remain for an indefinite period of time undeveloped. There are circumstances that could allow for its future development, but that's all speculative at this point as he indicated, potentially with the sale of the adjoining property to the west and a rezoning. That would be all contingent on rezoning as well. Mr. Furgerson: And would there by any interest by the City to acquire or develop any of that land as it's an outcrop of the nature land to the south of it? Is there any coordination that could be done with the owners for some kind of additional development? Mr. Wilshaw: That's not really our purview. We're not in charge of buying land for the City, but as you've heard, this land has been available for sale for the last couple years and there's been no offers made on it. Mr. Furgerson: Thank you. May 22, 2018 28566 Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, sir. With that, I will again close the public hearing portion of our agenda and a motion would be in order. On a motion by Priddy, seconded by Smiley, and adopted, it was #05-30-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 2018, on Petition 2018-02-01-03 submitted by Cross Winds Court pursuant to Section 23.01 of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, requesting to rezone the properties at 34405, 34401 and 34407 Ann Arbor Trail, located on the south side of Ann Arbor Trail between Norwich Avenue and Wayne Road in the Southwest 1/4 of Section 33, from R-U-F (Rural Urban Farm) to R- 1 (One Family Residential), the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-02-01- 03 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed change of zoning is compatible to and in harmony with the surrounding land uses and zoning districts in the area; 2. That the proposed change of zoning is consistent with the developing character of the area; and 3. That the proposed change of zoning will help eliminate existing nonconformities that are present on the subject property. The Planning Commission supports and encourages City Council approval of a Conditional Agreement wherein the Petitioner, via a letter dated May 21, 2018, voluntarily offers the following: 1. That the house and garage on Parcel A shall be removed within 60 days of final approval; 2. That a two-car garage and new porch on the existing house shall be constructed on Parcel B within 60 days of final approval; 3. That all fencing and debris shall be removed on Parcel C within 60 days of final approval; and 4. That the existing house and garage on Parcel C shall be demolished and removed by November 30, 2019. May 22, 2018 28567 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Mr. Priddy: We'd also like to incorporate the conditions that were in the letter that were received from the petitioner. Ms. Smiley: So he's incorporating the letter from Leo Soave with all his intentions, right? Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, those four conditions. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Priddy, Smiley, McCue, Long, Ventura, Caramagno NAYS: Wilshaw ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, 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 2018-04-02-09 ANDREWS ANGELS Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 04-02-09 submitted by Allyson Andrews requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(j) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to operate a child day care center (Andrews Angels Academy) at 30931 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Purlingbrook and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11. Mr. Taormina: This is property located at southwest corner of Seven Mile Road and Sunset Road. It is about 0.40 acres in size with 140 feet of frontage along Seven Mile and approximately 130 feet of frontage along Sunset. The zoning of the property is OS, Office Services. The site presently contains a one-story 2,330 square foot building as well as 19 off-street parking spaces. This site appears to have been developed in the late 1970's and was used for many years as a dental office. The regulations pertaining to child day care nurseries falls under Section 9.03(j) of the Zoning Ordinance. The OS zoning includes this property as well as the property directly May 22, 2018 28568 across the street, that is a similarly developed site with a small one-story office building. All around both of these properties are single family residential homes. The site does not have direct access to Seven Mile Road. There is a singular access point in the southeast corner of the property from Sunset. The layout for the child care nursery shows a lobby, separate infant and pre- school rooms as well as a kitchen, science room and separate restrooms and office. One of the special requirements for child care centers is to have a minimum of 5,000 square feet of outdoor play area, which presents somewhat of a challenge on this property. Originally, the plan showed a 2,100 square feet play area along the west side of the building extending to the front property line. The State of Michigan has its own separate play area standard of 1,200 square feet. So the size of the play area is really something that is under our control but it also has to meet the State requirement. The City Council does have the ability to modify that requirement by a super majority vote. At last week's study meeting, the petitioner was asked to consider alternatives that would move the play area further away from the street and the adjacent house. Staff has developed an alternative plan that shows a play area that would be positioned in the southwest corner of the property, still measuring about 2,000 square feet, but what this does is moves it behind the building away from the street and the home. It allows for convenient access from the building and it does not interfere with any parking spaces. The play area would have to be surrounded by a fence, either a five- foot chain link fence or wooden privacy fence and a new soft surface would have to be added to the play area. I believe the petitioner is showing that they would use some type of synthetic material. In terms of parking for this type of use, it's really contingent on what is necessary for the safe and convenient loading and unloading of students. The petitioner feels that the amount of parking is adequate since parents usually drop their kids off quickly and do not stay for any extended period of time. The one benefit of this plan is that it does not jeopardize any of the existing parking spaces. If you look at the plan that was originally submitted, it would have eliminated four parking spaces as well as a portion of the drive aisle. Under a scheme similar to this, all of the site parking is retained on the property, and there would be no building modifications at all. The owners are in the process of upgrading the site. In terms of signage, they would be allowed a maximum 16 square foot sign. There is a Zoning Ordinance requirement that we obtain the written consent of at least 55 percent of the residential property owners within a 400- foot radius of the property, but, as you're aware, the last item on tonight's agenda would eliminate that requirement. This is something that the Council will have to waive and it's not 1 May 22, 2018 28569 something that we have for tonight in terms of a response. I just want to show one more plan. This is another alternate that Staff drew up today after visiting the site and talking to the owner. We looked at some of the finer points to the area behind that building, including the trees that are on the south side and some of the mechanical equipment that is directly behind the building. There are some utility poles as well. And also looking at its relationship to the adjacent property to the west, one possibility is to slightly expand that play area either to the north or to the south without too much interference to the adjacent residence. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Yes, please. Mr. Taormina: There are six items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of #30931 Seven-Mile Road. The submitted legal description appears to be correct and should be used in association with this petition. The existing building is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Should renovations to the building require alterations to the existing services, drawings will need to be submitted to this department to determine if permits will be required. Also, should the owner need to complete work within the Seven-Mile Road right-of-way, permits from the Wayne County Department of Public Services will be required."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 4, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to operate a child day care center on property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) State certification will be required. (2) Knox Box installation is required for Fire Department access." The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 27, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2018, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) The proposed kitchen shown on the plans will require permits and inspections. This will be addressed at the time of plan review if this project moves forward. (2) There are May 22, 2018 28570 building permits currently open for work being performed on the exterior of the building. All required inspections and approvals are still needed. (3) No signage has been reviewed at this time. This Department has no further objections to this petition."The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated May 2, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated April 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: On this latest drawing, how manysquare feet of playground is Y 9, q p Y9 there? Mr. Taormina: It might be a little tricky to see, but I calculated an area of roughly 2,500 square feet. Ms. Smiley: And you said the State requires 5,000 square feet? Mr. Taormina: No. The State requires 1,200 square feet. The City requires 5,000 square feet. Ms. Smiley: For licensing? Mr. Taormina: For licensing, I don't know whether they require more than 1,200 square feet depending on the number of children. I would pose that question to the applicant as she currently operates a day care and she is probably much more familiar with the rules of the State. Ms. Smiley: Well, the 5,000 square feet, can we get a waiver from the City for that? Mr. Taormina: We can. Yes. And that was done most recently for the child care center at Joy and Louise. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Caramagno: Mark, how many square feet is the building? May 22, 2018 28571 Mr. Taormina: The owner is here and he can answer that more precisely, but our records show the building is about 2,300 square feet. Mr. Caramagno: So the play area is bigger than the building is. Mr. Taormina: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions for our Planning Staff? Mr. Taormina, just one quick question. The conceptual play areas that you came up with, have those been discussed with the petitioner? Mr. Taormina: Yes and no. This plan, yes. She has a copy of that. This plan was generated today after meeting the owner of the property on site. Mr. Wilshaw: They will be coming forward here shortly, so we will be able to ask those questions as well. Thank you. With that, is the petitioner here? We will need your name and address for the record please. Allyson Andrews, 37449 Baywood Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else that you'd like to add to the presentation that you've heard already? Ms. Andrews: No, sir. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Ms. Smiley: Which one of those drawings of the playground do you prefer? Ms. Andrews: I prefer the last one because it's a little bit more space, but if not, I am happy with the first one. Ms. Smiley: What age children do you typically have? Ms. Andrews: Six weeks to four-and-half years old. Ms. Smiley: Babies don't get a lot of outside play, do they? Ms. Andrews: No. Ms. Smiley: Okay. And then you have equipment that you're going to move over here or purchase? 1 May 22, 2018 28572 Ms. Andrews: Purchase. Yes. That will be installed professionally by the playground company that we purchase equipment from. Ms. Smiley: It's a different base for that, right? Ms. Andrews: Yes. Ms. Smiley: Which one do you use? Ms. Andrews: The packet that I submitted, it was a kind of rubbery playground surface. Yep, right there. It will be installed over the cement in the parking lot. Ms. Smiley: Great. Thank you. Mr. Long: When the kids are out playing in the play area, how many employees supervise that? Ms. Andrews: The State requires a certain ratio per age group. So for infants, our ratio is one-to-four. And for our preschoolers, our ratio is one- to-ten or one-to-eight, depending on if they are three or if they are four years old. If the youngest child in the group is three, then the ratio drops to one-to-eight. They go out at separate times so they do not go out at the same times. Mr. Long: And the way that the plan is gerrymandered around the building, you'll have enough supervision out there where you can always see a kid. I mean I'm worried about the eastern portion of it. It's kind of like a little corner and I want to make sure we don't have disappearances. Ms. Andrews: I completely understand. They pretty much run back and forth. They don't really stay in one area, but our staff knows that they cannot sit down while they're on the playground. They are to be walking around monitoring the children, walking with them. Of course, we always have a little tote that is sealable that stays outside with the first aid kit, emergency contacts and that sort of stuff. We have a walkie talkie and then we also are with ADT so we have panic buttons. They have them around their neck at all times so if anything was to happen, a shooter or anything, they could press that panic button, so pretty safe and secure out there. Mr. Long: From your answers, it's clear that you've been doing this for a while at other locations. How many other locations do you have? Ms. Andrews: One currently in Westland, and we're licensed for 60 children. May 22, 2018 28573 Mr. Long: And you've been doing this for how long? Ms. Andrews: Two years. Mr. Long: Great. Thank you. Mr. Taormina: Knowing the property and what the State requires, as you look at that area behind the building and what we have illustrated here, what do you think the issues would be with the State relative to the play area at the back property? Ms. Andrews: I don't foresee any issues except for the mechanical wiring and everything that's back there. If that is safely put away to where the children cannot access it, then they shouldn't have a problem with that. That playground space right now is bigger than my playground space and we're licensed for 60 children and there's no way that I would put 60 children in that building. Mr. Taormina: So you're confident that you can work with that area that we have shown to meet all the requirements of the State? Ms. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Taormina: Thank you. Mr. Priddy: Good evening. The property has one entrance and exit. Do you foresee that being an issue with your time schedule? Ms. Andrews: As far as parking? Mr. Priddy: Parking and ingress and egress out of the property. Ms. Andrews: No. I don't foresee that as being an issue, especially since it's not on the main road. Our pickup and drop-off times are scheduled per each child slot. We open as early as 6:00 a.m. so we have different drop-off times that each parent can signup for so that decreases a lot of our traffic. We don't have a whole bunch of children getting dropped off at the same time. They're each in little slots so it helps us a lot in the morning getting them adjusted to their classrooms. Mr. Priddy: So they're staggered. Is that what I'm understanding? Ms. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Priddy: What's the earliest time that the children start? May 22, 2018 28574 Ms. Andrews: 6:00 a.m. Mr. Priddy: And what's the latest drop off time? Ms. Andrews: The latest that they can be dropped off is 9:00 a.m. We don't accept children after 9:00 unless they have a doctor's note. Mr. Priddy: So you have like that three hour window for all the children to come? Ms. Andrews: Yes. Mr. Priddy: And I assume that's the same on the pickup? Ms. Andrews: Exactly. Mr. Priddy: How many children do you foresee having here? Ms. Andrews: Thirty-two. Mr. Priddy: Thank you. Mr. Caramagno: Hello. Supposing this outdoor configuration works, explain the fencing a little bit to us. I know we talked about it at the study session, but explain the fencing a little bit. What are you thinking there? Ms. Andrews: The fencing that I'm thinking, a little creative and colorful, was a colorful pencil fence that looks like that. It has to be to where you can have slats in there that have to be certain inches apart to be able to see the children, but it still has to be able to of course be an effective barrier to the playground where they can't get stuck. I know there were some concerns about the brightly colored fence being along the property owner's property and that they might not want to come in their backyard and see a rainbow every day. So we have agreed to modify that, if necessary. With the new configurations, it looks like the fence will be along the back part of the property. Again, if there are any modifications that need to be made, we will make them. Mr. Caramagno: I can't recall along the west side of the property, which is to the left there for me. Is there existing fence there now? Ms. Andrews: No. Mr. Caramagno: There is no fence? May 22, 2018 28575 Ms. Andrews: No fence. Mr. Caramagno: Mark? Mr. Taormina: Actually, and maybe you misunderstood, but there is a chain link fence that runs along the west property line. Ms. Andrews: Okay. Mr. Taormina: Yes, there is a fence that runs between the house on the left and the business. Actually, you can see it on the aerial photograph if you look very carefully. It runs up to the corner of that house, but there is a fence. Ms. Andrews: Yes, you're correct. Because I remember talking to the owner about that, having a possible issue if we put up a fence and they have a fence. If snow was to get in the middle there, it would kind of be a little ucky. Mr. Caramagno: That's what brings the question. Since there's an existing fence, is it sufficient in height because you're not going to want to put a double fence there. Mr. Taormina: Here's how I would approach that. It would probably be responsible for the business to approach the homeowner to see what is desired there, and then accommodate that with a single fence, whether it's the existing chain link fence, whether it's a modified chain link fence, whether it's a vinyl fence, whether it's the pencil fence. If they can come to agreement on the style fence, I think that would probably be the most appropriate. But a single fence, not a double fence. Mr. Caramagno: That's why I asked. It can't be a double fence. It's got to a be a single fence. I'm pretty sure. Ms. Andrews: Now, it would be no problem going with their single chain link fence. I'm pretty sure it's over four feet tall. So the State requires that it's over 48 inches. It's over five feet tall. I'm pretty sure. The only requirement the State would have for that is that we would have to get some type of, on our side, fence screening to where you can't directly see the children. So as long as they're okay with us putting a fence screening on our side, we would not have to bother their fence at all. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. And then the next question about the fencing. Will there be a gate? Will there be any entrance other than through the building? May 22, 2018 28576 Ms. Andrews: No. Mr. Caramagno: No gate. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Just in regards to the fence. If you go the route of a colorful pencil fence, will that also be on the inside of the fencing so that the kids playing in that area get to see that? Ms. Andrews: No. It's just on the outside. Mr. Wilshaw: I can't imagine anybody not wanting to see a rainbow every day. I'm sure the kids would enjoy it too. Mr. Taormina: Just a point of clarification and I apologize, Allyson, because the question regarding the gate. Because the transformer is back there and needs to be accessed, there may be a requirement for an access gate. It would be self-latching and a safety fence. would just caution that there may have to be a gate of some sort for access to that back area. Mr. Caramagno: Lockable. Mr. Taormina: Either from the north or from the east. Something lockable. Something that would be self-latching and lockable. That's correct. Mr. Wilshaw: But if there needed to be a worker to get back there, the owner could open the gate. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Taormina, did you say you went out and spoke with the owner? You were on-site with the owner? Mr. Taormina: He's here tonight. Ms. Smiley: And he's good with everything? Mr. Taormina: I believe, he is. Yes. Mr. Wilshaw: He is in the audience. If he wanted to come forward, he is welcome to. Hello, sir. And you're the owner of the property? Alvo DeSantis, DeSantis Investments L.L.C., 22349 Antler Drive, Novi, Michigan 48375. I'm the owner of the property. Ms. Smiley: I just wanted to make sure that you had a good discussion and you're good with all this? May 22, 2018 28577 Mr. DeSantis: Yes. Ms. Smiley: That works for me. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there anything else that you wanted to add to what you've heard so far? Mr. DeSantis: No. I really don't need to add anything. Everything sounds fine. Mr. Wilshaw: We appreciate you coming and supporting your tenant for this meeting tonight. So thank you. Mr. DeSantis: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Ms. Andrews, is there anything else that you wanted to add before we go to the audience for any questions? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by Ventura, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-31-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 2018, on Petition 2018-04-02-09 submitted by Allyson Andrews requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 9.03(j) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance#543, as amended, to operate a child day care center (Andrews Angels Academy) at 30931 Seven Mile Road, located on the south side of Seven Mile Road between Purlingbrook and Merriman Roads in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, which property is zoned OS, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-04-02- 09 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan, as received by the Planning Commission on April 23, 2018, is hereby approved and shall be adhered to, provided the play area is relocated to the southwest corner of the property, as generally shown on the aerial sketch prepared by the City Planning Department date stamped May 22, 2018; 2. That only conforming signage is approved with this petition, and any additional signage shall be separately submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals; May 22, 2018 28578 3. That no LED lightband or exposed neon shall be permitted on this site including but not limited to the building or around the windows; 4. That the entire outdoor play area shall be surrounded by either a five-foot (5') chain-link fence or wooden privacy fence; 5. That the hours of operation for this child care facility shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; 6. The tenant(s) of this building shall not engage in any form of solicitation for business within the public rights-of-way of Seven Mile Road or Sunset Avenue; 7. That the Petitioner shall enter into a conditional agreement limiting the waiver to this user only, with the provision to extend this waiver use approval to a new user only upon approval of the new user by the City Council; 8. That the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance that written consent of at least 55% of the residential property owners within a 400-foot radius of the property lines of the proposed day care center be obtained and filed with the Planning Commission prior to or on the date of the public hearing be waived by the City Council; 9. That the specific plans referenced in this approving resolution shall be submitted to the Inspection Department at the time the building permits are applied for; and, 10. Pursuant to Section 19.10 of Ordinance No. 543, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia, this approval is valid for a period of one year only from the date of approval by the City Council, and unless a building permit is obtained, and construction is commenced, this approval shall be null and void at the expiration of said period. 1 FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw: Is there any discussion? Ms. Smiley: Mark, we can maybe add something in there according to the drawing we have this evening? And are we good at the five foot fence, Mr. Taormina? May 22, 2018 28579 Mr. Taormina: I think she said 48 inches. Mr. Long: Can we just clarify. Are we going with the four-foot fence? We were told that the requirement was 48 inches and we think that might be what the existing chain link fence is. Ms. Smiley: Mr. Taormina, would that be all right? Mr. Taormina: To specify a minimum four-foot fence? Yes. Mr. Long: I'm not sure if that's what the motion was. If not, then we need to amend it. Mr. Wilshaw: It is now. I just want to quickly say I appreciate Ms. Andrews' presentation and her answering of the questions both at our study meeting and tonight. I speak hopefully on behalf of the entire Commission to say that we were really impressed by how knowledgeable and professional you are in running your business, and we wish you well. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving resolution. ITEM #3 PETITION 2018-04-02-10 FELDMAN AUTO Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 04-02-10 submitted by Feldman Automotive, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles (Feldman Pre-Owned Superstore) at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28. 1 Mr. Taormina: This is a request to construct and operate a used auto dealership q p with outdoor display of vehicles. It's on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark and is the site of the former Olson Oldsmobile. There is a pending zoning petition (2017-10- 01-02) that proposes to change the zoning of the rear of the property from M-1, Light Manufacturing, to C-2, General g. Business, in order to allow for the expansion of the waiver use. The property is 10.5 acres in size with about 340 feet of frontage on Plymouth Road by an average depth of roughly 1,300 feet. Currently, there are no buildings on the property. Commercial zoning exists to the east and west of this property while May 22, 2018 28580 residential zoning occurs to the west of this site along the back portion of the property. Per Section 11.03 of the Zoning Ordinance, new and used car dealerships are allowed as a waiver use subject to the following: (1) No vehicles shall be parked within twenty feet (20') from the front lot line or at the side lot line adjacent to the street; (2) the total number of vehicles displayed or stored is subject to recommendation by the Planning Commission and approved by City Council; and (3) outdoor storage of disabled, damaged or unlicensed vehicles is strictly prohibited. The site plan submitted shows a one-story 6,850 square foot building setback roughly 146 feet from Plymouth Road. The building would contain the dealership showroom and sales office. It has a wash bay, prep stalls, a photo studio and service reception area. The exterior of the building includes a combination of aluminum composite metal panels, smooth face and split face concrete block, E.I.F.S., and a wall of windows primarily for the display room in the front of the showroom. The structure overall would be 26 feet in height. In terms of parking for dealerships, it is based on two components of the operation, sales and service. In this case, there would be no auto repair services so parking is based strictly on the sales operation. For the sales, the required parking is one space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the interior sales area, a total of 14 parking spaces are needed for customers and employees of the business. Altogether, the site plan shows 832 spaces. There are 15 spaces, however, that are located adjacent to the building, both on the south and west sides that would be for customers and employees. All of these spaces measure 10 feet by 20 feet. The remaining 817 spaces that are shown on the site plan all measure 9 feet by 20 feet, and those would be used primarily for inventory vehicles. A special requirement that F applies to auto dealers is that all display spaces must be at least 20 feet from the abutting road right-of-way;. This is a new site plan. As you know, we discussed this matter at the study meeting. The plan before you this evening shows compliance with that 20 foot setback. They made some adjustments to the site plan in order to meet the 20-foot setback. There is a single trash enclosure shown behind the building along the western edge of the parking lot. The access gates would face east. The enclosure walls would be six feet in height and would be constructed out of precast walls with an embossed brick pattern. The detail of that dumpster is provided in your packet. The swing gates would have to be constructed out of metal panels. In terms of site lighting, the plans include photometric details for all the outdoor lighting. All existing lighting from the previous dealership operation will be removed and replaced with new LED lights. All light poles should be limited to a mounting height of 20 feet. Staff is recommending May 22, 2018 28581 that the light levels along Plymouth Road be restricted to the same light levels that are provided at the Feldman's new car dealership a little further down on Plymouth Road. Overall greenspace constitutes 30 percent of the site. The landscaping is shown along the site's perimeter including Plymouth Road to the south, greenbelts along both the east and west sides of the property, and a large open space at the north end of the property where the site's stormwater detention basin would be located. Along Plymouth Road, the plan shows PRDA themed streetscape improvements in the form of four sections of decorative brick piers and fencing that are located on both sides of the two entrance drives. The PRDA has reviewed the plans and has adopted a resolution supporting the landscaping along Plymouth Road. With respect to screening wall, bordering the site to the west for 990 feet is land zoned residential. In this area, the Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum five to seven foot high masonry wall along the property line. The site plan depicts a screen wall for a distance of 652 feet. The architectural details for the wall are provided in your packet. The continuation of the wall is required unless either a variance is granted from the Zoning Board of Appeals or City Council approves a planted greenbelt in lieu of the required masonry wall. A note was added to the plan that stipulates those options relative to compliance under the ordinance. In terms of signage, the dealership is allowed one wall sign 65 square feet in area plus one free standing monument sign not to exceed 30 square feet in area and a height of six feet. Going back to the elevation plans, you'll notice that they show three signs: one on the front of the building facing south on Plymouth Road and then one on both sides of the building, which is the east and west sides. This would exceed what the ordinance allows in terms of wall signage. We don't have any details relative to the area of these signs, but given the fact that there are three signs where the ordinance only allows one requires approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're not aware of any proposed monument signage at this time. With that, Mr. Chairman, I can read out the departmental correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Please. 1 Mr. Taormina: There are several items of correspondence. The first item is from the Engineering Division, dated April 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Engineering Division has reviewed the above referenced petition. We have no objections to the waiver use at this time. The existing parcel is assigned the address of 33850 (Plymouth Road). The submitted legal description appears to be correct and should be used in association with this petition. It should be noted that the existing May 22, 2018 28582 parcel is currently serviced by public water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Any exterior alterations that include new buildings or pavement will require storm water detention per the Wayne County Storm Water Ordinance. The existing storm drain that runs through the parcel is owned by Wayne County, and the owner will need to obtain permits from them for any work involving storm sewer connections to that drain. Also, should the owner need to complete work within the Plymouth Road right-of-way, permits from the Michigan Department of Transportation will be required."The letter is signed by David W. Lear, P.E., Assistant City Engineer. The second letter is from the Livonia Fire & Rescue Division, dated May 4, 2018, which reads as follows: "This office has reviewed the site plan submitted in connection with a request to construct and operate a used auto dealership with an outdoor display of vehicles on the property located at the above referenced address. We have no objections to this proposal with the following stipulations: (1) Adequate hydrants shall be provided and located with spacing consistent with the use group. (2) Add a hydrant to the property. (4) Knox Box installation is required for Fire Department access."The letter is signed by Keith Bo, Fire Marshal. The third letter is from the Division of Police, dated April 27, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the plans in connection with the petition. I have no objections to the proposal."The letter is signed by Brian Leigh, Sergeant, Traffic Bureau. The fourth letter is from the Inspection Department, dated May 15, 2018, which reads as follows: "Pursuant to your request, the above-referenced petition has been reviewed. (1) No vehicles shall be parked closer than 20 feet from the front property line. A super majority of Council would be required to waive this requirement. (2) A variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals would be required for any excess signage and/or number of signs. This Department has no further objections to this Petition."The letter is signed by Jerome Hanna, Director of Inspection. The fifth letter is from the Treasurer's Department, dated May 2, 2018, which reads as follows: "In accordance with your request, the Treasurer's Office has reviewed the address connected with the above noted petition. At this time, there are no outstanding amounts receivable for taxes. Therefore, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Lynda Scheel, Treasurer. The sixth letter is from the Finance Department, dated April 26, 2018, which reads as follows: "I have reviewed the addresses connected with the above noted petition. As there are no outstanding amounts receivable, general or water and sewer, I have no objections to the proposal." The letter is signed by Coline Coleman, Chief Accountant. The next letter is from the Plymouth Road Development Authority, dated May 18, 2018, which reads as iI May 22, 2018 28583 follows: "At the 250th Regular Meeting of the Plymouth Road Development Authority of the City of Livonia held on May 17, 2018, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: #2018- 04 RESOLVED, that the Plymouth Road Development Authority does hereby support the proposed landscape plans in connection with a request by Feldman Automotive, Inc. for waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles (Feldman Pre-Owned Superstore) at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads, subject to compliance with all City codes and ordinances and the Plymouth Road Development streetscape goals and objectives, as such may be modified by the action of the Planning Commission and/or City Council." The letter is signed by Mark Taormina, Planning and Economic Development Director. That is the extent of the correspondence. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Ms. Smiley: Did we talk about all the E.I.F.S. on the east and west sides?That hasn't changed. Mr. Taormina: That has not changed. Ms. Smiley: Isn't that a whole lot of E.I.F.S.? Mr. Taormina: I'm sorry? Ms. Smiley: Didn't we say that was way too much E.I.F.S.? Mr. Taormina: I think you're referring to the discussion that occurred at the study session. I think there was some concern expressed regarding the amount of dryvit. Ms. Smiley: The east and west elevations. Mr. Taormina: That's correct. Ms. Smiley: Does that brick come up high enough, do you think? Mr. Taormina: I think you're referring to the block material? Ms. Smiley: Is that what that is? Mr. Taormina: Again, this is something that I think the Planning Commission should discuss this evening. It's completely within your means to 1 May 22, 2018 28584 consider changes to the elevation plans as this is a waiver use. When we compare it to the development of the Feldman Automotive down the street, I think there can be improvements in the form of eliminating some of the E.I.F.S. and replacing it with the ACM. I would encourage that. By the time this gets to Council, that is something that is definitely going to have to change with respect to the plan. Ms. Smiley: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: I was going to basically ask a similar question. There are a number of items that the staff has noted. Have any of those been corrected at this point or are they all still outstanding? There's approximately five items. Mr. Taormina: Number one has been corrected. That was the deficiency with respect to the setback from Plymouth Road. They also indicated at the study meeting that they would be removing all of the existing light poles. In terms of limiting them to a height of 20 feet, that's something that we have in the prepared resolution should the Planning Commission agree with that. Number three is the item we just discussed. Item number four, dealing with the masonry screen wall along the west side of the property, your action this evening is to either address the issue as they've provided allowing for that option to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals or possibly have a greenbelt approved in lieu of the wall, or recommend to the Council a specific action that you prefer. And then lastly, enhancement of the landscape plan to include sod for all disturbed lawn areas and additional trees and shrubs consisting of varieties in areas where landscaping shown is sparse. What I would suggest there is to look at the perimeter of the property and around the detention basin to see that the existing landscape plan is probably somewhat void of plant materials in those two areas and either suggest changes that you're happy with that would require additional review either by the Planning Commission or Staff or recommend to the City Council. Item 5 would still need to be addressed to some extent. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. Thank you. I would urge my fellow commissioners as we proceed tonight to keep those items in mind as we talk to our petitioner to make sure those are addressed. Thank you. With that, is our petitioner here? We will need your name and address for the record please. Trey Brice, Jaffe, Rath, Heuer & Weiss, 27777 Franklin Road, Suite 2500, Southfield, Michigan 48034. We are legal counsel for Feldman Automotive. I appreciate you having us here today as well as the May 22, 2018 28585 study session last week. As Mr. Taormina read out, we took a lot of the study session comments to heart. Many changes have been made to address a lot of those concerns. We're here as or have been obviously before you with the rezoning as a joint sort of operation to try to get this property back into useful circulation for the city and to serve the community with the needs that we've seen with the auto dealership. My part today thankfully is much smaller than before. The legal aspect of site plan is minimal. We've got with us our designers who can address the design questions that have been brought up, as well as Dave Katarski, who is the COO. He's got some operational information if there's any questions to face that. A couple of just the keys before I turn it over. The points that were brought out, the intensity of lighting, those things are all workable, acceptable. As far as masonry wall, at this point we are interested in talking to the City Council about getting the greenspace, but understanding that isn't approved, we'll extend the wall as required to meet the requirements. Any planting things that will come up we're wiling to work with the Commission on that. So more now, the nuts and bolts. I'll let you guys ask questions and the designers can present the project to you. Mr. Wilshaw: That sounds good. I appreciate that, Mr. Brice. Is there anyone else that wishes to address us at this point before we fire questions off? John Free, Cityscape Architects, Inc., 40850 Grand River Avenue, Suite 200, Novi, Michigan 48375. Good evening, everyone. Thanks for having us this evening. I understand, as you mentioned, a lot of the points of civil were corrected. I have someone here to respond to a lot of the building questions, primary you asked about there's a lot of E.I.F.S. on the building, right? And you're absolutely right. There is a lot of E.I.F.S. And to that end, I guess I would say building envelope and energy studies are really, it's a must have, right? We have to achieve that. So there's a couple ways. One is you can have a double width masonry wall, right? That's one way with insulation. Or E.I.F.S. is a more economical solution. I guess I would present that this is consistent with what Mr. Feldman has done at their Waterford store. They've been at that location for over nine years. The E.I.F.S. has held up very strong. He's a great operator so if any damage does occur, it's resolved quickly. I would also state that the first seven feet and six inches are standard detail to put a substrate of armor mesh it's called. It's basically a cross mesh that supports the E.I.F.S. so if it dents, it doesn't crack. It doesn't puncture. It's pretty resilient just to acknowledge that. I don't know if durability is a concern as well as cleanliness. There's been a lot of progress in E.I.F.S. over the May 22, 2018 28586 years since there were issues decades ago. I do appreciate your comment that there's a lot of E.I.F.S. and yes, you're right. There's a lot of E.I.F.S. on the building. Mr. Wilshaw: Do we have any questions for our petitioner? Mr. Ventura: Does that mean that Mr. Feldman is against changing the surface of the building? He is unwilling to do it? Mr. Free: So I presented the comments to Mr. Feldman. We said we're really happy with how the design looks today. We'd prefer to go in with this design if possible. Your question was, is he willing to change it? I would say maybe some tweaks here and there. He'd be open to consideration, but I would have to present it to him. Mr. Ventura: So at this point the answer is no. Mr. Free: Correct. Mr. Ventura: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Ventura. Do we have any other questions for our petitioner? Mr. Priddy: Good evening. You've heard the questions on the landscaping as well. Are you open to beefing up some of the landscaping obviously in the back of the property as well with the retention pond and so forth like that? I mean right now it's all trees and there's some residential that abuts it. Mr. Free: I'm just handling the building portion. I'll pass this over to the civil engineer. Dave Katarski, Feldman Automotive, Inc., 30400 Lyon Center Drive East, New Hudson, Michigan 48165. Good evening. Yeah, the landscaping, we're open to looking at whatever your suggestions may be for that. As far as the screen wall in that back left extension, we left that open from some of the feedback from the neighbors that live there. We don't really want to take down a lot of the trees. As you recall, at one of the meetings they mentioned that. We've actually become rather good neighbors to them already and so that's really the reason we've left that. They wanted to leave that greenspace open. They didn't want to see a wall. We certainly would have no problem extending that wall back there if that's something that you guys want. Mr. Priddy: I'm hearing that you're open to whatever . . . . May 22, 2018 28587 Mr. Katarski: Yes. If you look at any of our facilities, they're landscaped nicely. We keep them in great condition. We'd be open within reason. I mean if we have a retention pond, we don't want to . . . I don't think there's need to spend a fortune to landscape it. I think you guys are within reason. I think you can understand that, right? Mr. Priddy: On the plan, it's just basically sod. Mr. Katarski: Yeah. Sod and if we need to put some shrubs or trees or something, we'll be open to that as well. Mr. Wilshaw: Thank you, Mr. Priddy. Thank you, Mr. Katarski. Any other questions? Ms. McCue: I think we had addressed this last week as well, but my understanding is they are removing all of the old light poles, correct? Mr. Katarski: Yeah. They're probably a fire hazard. Yeah. Ms. McCue: Obviously, you don't want them with the new dealership, right? Mr. Katarski: We will not be using any of those. Ms. McCue: Okay. And then the 20 feet height for the new ones? Mr. Katarski: No issue there. Ms. McCue: Good. Thank you. Ms. Smiley: The excess wall signage. Have you done anything about that? Mr. Katarski: No. We'd like to probably submit a variance. I mean we would like to have the three signs. It's a lot of frontage on the road there we think with the setback that we complied with that we would certainly like to have the signage on both sides as well as the front as you're driving down Plymouth Road, much like our other stores. To address that too, even going back to the E.I.F.S. and the design of it, we're in the process of building five other of these around town with the same look and image. So we're building a brand that we're going to grow here in southeast Michigan, mid- Michigan as well. Actually, I should just say Michigan because we're going all the way across the state. We certainly would like you to take that into consideration that the design and look that we're going for is going to be consistent with all of our stores that we're going to be building. May 22, 2018 28588 Ms. Smiley: Okay. We are an advisory board. I'm just telling you you're going to Council and I'm not going to see a lot of smiling faces with that much E.I.F.S. They can be very negative about that. I know one in particular will not be thrilled. Mr. Katarski: And we'll take anything under consideration that's required that we have to where this is just a presentation of a facility that we think looks very good. I'm going to tell you it's going to be the best looking store on the road. It will look like our Chevy store, which I know I'm probably bias, but it's the best looking store on the road. If you drive up and down Plymouth Road, I think you would agree. Ms. Smiley: Your other Feldman building is attractive, but it shows a lot less E.I.F.S. let's say, or a lot more masonry which we're big fans of in Livonia. Thank you. Mr. Katarski; Yep. No problem. Ms. Smiley: And I appreciate your work with the PRDA on the front. Curb appeal is very important Mr. Katarski: It is to us too. We want it to look nice. We do. We want to have a nice facility. It's a big piece of property and we're excited to occupy it. Mr. Caramagno: I have a couple of questions for you. The showcase and the cars in the back. Mr. Katarski: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: These are nine-foot wide spots. Are people free to walk back there and look at cars or only on the front half of the property? Mr. Katarski: Our plan will be for about 250 to 300 of the spaces on the front portion, you know, of the storage section that your referencing to be display area. So, yes, we would have customers as well as employees being able to demo and show those cars. That would be the idea. As far as what you're classifying as the further back, more storage, those are going to be units that will be moved down to the Chevy store as needed. We'll have people coming down there to pull the cars throughout the day if it's a car that you're interested in. Mr. Caramagno: So your landscaping berms that are behind the building. There will be people going further left or further north than that looking May 22, 2018 28589 at cars. They won't be restricted at those landscape berms right there behind the building. Mr. Katarski: No, sir. We'll certainly have people behind that. Mr. Caramagno: They'll be free to walk around and wander to look around a little bit. Mr. Katarski: Yes. We'll definitely need to have, yes. We can't control that especially after-hours people coming back. Mr. Caramagno: So there will be no gates to prevent people from going . . . . Mr. Katarski: We have gates at the Chevy store, but if you watch my security cameras, it doesn't stop them parking and jumping and walking. So we'll have people walking through there. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Katarski, you have a very powerful voice, but if you speak into the microphone . . . . Mr.Katarski: I apologize. I was just saying that there will be people back there for sure. We can't always control that. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. And then I don't recall. These are nine-foot spaces. Are there going to be parking bumpers back there or is it just going to be open parking like a parking lot, like a mall? Mr. Katarski: Yeah. We haven't planned for bumpers. That's never been drawn. No. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. I don't remember ever talking about it or asking that. Is the whole lot going to be paved? Mr. Katarski: Yes. Mr. Caramagno: I thought we had discussion about that early on, but I couldn't remember. I thought there was a discussion that there is pavement there, existing pavement, but I was back there today and . . . . Mr. Katarski: What is there now is probably of no use. It's going to be torn up. I mean Consumers Energy has been dumping stuff all over it and they've torn it up. I don't see anything that's currently there that is probably going to be used. Mr. Caramagno: It didn't look salvageable to me. It looked pretty rough. May 22, 2018 28590 Mr. Katarski: Right. Mr. Caramagno: Okay. So it will be curb all the way around this property, striped, nine footers. Mr. Katarski: Yep. Mr. Caramagno: Good. Thank you. Mr. Long: The photo studio a part of the building. Is that going to service just this facility, or will you be using that for your Chevy dealer? I mean, what are you doing in the photo studio? Is that for on-line photographs? For on-line sales? Mr. Katarski: Yes. We carry a large inventory of pre-owned cars. Obviously this is going to add to it. We acquire vehicles. We'll have them dropped off and if you ever look on your device or your tablet there, obviously you want to look at a pictures of the car. So we take anywhere from 18 to 36 pictures of every used car that's pulled over on-line and it's nice to have a consistent format in an area where you can photograph them in inclement weather. I guess to answer your question, all of our inventory is shared through all the Feldman organizations. So a car that's photoed there will be shown elsewhere so and vice versa. Mr. Long: I guess what my concern is you're not going to be bringing transport trucks in. That's not the only photo studio you have. Mr. KatarskiL Oh, no. We have one right down the street at the Chevy store as well. We have two there. Yeah Mr. Long: That's fine. Thank you. Mr. Katarski: The cars that will be photographed there will be seen . . . . Mr. Long: I understand that you'll be trying to sell them out. I just wanted to make sure you weren't . . . that was your only one and you're bringing in transport trucks. Mr. Katarksi: It can also be used for displaying delivery area for customers in inclement weather. If it's raining or snowing and you want to look at a car, we can pull it in there when we're not photographing. It's nice to have. Mr. Long: Thank you. May 22, 2018 28591 Mr. Priddy: Sorry to go back to the building. How many do you have currently in this model? Mr. Katarski: Two currently. This will be the third one in this exact model, and then we've got four others that we're on the way of launching. Mr. Priddy: Okay. I guess I'm still stuck on the E.I.F.S. thing. I'm hearing that you're not open to any other concepts. Mr. Katarski: We're a good partner in the community. I mean we're open to 1,1 anything. Unless it's something that you're saying is mandatory, I mean we're telling you what we like, what we think looks good and which it's not a new concept. This is something that's proven and if you look at our store in Waterford there, it's been there for almost 10 years now. It looks great. They're easy to clean. If damage is done to something they're easy to replace. Mr. Priddy: I think we're just wondering if you get a little bit more of the aluminum or more brick or masonry on the building as opposed to the standard E.I.F.S. I mean you've done one side that's ... well, two of them basically. Not a lot of detail I guess. You've got the bottom but . . . . Mr. Katarski: What would you suggest? I guess I would defer . . . I mean . . . Mr. Free: Is your preference split face block, burnished? Anything except E.I.F.S.? Is that kind of the attitude? Mr. Priddy: Yeah. Can you dress it up a little bit? Mr. Free; Obviously, we all have opinions. I guess my thought is the E.I.F.S. has more . . . . Mr. Priddy: I heard a firm no. I just wondered if . . . Mr. Free: I understand where you're coming from. I think the E.I.F.S. has a lot of potential with the jointing and the size of the panels. It feels more modern than block. I think block looks a little industrial and I know there's other options. Metal panel, etc. Mr. Katarksi: I guess to answer your question on the firm no, at this time, no, We don't want to do anything different. This is what we've built and the concept we have and we feel . . . . I know it will look good and we know that we'll take care of it. I guess it just comes back to a matter of opinions. I look at the Plymouth Road. I just can tell you with 100 percent confidence we're going to have two of the best looking facilities on Plymouth Road and will for a long time. May 22, 2018 28592 Mr. Priddy: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Any other questions. Mr. Caramagno: As far as more detail, the signage. Do you have an idea of how big these signs are? How long they're going to be lit? Anything like that? You seem to know what you want, but how about the signs? Tell me more detail on the signs. Mr. Katarski: I can get you exact dimensions on the signs for sure if that's what you want. I don't have them with me right now. We can have them over to Mark first thing tomorrow. Mr. Caramagno: That's what I mean. You know what you want but yet very lackadaisical on getting us signage sizes, and you're way exceeding the limit. I mean that doesn't seem very well prepared in the way of the signage for us. Mr. Katarski: When did you ask for the signage? I didn't know. We got everything to Mark today that was asked. Mr. Caramagno: I'm sorry. Maybe you didn't know that. I thought we talked about signage at the study session last time about exceeding the signage limit. Didn't we talk about that? Mr. Wilshaw: It was mentioned. Mr. Caramagno: Yeah. I thought so. Mr. Katarski: It's a whole separate permit. It came up about one sign. You did, but you didn't ask about coming with the sign. It's a whole separate permit process, correct? Mr. Caramagno: It would be helpful; These look huge on this building to me. If we're going to look with any more detail regarding the signs, there's nothing here to even talk about. Mr. Katarski: I can get you exactly what you need for the signs. We can have it to you first thing tomorrow from Philips Signs. That's who does our signage for the place. Mr. Caramagno: Mark, how does that sound to you? Mr. Taormina: Getting more sign information? Mr. Caramagno: Yeah. May 22, 2018 28593 Mr. Taormina: Well, as it stands right now . . . Mr. Katarski: So you guys can approve the sign variance and permits tonight? I was not aware of that. Mr. Taormina: The answer to that question is no. This body cannot do that. However, because it is an element of the site plan, ultimately it requires approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. But the Planning Commission as well as City Council normally consider the sign package as an element of the site plan and forward a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So it's typically something that both the Planning Commission and the City Council will advise going into the Zoning Board of Appeals process. And if they feel that it's excessive signage, they could have that modified as a condition of site plan approval. So, for example, if City Council rejected the sign proposal that you have shown on these plans, you could not go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals would likely not act on a sign package that was not consistent with the approved site plan. I think that makes sense. It is within this body's purview to review the signage, as well as City Council and Zoning Board of Appeals in this case because it exceeds the ordinance allowance. Mr. Caramagno: Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: Having discussion about signage is not uncommon. Mr. Katarski: Do you want the exact dimensions and everything tomorrow for the signage plan? Mr. Caramagno: I think I would like to see them. I don't know how big it is. All three of them. I really don't know how large they are compared to the building. I mean that's just something that I would think that, in other cases we've seen, here's the size of the signage we're asking for or looking for. I thought with the details of this project, I thought maybe that would have been something you'd put in there. Mr. Katarski: You know what? We have them. We'll get them to you. With all 1 due respect, I did not know it was something that you guys needed to make on this decision. So oversight on our part. I apologize. We'll have it to you. I can have it to you tomorrow. That's no problem. Mr. Wilshaw: Anything else, Mr. Caramagno? May 22, 2018 28594 Mr. Caramagno: No. That's all. Thank you. Mr. Wilshaw: And thank you, Mr. Katarski. As part of the process we go through here at the Planning Commission, as you know, is to do a lot of the homework and the detail work so that the City Council has an easier time. And getting that type of information, even if it's after we have a motion tonight, will be helpful as it proceeds along to City Council so that way they don't have to ask those questions. So thank you. Mr. Katarski: Totally understand. Up to this point, we were talking about a lot of other things, even moving buildings, size of building. So we've got multiple plans, but I think, as you've' seen, everything you've asked for us of this project we've produced and produced in a professional manner. So I've no problem getting you the signage square footage, dimensions. I think you also, just from my notes, you wanted to know the hours we would be lit? Is that correct? Mr. Wilshaw: That would be helpful. Mr. Katarski: Anything else? I wasn't writing down. So size, dimensions, hours, light. Mr. Wilshaw: How long they're going to be lit up. Mr. Katarski: What else? Anything else? Mr. Wilshaw: I think that covers it on signs. Mr. Caramagno: Yeah. Pretty well. Your sign company will certainly know the kinds of things we're looking for. Mr. Katarski: We obviously didn't tonight, so I just want to make sure we have nothing open now. Anything else? We're good? Signs are covered? Mr. Wilshaw: I think we good on signs. Mr. Katarski: Perfect. Okay. Cool. Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? Mr. Katarski, just one quick thing. As far as the building materials go, there's been a lot of discussion about E.I.F.S. and so on, what other things we tend to like. Just from my perspective, your other building on Plymouth Road, which is a very attractive building, is mostly metal panel as opposed to E.I.F.S. and that's what I would be expecting to see in terms of a building that's similar in character and May 22, 2018 28595 material. My question is, is there a significant cost difference or is there a reason that E.I.F.S. is being proposed as opposed to the metal panel system that you used on your complementary building? Mr. Free: So Tennyson Chevrolet is significantly larger, right? I would say a lot of the supporting building is probably masonry, right? With regards to E.I.F.S. versus metal panel, E.I.F.S. is significantly less expensive. Mr. Wilshaw: Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. With that, is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Priddy, seconded by Ventura, it was RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 2018, on Petition 2018-04-02-10 submitted by Feldman Automotive, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles (Feldman Pre-Owned Superstore) at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, which property is zoned M-1 and is in the process of being rezoned to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-04-02-10 be denied for the following reasons: 1. That the petitioner has failed to affirmatively show that the proposed use is in compliance with all of the special and general waiver use standards and requirements as set forth in Sections 11.03 and 19.06 of the Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended; 2. That the City is currently well served with similar uses to that which is being proposed; 3. That the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the need in the area for the type of commercial service proposed to be operated on the subject site; 4. That the petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed use would be compatible to and in harmony with surrounding uses in the area; May 22, 2018 28596 5. That the petitioner has failed to adequately demonstrate that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed use; and 6. That the proposed use is contrary to the goals and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance which, among other things, are intended to insure suitability and appropriateness of uses. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Priddy, Ventura NAYS: Smiley, McCue, Long, Caramagno, Wilshaw ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion to deny fails. Is there any other motions before us? Mr. Caramagno: I'll make a motion to table this based on our conversation tonight about the E.I.F.S. versus brickwork, signage, and whatever else was discussed tonight to come back and consider what we've said or asked for or asked for further discussion on, and if Mr. Feldman needs to be here to have that discussion, so be it. I think it needs to come back in the next meeting or two, as long as the agenda can take that, and maybe get this thing done with a little more detail. Mr. Wilshaw: Mr. Taormina, does that work for our upcoming agendas? Mr. Taormina: Yes. That's fine. On a motion by Caramagno, seconded by Ventura, and adopted, it was #05-32-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 2018, on Petition 2018-04-02-10 submitted by Feldman Automotive, Inc. requesting waiver use approval pursuant to Section 11.03(g) of the City of Livonia Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended, to construct and operate a used auto dealership with outdoor display of vehicles (Feldman Pre-Owned Superstore) at 33850 Plymouth Road, located on the north side of Plymouth Road May 22, 2018 28597 between Farmington and Stark Roads in the Southeast 1/4 of Section 28, which property is zoned M-1 and is in the process of being rezoned to C-2, the Planning Commission does hereby table this item. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Caramagno, Ventura, Smiley, McCue, Priddy, Wilshaw NAYS: Long ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. Mr. Taormina will get with Mr. Katarski to get that meeting scheduled. ITEM #4 PETITION 2018-04-06-01 LANGUAGE AMENDMENT Day Care Nursery Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Petition 2018- 04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #145-18, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 9.03(j) of Article IX and Section 10.03(d) of Article X of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to remove the requirement for the written consent of fifty-five (55) percent of the residential property owners within a four hundred (400) foot radius of the property lines of the proposed day care nursery as part of waiver use approval for day care nurseries in OS and C-1 Zoning Districts. Mr. Taormina: This proposed language amendment would eliminate the requirement for the written consent of fifty-five percent (55%) of the residential property owners within a four hundred foot (400') radius of a proposed child day care facility. The proposed language change affects the OS and C-1 district regulations, both of which allow for child day care facilities as waiver uses. Council believes that this requirement is no longer necessary since the zoning ordinance does require property owners within 300 feet of any waiver use to receive notice of the request, by mail, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, as well as notice being published in the newspaper 15 days prior to the hearing date. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. There is no correspondence related to this item. May 22, 2018 28598 Mr. Wilshaw: Are there any questions of the Planning Director? Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak for or against this item? There is literally no one in the audience. Seeing no one coming forward, I will close the public hearing and ask for a motion. On a motion by Long, seconded by Smiley, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-33-2018 RESOLVED, that pursuant to a Public Hearing having been held by the City Planning Commission on May 22, 2018, on Petition 2018-04-06-01 submitted by the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Council Resolution #145-18, and Section 23.01(a) of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to determine whether or not to amend Sections 9.03(j) of Article IX and Section 10.03(d) of Article X of the Livonia Zoning Ordinance No. 543, as amended, in order to remove the requirement for the written consent of fifty-five (55) percent of the residential property owners within a four hundred (400) foot radius of the property lines of the proposed day care nursery as part of waiver use approval for day care nurseries in OS and C-1 Zoning Districts, the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Petition 2018-04-06-01 be approved for the following reasons: 1. That the proposed language amendment would eliminate an onerous and unnecessary prerequisite since the Zoning Ordinance requires the City to notify all property owners within 300 feet of any waiver use by mail, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled hearing date. In addition, notice of all waiver petitions are published in the newspaper 15 days prior to the hearing date; and 2. That the proposed language amendment is in the best interests of the City and its residents. FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of the above hearing was given in accordance with the provisions of Section 23.05 of Zoning Ordinance #543, as amended. Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. It will go on to City Council with an approving recommendation. May 22, 2018 28599 ITEM #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1,122nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting Mr. Caramagno, Secretary, announced the next item on the agenda, Approval of the Minutes of the 1,122nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 1, 2018. On a motion by Smiley, seconded by McCue, and unanimously adopted, it was #05-34-2018 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of 1,122nd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held by the Planning Commission on May 1, 2018, are hereby approved. A roll call vote on the foregoing resolution resulted in the following: AYES: Smiley, McCue, Long, Priddy, Ventura, Caramagno, Wilshaw NAYS: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mr. Wilshaw, Chairman, declared the motion is carried and the foregoing resolution adopted. On a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, the 1,123rd Public Hearings and Regular Meeting held on May 22, 2018, wa: - •journed at 8:52 p.m. CITY PLAN NG COMMISSION Sam Car'magno, Secretary ATTEST: Ian Wilshaw, airman gg�